SUBMITTED BY

DIWAKAR V V
4 YEAR B.Com. LL.B
th

(Hons)
2021- 2022
 NAME OF THE ORGANISATION :

 NATURE OF THE ORGANISATION : Litigation Firm

 NAME OF ORGANISATION’S HEAD : R.C. Paul Kanagaraj

 LOCATION OF THE ORGANISATION : Chennai

 MODE OF INTERNSHIP : OFFLINE / VIRTUAL

 DATES OF INTERNSHIP : FROM - 23/11/2021

TO - 23/12/2021

 NO. OF WORKING DAYS : 30 Days

 ACADEMIC YEAR : 2021– 2022

 YEAR OF STUDY AT TNNLU : 4th Year

I, DIWAKAR V V student of 4th year B.A. LL.B.(Hons.)/B.Com.

LL.B.(Hons.) has interned under Mr. RC Paul Kanagaraj from

23/11/2021 to 23/12/2021 during the academic year 2021-22.

This internship diary is submitted in partial fulfillment of B.A. LL.B.

(Hons.)/B.Com. LL.B.(Hons.) Programme in accordance with the

Bar Council of India Rules IV (Rules on Legal Education 2008).

Date: Signature of the Student

Signature of Faculty-in-Charge of

IPC Name of Faculty-in-Charge of

IPC
The place of internship was the office of Mr. Paul Kanagaraj located at Vepery, Chennai. Mr.
Paul Kanagaraj is an advocate dealing primarily with NDPS cases. His chamber is situated at
177, New Additional Law Chamber, High Court Building, Chennai – 600104. Mr. Paul
Kanagaraj is one of the most popular and highly reputed lawyers in the city of Chennai
especially when it comes to matters involving narcotics, drugs and psychotropic substances,
corruption, property and other business-related cases.

His office consists of an equal number of young and senior lawyers who are always eager to
help and guide interns. I co-interned with fellow students of Tamil Nadu National Law
University. Teamwork was the hallmark of the internship.

Mr. Paul Kanagaraj was the former president of the Madras High Court Advocates
Association and it was during that time, that a good friendship was developed between him
and my father due to which I managed to get this internship.

13 juniors work under Mr. Paul Kanagaraj with Mr. Kannan, Mr. Prem and Mr. Vijay being
the key figures. I was assigned under Mr. Vijay. It was my responsibility to provide daily
updates to him and in getting and transferring documents.
 DESCRIPTION OF ACTIVITIES UNDERTAKEN

During the internship, I reviewed and went through several case laws and aided in
research. Daily updates were given to Mr. Vijay and Mr. Paul Kanagaraj. Regular
meetings were conducted in which interns were advised to report their work on a daily
basis. Proper guidance was also given.

Date: 23/11/2021 Day of Internship: 1

On the first day of the internship, I went to the home office of Mr. R. C. Paul
Kanagaraj in Vepery at 8:30 AM and after a brief introduction about the work, I was
asked to contact Advocate Mr. Vijay who is a junior in the office. Then I traveled to the
Madras High Court campus at 10:00 AM. Following a brief delay in getting the campus
pass, I wasn’t able to get into the court for a while. Mr. Vijay asked me to sit in the
Chamber office 177 to read case files. I studied some case papers that were kept in the
office. Towards the end of the day, I met Mr. Vijay and discussed what I’d done in the
office and I left the office by 6:30 PM.

Date: 24/11/2021 Day of Internship: 2

On this day, I reached the HC directly to get the entry pass but it was informed that
the passes would be granted only from the 27th of November. I was then assigned to study
a case that was being heard which was Hariram v. Inspector of police crime
no.1142/2017, one of our office associates appeared on behalf of the accused. The facts of
the case were to be kept confidential but the relevant provisions were as follows:
 Section 100 (8) of CrPC- when an independent witness – without reasonable cause
refuses or neglects to attend and witness search order in writing rendered or
delivered to him
 Section 187 of IPC – Omission to assist public servant
  Section 389 (3) of CrPC – suspension of sentence after conviction
 Section 8 (c) of NDPS – Prohibition
 Section 20 (b) (2) B – lesser than commercial quantity but greater than small
quantity rig. imprisonment for ten years and fine – 1 lakh.


Date: 25/11/2021 Day of Internship: 3

On this day, I observed virtual court hearings of halls 44 and 21 where election
petitions were being heard. I was then asked to make a case note on two cases – Union of
India vs Thame Sharasi and Dr. Bipin S Panchal v. State of Gujarat. I did so on the cases
that dealt with the NDPS Act, bail provisions, CrPC, special courts and so on.

Date: 26/11/2021 Day of Internship: 4

On this day, I observed NPDS court hall proceedings and one of the early cases got
passed over. All other proceedings in the court hall were observed during the rest of the
day. At around 3 PM, bail readings for the case began and the lawyer cited the Allahabad
High Court case of Shailendra Kumar Gupta v. State of UP. The judge asked the parties to
wait for two more days. We then had a conversation during a break with the judge Ms. C
Thirumagal who talked of the importance of opting for litigation for students from
national law universities.

Date: 27/11/2021 Day of Internship: 5

Being a court holiday, I was assigned research work on Section 482 of the CrPC
dealing with quash of an FIR. I researched cases such as Nikhil Merchant V. Central
Bureau of Investigation & Anr. and Manoj Sharma V. State & Ors. I then discussed my
findings with Mr. Vijay and Mr. Paul Kanagaraj.

Date: 29/11/2021 Day of Internship: 6

On this day, a counter was filed in a case TNCH0A0027762021 and the interns
were tasked with the same. I then observed criminal miscellaneous cases. In an interesting
anecdote, Hon’ble Justice N Anand Venkatesh advised a junior counsel to get thorough
with the facts and matters of a case before appearing, stating that a lawyer will then have
no fear. I then drafted a legal notice for a case involving cheque bouncing under Section
138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.

Date: 30/11/2021 Day of Internship: 7

On this day, I was asked to research on the prohibition of Benami Property
Transactions Act, 1988. Section 2(10) and Section 2(9) were researched on and cases like
Mangathai Ammal V. Rajeswari, 275SC, Fair Communication and Consultants v.
Surendra Kardile, 377 SC. Delhi High Court in the case of Anis Ur Rehman vs Mohd
Tahir Niharika Jain vs Union of India which stated “.....Therefore, by defining the
expressions fiduciary capacity and trustee, it is not as if any vested right existing under
the earlier provisions of section 4(3) is taken away. What was the subject matter of
section 4(3) of the unamended Act being the transactions which were exempted from
being classified as benami transactions, the said aspects are now brought in the subject
matter of section 2(9) of the Amended Act. It is, therefore, held that definitions of the
exempted transactions to the prohibited benami property transactions, and now contained
in the four exceptions in section 2(9) are always deemed to have been included in the
exceptions to the prohibited benami transactions,” were all discussed.

Date: 01/12/2021 Day of Internship: 8

On this day, I filed a copy application in the appropriate section of the HC. Court
proceedings were observed as usual and they focused on the Prevention of Corruption
Act. Towards the evening, some drafting work was done.

Date: 02/12/2021 Day of Internship: 9

Due to a Covid scare in the office, I was given the day off and I observed court
proceedings virtually.
 Date: 03/12/2021 Day of Internship: 10
On this day, I was given the contact number of one of the clients in a family law
case and asked to coordinate with them during the course of proceedings. The case
number was OS/0002526/2017, G Kumar v. Elumalai. In the register the schedule for our
case was posted to appear with the parties with the mediator Mrs. Majula, at 11:30 Am
but the opposite party didn’t appear on time and therefore, our session was posted after
lunch. Then we demanded the office clerk to contact the opposite party to appear for the
mediation. The mediator waited till 3:00 PM but since there was no response from the
opposite side, the mediator gave date to appear after a gap of two days. I then informed
the same to the client.

Date: 04/12/2021 Day of Internship: 11

On this court holiday, I was asked to research on Section 107 and 108 of the CPC
and to mail findings which I did.

Date: 06/12/2021 Day of Internship: 12

On this day, the postponed mediation proceedings were to continue, so we went to
the building in the morning. We then called the opposite side to instruct them to attend
proceedings without fail, as there would be a huge delay then in ending the case. They did
arrive this time. After proceedings were over, we observed POCSO cases in the family
courts where cross examinations were happening.

Date: 07/12/2021 Day of Internship: 13

On this day, I went to the HC to collect the pass and was asked to collect it by 3
PM. In the meantime, filing work, drafting work and the like were carried out. We also
had to purchase stamps and other necessary items.

Date: 08/12/2021 Day of Internship: 14

Court proceedings in hall 10 involving Hon’ble Justice Dhandapani were observed.
Cases concerned the Transfer of Property Act. Later, cases shifted to the SARFAESI Act.
I was then instructed to do some research and drafting work.

Date: 09/12/2021 Day of Internship: 15

On this day, research work was required regarding adoption and the Juvenile
Justice Act. This case was mainly related to the surrendered child whereby Regulation 7
gives the procedures relating to surrendered child and Section 58, the procedure for
adoption by Indian prospective adoptive parents living in India. After the research work
two articles was given to me for reading. Informed Client- A New Challenge to Legal
Professionals by Justice Anand Venkatesh and Mid-Day Meal or Myth by Areeb Uddin
Ahmed.

Date: 10/12/2021 - 11/12/2021 Day of Internship: 16 & 17

On these days, I drafted bail petitions under Section 439 of the CrPC. It proved to
be quite a difficult task in the beginning with many errors creeping up, but after plenty of
corrections, I was able to complete the draft.

Date: 13/12/2021 Day of Internship: 18

On this day, I went to the Metropolitan Magistrate Court where I was asked to ask
for a convenient date after Pongal to the Magistrate. With the help of a senior, I managed
to complete the task. In the evening, I read pending case files and helped in drafting and
research.

Date: 14/12/2021 Day of Internship: 19

On this day as well, proceedings under Section 439 of CrPC for bail were observed.
I drafted another bail petition. Then I observed court proceedings till the petition was
called. Then I travelled to Egmore with a senior regarding a confidential case, for meeting
clients.

Date: 15/12/2021 Day of Internship: 20

 I drafted an employment contract for a company based in Chennai along with my
co-interns. With Sachin Rahul from TNNLU, the employment contract was completed
and kept for review. We then mailed it to Mr. Paul Kanagaraj and left the office, because
he was occupied with some other work.

Date: 16/12/2021 Day of Internship: 21

On this day, I observed Court proceedings along with my senior. Then I was asked
to check for a CA copy that had been applied for a day earlier. The clerk told that the copy
would be ready only after a delay. Later, I did some research and drafting work.

Date: 17/12/2021 and 18/12/2021 Day of Internship: 22 and 23

On these days, I visited the additional NDPS courts to observe various cross
examinations conducted by Mr. Paul Kanagaraj. In one such interesting case, a Ghanaian
client who had been arrested for possession of cocaine was being examined. Plenty of
drafting and research work was also done in these two days.

Date: 19/12/2021 Day of Internship: 24

This was a court holiday and only research work was done.

Date: 20/12/2021 Day of Internship: 25

On this day, I observed proceedings in family courts where two of our office cases
were posted in that court and one got dated and another one kept as pass over for
appearance of the parties. Then I went to the PDJ court in city civil courts, I observed the
court proceedings for a while and went to the 1 St ADM court. More research and drafting
was done.

Date: 21/12/2021 Day of Internship: 26

This day involved research on the concept of seizure and confiscation under
customs Act of 1962. I dealt with section 110 of the Customs Act and Section 110A of the
Customs Act and such other provisions of the act that deal with seizure and confiscation.
More research and drafting followed.

Date: 22/12/2021 Day of Internship: 27

On this day, I was asked to research on one of the pending cases of the firm, and
was asked to collect relevant case laws. This proved to be a difficult task, as I searched
thoroughly and came up with only a few cases. I was asked to prepare a summary of the
arguments for the case pending which I did.

Date: 23/12/2021 Day of Internship: 28

On this day, being the last day of the internship, I talked to Mr. Paul Kanagaraj and
the rest of the associates. I returned all documents that I’d obtained for the internship
period. I thanked all juniors as well as Mr. Paul Kanagaraj and left the office for one last
time.

Annexure 1
Shailendra Kumar Gupta @ Shailu vs State Of U.P. on 5 March, 2020
Bench: Jayant Banerji

Shri Imran Ullah, learned counsel (amicus curie) while referring to paragraph nos. 7 and
22 of the judgement of the Apex Court in the case of State of Kerala has contended that
the Court is required to record a finding mandated under Section 37 of the
N.D.P.S. Act which is a sine qua non for grant of bail to the accused under
the N.D.P.S. Act. With regard to bail, learned counsel has referred to the judgements of
the Apex Court in the matters of Sanjay Chandra Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation3,
Union of India Vs. Shiv Shanker Kesari4, State of M.P. Vs. Kajad5, Union of India Vs.
Ram Samujh and another6, Union of India Vs. Thamisharasi7 and Dataram Singh Vs.
State of Uttar Pradesh and another8 . It is contended by the learned counsel that refusal
of bail is the rule and its grant an exception in view of Section 37(1)(b)(ii). Liberal
approach in the matter of bail under the NDPS Act is uncalled for. He contends
that Section 37 of the NDPS Act starts with a non-obstante clause and therefore, the
provisions of Section 437/439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure would not be applicable
with regard to a person accused of an offence punishable under Section 19 or Section
24 or Section 27A and also for offences involving commercial quantity of contraband.
The words "reasonable grounds" also appear in clause (i) of Section 437 of Cr.P.C. but the
authority given to a High Court or a Court of Session under clause (a) of Section
439 permitting release on bail of any person accused of an offence would be curtailed in
view of the stringent provision of Section 37(1)(b)(ii) of the NDPS Act. The limitations
prescribed under the NDPS Act on granting of bail are in addition to the limitations
under Cr.P.C. or any other law for the time being in force. It is further contended that
while considering an application for bail with reference to Section 37 of the NDPS Act,
the Court is not called upon to record a finding of not guilty. With reference to the phrase
"reasonable grounds for believing", the learned counsel has referred to paragraph no. 37
of the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Sanjay Chandra (supra) to contend
that the legislature has used the words 'reasonable grounds for believing' instead of 'the
evidence' which means the court dealing with the grant of bail can only satisfy itself as to
whether there is a genuine case against the accused and that the prosecution will be able
to produce prima facie evidence in support of the charge.

The limitations on granting of bail specified in clause (b) of sub-section (1) are in

addition to the limitations under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974) or any
other law for the time being in force, on granting of bail."

Annexure 2
Section 107 reads as follows:

(1) Subject to such conditions and limitations as may be prescribed, an Appellate Court
shall have power

(a) To determine a case finally;

(b) To remand a case

(c) To frame issues and refer them for trial;

(d) To take additional evidence or to require such evidence to be taken.1

(2) Subject as aforesaid, the Appellate Court shall have the same powers and shall
perform as nearly as may be the same duties as are conferred and imposed by this Code
on courts of original jurisdiction in respect of suits instituted therein.

Section 107 (1)(a) and Rule 24 of Order 41 enables the appellate court to dispose of a
case finally where the evidence on record is sufficient.

Section 107(1)(b) deals with the power of remand

Rule 23 of Order 41 states that where the court from whose decree an appeal is
preferred has disposed of the suit upon a preliminary point and the decree is reversed in
appeal, the Appellate Court may, if it thinks fit, by order remand the case, and may further
direct what issue or issues shall be tried in the case so remanded, and shall send a copy of
its judgment and order to the court from whose decree the appeal is preferred, with
directions to re-admit the suit under its original number in the register of civil suits, and
proceed to determine the suit; and the evidence (if any) recorded during the original trial
shall, subject to all just exceptions, be evidence during the trial after remand.

Rule 23 A as inserted by the Amendment Act, 1976 enables the Appellate Court to
remand a case where the lower court has decided on merits but the appellate court
considers such remand in the interest of the justice.

CONDITIONS FOR ORDERING REMAND:

 The suit must have been disposed of by the trial court on a preliminary point.
 The decree under appeal must have been reversed.

1
Section 107 – Civil procedure code 1908.
  Other Grounds (Rule 23 A): Rule 23 A of Order 41 enables the Appellate Court
to remand a case where the lower court has decided on merits but the appellate
court considers such remand in the interest of the justice.

Section 107(1)(c) and Rule 25-26 gives appellate court the power to frame issues and
refer them for trial.

Where the lower court has omitted to frame any issue or try any issue or to determine any
question of fact which is important for the right decision, then the Appellate court may
frame issues and refer them for trial to the lower court and shall direct the court to take the
additional evidence required. The lower court shall try such issues and shall return the
evidence and the findings within the time fixed by the Appellate court.

Section 107(1)(d) is an exception to the general rule which empowers an appellate court
to take additional evidence or require such evidence to be taken subject to the conditions
laid down in Rule 27 of Order 41.

CIRCUMSTANCES FOR ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE:

 Improper refusal of lower court to admit evidence.

 Discovery of new evidence.
 Requirement by Appellate court.

Rule 33 of Order 41 empowers an Appellate court to modify decree.

DUTIES OF APPELLATE COURT:

 Duty to decide appeal finally.

 Duty not to interfere with decree for technical errors.
 Duty to re-appreciate evidence.
 Duty to record reasons etc…

Section 108 of Code of Civil Procedure reads as follows:

Procedure in appeals from appellate decrees and orders.- The provisions of this Part
relating to appeals from original decrees shall, so far as may be, apply to appeals—

(a) From appellate decrees, and

(b) From orders made under this Code or under any special or local law in which a
different procedure is not provided.2

In the case of Shantilal v Gujarat Electricity Board,3 there were three writ
petitions were filed in the High Court. In two petitions, vires of statutory provisions were
challenged. After the decision of the High Court, the matters were taken to the Supreme
Court which remanded the cases to the High Court with a direction to decide vires of the
provision. The High court refused to try that issue in the third matter. The Apex Court
held that the High Court was bound to decide vires in all matters.

Purapabutchi Rama v PurapaVimalakumari,4 In this case it was stated that no

remand can be ordered by the Appellate court under Rule 23 unless the decision of the
lower court on the preliminary point is reversed in appeal.

CWT vs. AluminiumCorpn. Ltd5, The High Court of Calcutta expressed doubts

about the Supreme Court to remand the case. When the matter reached the Supreme Court
again, the Apex Court observed that the High Court clearly exceeded its jurisdiction in
examining the competence of the Apex Court to remand the case.

ShivajiraoNilangekarPatil v. Mahesh MadhavGosavi6, In this case the Supreme

Court stated that the basic principle of admission of additional evidence is that the person
seeking the admission of additional evidence should be able to establish that with the best
efforts such additional evidence could not be adduced at first instance. Secondly the party
affected by the admission of additional evidence should have an opportunity to rebut such
additional evidence. Thirdly the Additional evidence should be relevant for the
determination of the issue.

2
Section 108 – civil procedure code 1908.
3
Shantilal v Gujarat Electricity Board (1971) 3 SCC 854
4
Purapabutchi Rama v PurapaVimalakumari AIR 1969 AP 216 at p. 220.
5
CWT vs. AluminiumCorpn.Ltd (1973) 3 SCC 643: (1972) 1 SCR 484.
6
ShivajiraoNilangekarPatil v. Mahesh MadhavGosavi (1987) I SCC 227.
 K.R. Mohan Reddy v Net Work Inc7, in this case the Supreme Court stated that
clauses (a), (aa) and (b) of Rue 27 (1) refer to three different situations. For exercising
jurisdiction there under, the Appellate court must record a finding that one or other
conditions of Rule 27 (1) is satisfied.

Annexure 3

[10:35 am, 10/09/2022] Sachin Rahul: MEMORANDUM OF CRIMINAL ORIGINAL PETITION

(Filed U/s 439 of Cr.P.C) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

Crl.O.P.No. of 2021

In

Crime No.1779 of 2021

(On the file of the Inspector of Police, Palladam Police Station, Tiruppur)

1. Bharath, M/24 Years S/o.Kaluram, No.16, 3rd cross Industrial, Suburban, Viswaswera Nagar, Mysore,
Karnataka State.

2. Amraram, M/21 Years, S/o Bera Ram, Mandvaas, Roghat, Balli, Rajastan Now at No. 16, 3rd cross
Industrial, Suburban, Viswaswera Nagar, Mysore, Kamataka State

Petitioners/Accused 2 & 3

..Vs..

The State Rep;by The Inspector of Police Palladam Police Station, Tiruppur District Cr.No.1779 of 2021

Respondent/Complainant

Petition for Bail filed U/s 439 of Cr.P.C

The above named petitioners most humbly submit that as

follows;

7
K.R. Mohan Reddy v Net Work Inc AIR 2008 SC 579.
1. The respondent has registered a case as against the petitioners and another for an alleged offences U/s
273, 328 of IPC r/w Section 7(1) and 20 (2) of Cigarette and Tobaco Products Act 2003 and they were
arrested on 26.10.2021 and remanded to judicial custody. The petitioners are in jail for the past 7 days.

2. The petitioners submits that the case of the prosecution is that on 26.10.2021 around 6 A.M near
Ukayanoor Road, Paraikuzhi the defacto complainant and other officials were engaged in regular vehicle
checking they intercepted one TVS XL 100 two wheeler bearing registering number and a Hyundai Creta
Car bearing registeration number TN-37-DB-2868 and on checking the said vehicles, three persons were
in the vehicles. When the respondent police enquired them, they did not give proper explanation.
Thereafter, the respondent police checked the bundles in the two wheeler and the car and found 15 kgs of
banned tobacco products worth Rs.20500/-. Thereafter the respondent police seized the said products
namely Coollip 10 packets, Hans 130 Packets, ganesh 100 packets, Vimal 400 Packets and V-1 Tobacco
400 packets and subsequently the petitioners were arrested and remanded in Judicial Custody.

3. The petitioners submit that they have not committed any offence and they have been falsely implicated
in this case. The petitioners are running provision stores in Mysore and came for business trip in Tirupur.
The petitioners are the only sole bread winners of their family and they have brought the above tobacco
products from the 1st accused

DISTRICT: TIRUPPUR

HIGH COURT: MADRAS

Crl.O.P No:

of 2021

In

Cr.No. 1779 of 2021

(On the file of Inspector of Police, Palladam, Tirrupur District)

PETITION FOR BAIL FILED U/s 439 of Cr.P.C

M/s. T. Nixon, Ms.135/12

Counsel for Petitioners Cell:9840091664

LIST OF LITERATURE AND CASE LAWS RESEARCHED

 Shantilal v Gujarat Electricity Board8

 Purapabutchi Rama v PurapaVimalakumari9
 CWT vs. AluminiumCorpn. Ltd10
 ShivajiraoNilangekarPatil v. Mahesh MadhavGosavi11
 K.R. Mohan Reddy v Net Work Inc12

LIST OF LEGAL MECHANISMS AND PROVISIONS

Statutes

 Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985

 Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012
 Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988
 Indian Evidence Act, 1872
 Indian Constitution

Principles and Mechanisms

 Principles of Natural Justice

 Change of Opinion
 Commercial Quantity and Consumption Quantity of Drugs

DESCRIPTION OF KNOWLEDGE AND SKILLS ACQUIRED

8
Shantilal v Gujarat Electricity Board (1971) 3 SCC 854
9
Purapabutchi Rama v PurapaVimalakumari AIR 1969 AP 216 at p. 220.
10
CWT vs. AluminiumCorpn.Ltd (1973) 3 SCC 643: (1972) 1 SCR 484.
11
ShivajiraoNilangekarPatil v. Mahesh MadhavGosavi (1987) I SCC 227.
12
K.R. Mohan Reddy v Net Work Inc AIR 2008 SC 579.
The one month that I spent working under Mr. Paul Kanagaraj was one of the most
fruitful periods of my life. I learned various aspects of procedural law as well as
substantive law. Under his personal tutelage, I found out on how cross examination
should be done and further, how drug-related cases involving minors should be treated,
with due care. Further, knowledge on drug mafias and how huge a network it is was
learned.

Client interaction was something new which I’d never done. This was the first place
where I was allowed to converse with and deal with clients. Despite us being interns, to
involve us in proceedings actively was praiseworthy. Further, I was given freedom to do
drafting and research on my own.

LEARNING OUTCOMES
 Acquired knowledge in the field of narcotic drugs.
 Learned to interact with clients in an appropriate manner.
 Independence was given with respect to drafting which aided me in doing it better.
 Better and faster ways to research were learned.
 Constant encouragement helped me do work with enthusiasm.