RMLNLU MOOT COURT

Before,

THE HON’BLE SESSION COURT

ORIGINAL CRIMINAL JURISDICTION UNDER SECTION 378 OF IPC,1860

STATE OF WEST BENGAL…………………………………………...PROSECUTION

V.

DK KAPOOR AND ADARSH PRIYADARSHANAN.…………….……….…DEFENCE

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE PROSECUTION

Page | I
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF APPELLANT
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

TABLE OF CONTENTS..........................................................................................................II
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS..................................................................................................III
INDEX OF AUTHORITIES....................................................................................................IV
STATEMENT OF FACTS........................................................................................................V
STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION......................................................................................VII
ISSUE RAISED....................................................................................................................VIII
SUMMARY OF PLEADINGS.............................................................................................VIII
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED...................................................................................................X
[ISSUE-1] THAT THE DEFENDANTS FULFIL THE ESSENTIAL ELEMENTS FOR
THEFT AND ARE LIABLE FOR THEFT UNDER SECTION 378 OF IPC....................X
[ISSUE-2] THAT THE ACT DONE BY DEFENDANTS IS UNAUTHORISED AND
HENCE VIOLATED THE PROVISIONS OF THE AIRFORCE ACT 1950.................XVI
PRAYER............................................................................................................................XVIII

II | P a g e
 LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

ABBREVIATIONS FULL FORMS

& And

AIR All India Reporter

Art. Article

Ed. Edition

i.e. That is

Government
Govt.

No Number

OJ Official Journal

SC Supreme Court

SCC Supreme Court Cases

SCR Supreme Court Reporter

Sec Section

U/S Under Section

UOI Union of India

V. Versus

III | P a g e
 INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

Cases

Chandi Kumar v. Abanidhar Roy, A.I.R. 1965 S.C. 585…………………………………..….…….…

XI

Hossunee v. State of Rajasthan, (1873) 20 WR(Cr) 80………………………………………………

XIV

K N Mehra v. State of Rajasthan, A.I.R. 1957 S.C.

369………………………………………………..XI

K.N.Mehra v. State of Rajasthan, 1957 SCR 623:AIR 1957 SC 369: 1957 Cri LJ 552………...………
X

LAC Rahul Chandra Kapari v. Union of India & Ors, 2014 SCC OLine AFT 823…………...….….
XVI

Nevada Properties Private Ltd. V. State of Maharashtra, 2019 SCC OnLine SC 1247…………….…
XIII

Parshottam Madhav Patharphod v. State, (1962) 64 Bom LR 788……………………………………

XV

Pyare Lal Bhargava v. State of Rajasthan, AIR 1963 SC 1094………………………………..

……...XV

Rameshwar Singh v. State of Jammu and Kashmir 1937 Cri LJ 456……………………..……………

XI

Ram Ratan Alias Ratan Ahir and others v. The State of Bihar, A.I.R. 1965 S.C. 926…………….
…...XII

Saraf Infra Projecs Ltd. v. State of West Bengal, 2015 SCC OnLine Cal 467……………………..…
XIV

Vithal Yedu Khalse v. The State of Maharashtra, 1982 Cri LJ 1873 (Bom)……………….……..…
XIII

IV | P a g e
 STATEMENT OF FACTS

 D.K. Kapoor and Adarsh Priyadarshanan were cadets on training in the Indian Air
Force Academy, Dum Dum. The prosecution is with reference to an alleged theft of
an aircraft. on May 14, 2020. Adarsh was discharged from the Academy just the
previous day, i.e., May 13, 2020, on grounds of misconduct. DK was a cadet
receiving training as a Navigator. The duty of a Navigator is only to guide a pilot with
the help of instruments and maps. It is in evidence, however, that he knew flying.
 On May 14, 2020, Adarsh was due to leave Kolkata by train in view of his discharge.
Adarsh was due for flight in a MiG 29 as part of his training along with one
Somranjan, a flying cadet. It is in evidence that he had information about it. The
authorized time to take off for the flight was between 6 a.m. to 6-30 a.m.
 On that morning admittedly Kapoor and Adarsh took off, not a MiG 29, but a Rafale
EH/DH. This was done before the prescribed time, i.e., at about 5 a.m. without
authorization and without observing any of the formalities. It is also admitted that
some-time in the forenoon the same day they landed at a place in Beijing about 2016
miles away from Kolkata. It is in the evidence of one T.K. Vardrajan who was the
Military Adviser to the Indian High Commissioner in China at Beijing, that DK and
Adarsh contacted him in person on the morning of May 16,2020, at about 7 a.m. and
informed him that they had lost their way and force-landed in a field, and that they
left the plane there. They requested for his help to go back to Delhi.
 Both Adarsh and Kapoor were arrested at Dum Dum on their way back to Delhi for
the theft of the aforementioned Rafale EH/DH.

V|Page
 The case for the prosecution is that Kapoor and Adarsh stole away the aircraft and
flew with it to China with a dishonest intention.
 The defense said that, DK went to the aerodrome on the morning of May 14, at the
usual time and took off the aircraft along with Adarsh and they flew for some time.
After a short while the weather became bad, visibility became poor, and hence they
turned the aircraft back towards Dumdum side by guess. But finding the petrol
nearing exhaustion they force-landed in a field which, on enquiry, they came to know
was in Chinese territory.
 DK and Adarsh pleaded that characterizing it as a thoughtless prank on the part of a
young student aged about 22 years who was receiving training as a flying cadet and
that there can be no question of any offence under the Penal Code having been
committed, whatever may have been the breach of rules and regulations involved
thereby.
 They also pleaded that as a cadet under training he was entitled to take an aircraft on
flight, no doubt subject to certain rules and regulations and that what happened was
nothing more than an unauthorized flight
 According to prosecution the flight to China was intentional and that such flight in the
circumstances constituted theft of the aircraft.
 Although the facts on the record point almost conclusively that they were heading
towards Beijing. But it is on record that DK started the engine himself by
misrepresenting to Ram Bihari, the mechanic on duty at the hangar, that he had the
permission of the Section Officer in charge. He was scheduled to have the flight along
with another person, a flight-cadet by name Somranjan. But he did not fly, with
Somranjan, but managed to take with him a discharged cadet, Adarsh, who knew
flying. Before any aircraft can be taken off, the flight has to be authorized by the
Flight Commander. A flight authorization book and form No. 700 have to be signed
by the person who is to take off the aircraft for the flight. Admittedly, these have not
been done in this case and no authorization was given.
 It is in evidence that as soon as the taking off of the aircraft was discovered, it
inevitably attracted the attention of officers and other persons in the aerodrome and
that radio signals were immediately sent out to the occupants in the aircraft to bring
the same back at once to the aerodrome. But these signals were not heeded. The

VI | P a g e
 explanation of the DK and Adarsh is that the full apparatus of the radio-telephone was
not with them in the aircraft and that he did not receive the message.
 The question before the trial court is whether such is an attempt of theft or theft or it
amounts as just an unauthorized flight and defiance of Flight Rules and Regulations.
Argue the case.

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

In the present case under Section 378 of the Indian Penal Code,1860 concerning the matter of

State of West Bengal v. D. K. Kapoor and Adarsh Priyadarshanan, the prosecution humbly

submits to the Jurisdiction of this Hon’ble Court.

This memorial sets forth the facts, contentions and arguments for the Prosecution in the

given cases.

VII | P a g e
 ISSUE RAISED

-I-
WHETHER THE REQUIREMENTS OF THEFT UNDER IPC ARE FULFILLED?

-II-
WHETHER THE ACT DONE BY DEFENDANTS WAS UNAUTHORISED AND
HENCE VIOLATED THE PROVISIONS OF THE AIRFORCE ACT 1950?

VIII | P a g e
 SUMMARY OF PLEADINGS

-ISSUE I-

THE ESSENTIAL ELEMENTS OF THEFT ARE FULFILLED.

It is humbly submitted that the offence of theft is defined under Section 378 of IPC. The
essential ingredients of the offence of theft under Section 378 of the IPC are proved against
the defendants. In the present case to prove the accused guilty of theft , it is required that (a)
Rafale aircraft should be proved a movable property and state to be its owner (b) DK and
Adarsh the alleged thieves should have a dishonest intention to take it out of the state’s
possession (c) The dispossession of the Rafale by the accused from the owner takes place and
it is without the consent of the state .

-ISSUE II-
THE ACT DONE BY DEFENDANTS WAS UNAUTHORISED AND HENCE VIOLATED THE

PROVISIONS OF THE AIRFORCE ACT 1950.

It is humbly submitted before the Hon’ble Court that the act done by the DK and Adarsh to
took off the Aircraft Rafale EH/DH amounts to theft and it violates the Section 52 clause (a)
and (b) of the Air Force Act,1950. Also there was violation of rules and regulations of
trainees because the facts of this case cannot be treated as a mere prank or as an unauthorised
cross-country flight in the course of which the border was accidentally crossed and force-
landing became inevitable, this is gross violation of rules and regulations for the trainees.

IX | P a g e
 ARGUMENTS ADVANCED

ISSUE 1: THAT THE DEFENDANTS FULFIL THE ESSENTIAL ELEMENTS FOR

THEFT AND ARE LIABLE FOR THEFT UNDER SECTION 378 OF IPC.
It is humbly submitted before the hon’ble court that the offence of theft is defined under
Section 378 of IPC as whoever, intending to take dishonestly any moveable property out of
the possession of any person without that person’s consent, moves that property in order to
such taking, is said to commit theft.1
The essential ingredients of the offence of theft under Section 378 of the IPC, is well-
explained by the Supreme Court in a leading judgment of K.N.Mehra v State of Rajasthan2
The court analysed the offence of theft under section 378 and constituted the essential
elements of theft as follows:
I. The subject of theft should be a movable property;
II. It should be in the possession of the person;
III. There should be a dishonest intention to take it out of that person’s possession
IV. The act should be without the consent of the owner
V. A moving in order to such taking.
The counsel will hence like to put forward before the Hon’ble Court that in the present case
to prove the accused guilty of theft , it is required that (a) Rafale aircraft should be proved a
movable property and state to be its owner (b) DK and Adarsh the alleged thieves should

1
Indian Penal Code, 1860.
2
K.N.Mehra v. State of Rajasthan, 1957 SCR 623:AIR 1957 SC 369: 1957 Cri LJ 552.

X|Page
have a dishonest intention to take it out of the state’s possession (c) The dispossession of the
Rafale by the accused from the owner takes place and it is without the consent of the state .

(1)The act done by the accused was with dishonest intention.

 It is humbly submitted before the hon’ble court that offence of theft is incomplete
without dishonest intention on the part of the accused. Opening phrase of section 378
of the Indian Penal Code reads “Whoever dishonestly….” Shows the importance of
dishonest intention in the crime of theft under the Indian Penal Code. Whenever any
crime of theft is committed, the first thing which is to be seen is the presence of
“dishonest intention” on the part of the accused. Dishonest intention exists when the
person so taking the property intends to cause wrongful gain to himself or wrongful
loss to the other. This intention is known as animus furandi3 and without it the
offence of theft is not complete. Therefore, where the accused went to a police station
to make a complaint and found that the constables on duty were sleeping and were not
willing to attend to him. In order to support his grievance to the Police Superintendent
the accused picked up a handcuff from the police station and took it with him. The
accused had no intention of causing wrongful loss to the police hence he cannot be
convicted of the offence of theft4. Also Where a respectable person pinched away the
cycle of another person, as his own cycle at the time was missing, and brought it back
and there was no criminal intention and he did not intend by his act to cause wrongful
gain to himself, it was held that his act did not amount to theft5. In K N Mehra v.
State of Rajasthan the importance of dishonest intention was discussed "It is rightly
pointed out that since the definition of theft requires that the moving of the property is
to be in order to such taking, 'such' meaning 'intending to take dishonestly' the very
moving out must be with the dishonest intention."
 Intention is gist of the offence. It is the intention of the taker which must determine
whether the taking or moving of a thing is theft. In case of K N Mehra v. State of
Rajasthan6where an aircraft was taken out of India to Pakistan without the
permission of the Government to whom it belongs it was considered to cause loss to

3
Chandi Kumar v. Abanidhar Roy, A.I.R. 1965 S.C. 585.
4
Vithal Yedu Khalse v. The State of Maharashtra, 1982 Cri LJ 1873 (Bom).
5
Rameshwar Singh v. State of Jammu and Kashmir 1937 Cri LJ 456.
6
K N Mehra v. State of Rajasthan, A.I.R. 1957 S.C. 369.

XI | P a g e
 the Government and the act of the accused was held to be a theft. Dishonest intention
is defined in section 24 of the Indian Penal Code which says that “whoever does
anything with the intention of causing wrongful gain to one person or wrongful loss to
another person is said to do that thing dishonestly". In the present case there can be no
reasonable doubt that the taking out of the Rafale EH/DH aircraft by the accused for
the unauthorised flight has in fact given the accused the temporary use of the aircraft
for his own purpose and has temporarily deprived the owner of the aircraft, viz., the
Government, of its legitimate use for its purposes, i.e., the use of this Rafale EH/DH
aircraft for the Indian Air Force Squadron that day. Such use being unauthorised and
against all the regulations of aircraft-flying was clearly a gain or loss by unlawful
means. For theft movement of property with dishonest intention is also necessary
mere seizure of property will not amount to theft.7 Here, the plane which was a
movable property was taken away from the possession of owner i.e., government of
India with a dishonest intention. Therefore, it constituted theft.
 In the present case also, dishonest intention can be easily observed on the part of the
accused persons. It is very important to bring into notice of the hon’ble court that the
accused namely DK Kapoor and Adarsh who have been charged with the offence of
theft have done it with “dishonest intention” and this can be easily inferred from the
various facts discussed below.
 It is evident from the facts of the case that one of the accused i.e., Adarsh knew flying
and D K Kapoor was receiving training as a navigator. Adarsh was due for flight in a
MiG 29 as part of his training along with one Somranjan, a flying cadet on 14th May
2020. The authorised time for training was between 6 am to 6.30 am. It is also evident
that the cadets under training have generally either local flights which mean flying
area of about 20 miles from the aerodrome or they may have cross-country exercises
and have flight in the country through the route for which they are specifically
authorised. It is submitted before the court that when Adarsh took off in the morning
of 14th May 2020, he violated rules of Indian Airforce academy, which is supposed to
be strictly followed by the cadets in the academy. First of all, he was supposed to fly
with Somranjan who was a flying cadet in the academy but instead he took with
himself D K Kapoor. Secondly, the aircraft which was scheduled for training was a
MiG 29, but he took a Rafale EH/DH with him. Thirdly, the time which was
7
Ram Ratan Alias Ratan Ahir and others v. The State of Bihar, A.I.R. 1965 S.C. 926.

XII | P a g e
 scheduled for training of cadets was between 6 am to 6.30 am but he took off, an hour
before i.e. 5. am. Fourthly, it is required under the rules of Indian Airforce Academy
that before any flight is taken off, all the formalities should be completed. Before any
aircraft can be taken off, the flight has to be authorised by the Flight Commander. A
flight authorisation book and form No. 700 have to be signed by the person who is to
take off the aircraft for the flight. In the present case no formalities were completed
before taking off the aircraft for training. Not only they didn’t take permission from
the authorities for the flight but also, they intentionally misrepresented to Ram Bihari,
the mechanic on duty at the hangar, that he had the permission of the Section Officer
in charge. It is also on record that DK Kapoor himself started the engine of the
aircraft. Also taking flight with Adarsh, a cadet who was discharged on the previous
day points towards the fact that their intention was dishonest.
 In the present case the defence has claimed that the cadets mistakenly took flight to
china as the weather was bad and they eventually lost the direction, claiming that
there was no dishonest intention on part of the accused. It is to bring to notice of the
hon’ble court that they were only allowed to have a training session for half an hour
but once they took off, they stopped only when they had travelled a distance of around
2000 miles and also when their fuel got exhausted.
 Also It is in evidence that as soon as the taking off of the aircraft was discovered, it
inevitably attracted the attention of officers and other persons in the aerodrome and
that radio signals were immediately sent out to the occupants in the aircraft to bring
the same back at once to the aerodrome. But these signals were not heeded, which
again point towards their dishonest intention to commit theft. Another point where the
attention of court is sincerely required is the fact , that the accused have reached
China on 14th May 2020 i.e. the same day on which they left for “training” ,but they
only contacted the authorities in Indian high commission in China a day after i.e., on
the morning of 16th May 2020. A day gap in contacting the Indian authorities in China
also raises suspicion of “dishonesty” on their part. In the light of above stated facts, it
can be said that there was a dishonest intention on the part of the accused and
therefore raising a very strong presumption of their intention to commit the offence of
theft.
 The counsel will like to contend that the essential element of malafide intention can
be established with help of above arguments on the accused DK and Adarsh.

XIII | P a g e
(2) Rafale aircraft is a movable property and it was in the possession of the State

 The counsel will like to submit before the Hon’ble court that Gupta Deepak J. in
Nevada Properties Private Ltd. v State of Maharashtra8 laid that theft can take
place of only movable property and not of immovable property.
 It is humbly submitted before the Hon’ble court that Movable property is defined
under Section 22 of the IPC9 as including ‘corporeal property of every description
except land and things attached to the earth, or permanently fastened to anything
which is attached to the earth’. Any part of the earth whether it be stones, or clay or
sand or any other component when severed from the earth is moveable property and is
capable of being the subject of theft. A house cannot be the subject of theft, but there
may be theft of its materials. Cart-loads of earth, or stones carried away from the land
of another are subjects of theft.
 It is put forward before the court that the Rafale Aircraft which is subject matter of
theft is neither attached to ground nor fastened permanently to earth which would
have excluded it from being movable property. Hence, it is a movable property.
 The counsel would like to submit that in the case of Hossunee v State of Rajasthan10
It was held that the property stolen should be in the possession of the prosecutor so as
to constitute an offence of theft. In the present case the aircraft was in the possession
of the state as it was present in the campus of Air Force Academy which is its
instrumentality.
 The counsel would like to contend that ownership of the person alleging the accused
is also required for the offence of theft. There is no question of doubt that state is
having ownership rights over Rafale aircraft. In the case of Saraf Infra Projecs Ltd.
v State of West Bengal that there is also no dispute that the defence of India and
works of Army, Navy and Airforce are subjects which are included in Entries 1 to 4
of List-I on which only Parliament is competent to legislate11. More so over the state
has paid for the buying of Rafale Aircraft from France12. Hence, it is contended by the

8
Nevada Properties Private Ltd. V. State of Maharashtra, 2019 SCC OnLine SC 1247.
9
Indian Penal Code, 1860.
10
Hossunee v. State of Rajasthan, (1873) 20 WR(Cr) 80.
11
Saraf Infra Projecs Ltd. v. State of West Bengal, 2015 SCC OnLine Cal 467.
12
https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/defence/rajnath-singh-receives-1st-of-the-36-rafale-fighter-
jets/articleshow/71490873.cms

XIV | P a g e
 counsel that there is not an iota of doubt about ownership right of the State over the
aircraft.

(3) The rafale was stole from the owner and there was no implied consent present at
the time of taking off the rafale and the flight to beijing was intentional.

 The counsel would like to submit before the Hon’ble court that the act of the accused
makes them dispossessing the aircraft from the owner i.e., State. It can be established
from the facts of the case given in paragraph 3 and 4 of moot proposition which says
the accused took flight from the Rafale Aircraft at 5 am in morning of 14th May ,2020
and the accused contacted the military advisor to Indian High Commissioner at 7 am
of 16th May telling him about their deed and the aircraft came in the hands of the
State only on 17th May,2020 .It is clear from the facts that the owner i.e., State was
out of possession of the aircraft for 2-3 days.
 The counsel would like to submit that in the case of Pyare Lal Bhargava v State of
Rajasthan13 it was held that the loss need not to be caused by permanent deprivation
of the property but may be caused by temporary dispossession , though the person
taking it intended to restore it sooner or later. A temporary deprivation of the property
by one causes loss to another. In this case also at least temporary dispossession was
caused due to the unauthorised flight of the accused.
 The counsel would like to submit that the possession of the aircraft was not
transferred with the consent of the owner to the accused. It is evident from the facts of
the case given paragraph 2 of the moot proposition that “the authorised time to take
off for the flight was between 6 a.m. to 6-30 a.m.” The cadets under training have
generally either local flights which mean flying area of about 20 miles from the
aerodrome or they may have cross-country exercises and have flight in the country
through the route for which they are specifically authorised. Hence, the authorised
time for flight was 6 am to 6:30 am but the accused took the flight at 5 am in morning
and made their possession without consent. More so over the accused crossed the
borders of the country which is not allowed.
 The counsel would further like to contend that the accused Adarsh was discharged
from the academy the previous day which gives him no authority to fly any aircraft of
13
Pyare Lal Bhargava v. State of Rajasthan, AIR 1963 SC 1094.

XV | P a g e
 academy. He misrepresented as Somranjan who was scheduled to fly with Dk Kapoor
in MiG 29. It was held in the case of Parshottam Madhav Patharphod v State14 that
consent obtained by false representation will not be considered a valid consent. So, it
is submitted before the Hon’ble Court that as Adarsh misrepresented as Somranjan
there would be no consent.
 It is further submitted before the Hon’ble Court that the accused DK Kapoor was
authorised to take flight in MiG 29 that too at 6:30 am but he took flight in Rafale
aircraft and before the scheduled time. So, there was no valid consent with them to fly
the aircraft.

It is submitted that as all the ingredients of offence of theft under Section 378 of IPC is
fulfilled by the act of the accused. Therefore, they have committed the offence of theft.

[ISSUE-2] THAT THE ACT DONE BY DEFENDANTS IS UNAUTHORISED AND

HENCE VIOLATED THE PROVISIONS OF THE AIRFORCE ACT 1950.
It is humbly submitted before the Hon’ble court that the act done by the DK and Adarsh to
took off the Aircraft Rafale EH/DH amounts to theft and it violates the Section 52 clause (a)
and (b) of the Air Force Act,1950.

It violates the clause (a) of Section 52 which says that, who “commits theft of any property
belonging to the Government, or to any military, naval or air force mess, band or institution,
or to any person subject to military, naval or air force law”. As in the present case the
defendants thieve the Aircraft Rafale EH/DH, which is the property of Air Force which is
subject to Air force law. As also held in the case of LAC Rahul Chandra Kapari vs Union
of India & Ors.15

Further the defendants also violate the clause (b) of Section 52 which says that who
“dishonestly misappropriates or converts to his own use any such property”. As in the present
case the defendants dishonestly misappropriate the authority by taking aircraft Rafale and not
MiG 29, and also not on the prescribed time16. And it also satisfies the Section 23 and 24 of
the IPC.

14
Parshottam Madhav Patharphod v. State, (1962) 64 Bom LR 788.
15
LAC Rahul Chandra Kapari v. Union of India & Ors, 2014 SCC OnLine AFT 823.
16
As mentioned in para 3 of Moot Problem.

XVI | P a g e
(a)Violation of Rules and Regulations of trainees.

Even according to the evidence of Vardrajan, the Military Adviser to the Indian High
Commissioner in China, the defendants had told him that the plane was airworthy. It has been
pointed out to us that there is some support in the evidence for the suggestion of force-
landing on account of the weather being bad and the visibility being poor. This may be so,
but would not explain why the aircraft got force-landed after going beyond the Indo-China
border. There would be evidence when the investigation will finish that defendants was
feeling some kind of dissatisfaction with his course and was contemplating a change. Seeking
employment or some kind of help in China would be one of the ideas in their mind. Having
regard to all these circumstances and the fact that -must be assumed against defendants that
an airworthy aircraft was taken off for flight and that a person like Adarsh who knew flying
sufficiently well and who was discharged the previous day, was deliberately taken into the
aircraft, we are satisfied that the finding of the Courts below, viz., that the flight to China was
intentional and not accidental, was justified. It is, therefore, not possible to treat the facts of
this case as being a mere prank or as an unauthorised cross-country flight in the course of
which the border was accidentally crossed and force-landing became inevitable or mere
violation of rules and regulations for the trainees.

However this may be, if the circumstances are such from which a Court of fact is in a
position to infer the purpose and intention and the story of having lost the way cannot be
accepted having regard to the aircraft being airworthy, with the necessary equipment, the
finding that it was a deliberate flight to Pakistan cannot be said to be unreasonable. It may be
true that they did not take with them any of their belongings but this was probably part of the
plan in order to take off by surprise and does not exclude the idea of an exploratory flight to
China. In that view, the only point for consideration is that the facts held to be proved not
only breach of Flight Rules and Regulations but also to constitute theft under s. 378 of the
Indian Penal Code.

XVII | P a g e
 PRAYER

Wherefore, in light of the questions presented, arguments advanced and authorities cited, the
Prosecution most humbly and respectfully prays before this Hon’ble Court, that it may be
pleased to adjudge and declare that–

1. That the defendants fulfil the essential conditions of theft under section 378 and hence
liable to be punished under section 379 of IPC.

The Prosecution additionally pray that the Hon’ble Supreme Court may make any such order
as it may deem fit in the interest of justice, equity and good conscience. And for this act of
kindness the Prosecution shall as duty bound ever humbly pray.

(Respectfully Submitted)

-Counsel on Behalf of the Prosecution.

XVIII | P a g e