MOOT COURT

ASSIGNMENT
LAW291
 MOOT COURT MEMORANDUM, 2022

Before

THE HON’BLE SESSION COURT OF LUDHIANA

IN THE MATTERS BETWEEN

Petition No / 2022

(Under Section 378,408,441,442,107 of IPC)

A WIDOWER......................................................................................................Prosecution

v.

B&D......................................................................................................................Accused

MEMORANDUM ON THE BEHALF OF ACCUSED

1
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS...............................................................................III

2. INDEX OF AUTHORITIES.................................................................................IV

3. STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION....................................................................VI

4. STATEMENT OF FACTS...................................................................................VII

5. ISSUES RAISED....................................................................................................VIII

6. SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS............................................................................IX

7. ARGUMENTS ADVANCED............................................................................... XII

8. THE PRAYER…………………………………………………………………… XIII

2
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

 Paragraph

& And

Art. Article

v. Versus

No. Number

Ors. Others

SCC Supreme Court Cases

AIR All India Reporter

SC Supreme Court
Hon’ble Honorable

3
INDEX OF AUNTHORITY
S.NO. CASE TITLE

1 Mahabir Prasad Garodia vs. State of Asaam.

2. Carter vs. Bohemn
3. Najafgarh State vs. Gulab

4
STATUES INCORPORATED

S.NO. STATUE/ ARTICLE SECTION/ARTICLE

1. The Indian penal code,1872 378,408,441,442,107

WEB RESOURCES REFERRED

S.NO. WEBRESOURCES WEBSITE

1. Indian Kanoon https://indiankanoon.org

2 Indian Penal Code https://www.indiacode.nic.in/handle/123456789/2263?locale=en

5
STATEMENT OF JURIDICTION
The Accused has the Honor to submit the dispute to the Hon’ble court, the arguments for the
Accused under the jurisdiction of the Hon’ble Sessions Court of Ludhiana.
The Accused Mr. B & Mr. D approached Hon’ble Sessions Court of Ludhiana under Section
378, 403, 405, 107 of IPC, 1872.
This argument sets forth the facts, laws and the corresponding arguments on which the acquittal
is based in the instant case.

6
STATEMENT OF FACTS
1. A, a widower, had been living alone in his house. He had employed B, as a full time male
domestic servant who had been staying in A’s house for some time. A used to go to a temple
every day in the morning for about two hours and B used to be there in the house during that
time. A had suspected that he had been misappropriating household things in his absence for a
few days.

2. One day, as usual, A went out early in the morning to the temple and when he came back, he
found the lock of the entrance door of his house broken and when he entered inside the house,
he found his imported TV missing. He immediately went to his next-door Neighbor C and
informed him about the theft.

3. His Neighbor C told him that sometime back he had seen his servant B and one more person
taking away the TV on a three-wheeler scooter. Immediately they both went to the nearest police
station and an FIR was lodged against B. Statement of C was recorded wherein C claimed that
he had seen B and one more person whom he would be able to identify on seeing him again,
taking away the TV. The next day B was arrested, and the TV was found in his possession. In
B's instance, his associate D was also arrested but nothing was recovered from him. Now Both B
and D are being tried jointly by the court.
7
ISSUES RAISED

ISSUE 1: Whether B can be charged with section 441 and 442 of IPC?
ISSUE 2: Whether there was any dishonesty on the side of B (Servant)?
ISSUE 3: Whether the complaint filed against B and D under section 378,408 is maintainable?

8
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS

ISSUE 1:

Whether B can be charged with section 441 and 442 of IPC?

It is humbly submitted before the hon’ble court that B cannot be charged with the above-mentioned sections
as he neither commits any trespass and nor he intent to commit any offence. He was working as a house
helper and being provided with right to be there in the property in respect to his duty hours.

ISSUE 2:

Whether there was any dishonesty on the side of B (Servant)?

It is respectfully submitted before the hon’ble court that there are no sufficient facts provided to prove
whether it was his deed to steal the Tv or it was taken for some other purposes. No other theft has taken
place expect the robbery of the television. Indeed, actus reus was present in that scenario but there can be
seen a clear absence of mens rea.

9
 ISSUE 3:

Whether the complaint filed against B and D under section 378,408 is maintainable?
It is respectfully submitted before the hon’ble court that it is not maintainable under foregoing sections since
the facts given cannot be seen plainly. Keeping aside the thievery, no other act took place onto which the
dishonesty can be measured and it not even figured out yet that whether it was actually a robbery or not.

ADVANCED ARGUMENTS
10
 ISSUE 1:
Whether B can be charged with section 441 and 442 of IPC?

It is humbly submitted before the hon’ble court that B cannot be charged with the above-
mentioned sections as he neither commits any trespass and nor he intent to commit any offence.
He was working as a house helper and being provided with right to be there in the property in
respect to his duty hours. The doctrine of good faith owes its origin and seen this concept in the
case of Carter v Bohemn where Lord Mansfield introduced good faith. In his words Lord
Mansfield stated that “Good faith forbids either party by concealing what he privately knows
from his ignorance of that fact and his believing the contrary”.

ISSUE 2:
Whether there was any dishonesty on the side of B (Servant)?

It is respectfully submitted before the hon’ble court that there are no sufficient facts provided to
prove whether it was his deed to steal the Tv or it was taken for some other purposes. No other
theft has taken place expect the robbery of the television. Indeed, actus reus was present in that

11
 scenario but there can be seen a clear absence of mens rea. As stated in Najafgarh states vs.
Gulab that it cannot be said whether ownership of the thing belongs to A only. Only because a
person was found with carrying Tele is not itself sufficient to show that accused has surety
stolen the property. Section 411 IPC is receiving or retaining stolen property and when these
both actusreus and mensrea joins offence u/s 411 IPC completes.

ISSUE 3:
Whether the complaint filed against B and D under section 378,408 is maintainable?

It is respectfully submitted before the hon’ble court that it is not maintainable under foregoing
sections since the facts given cannot be seen plainly. Keeping aside the thievery, no other act
took place onto which the dishonesty can be measured and it not even figured out yet that
whether it was actually a robbery or not.
As it is stated in the case of Mahabir Prasad Garodia Vs. State of Assam, AIR 1961 Assam 132
it was held that the dishonest misappropriation of property is referred to as the conversion of the
movable property to one’s own use where it should be done with the wrongful intention. There
must be the misappropriation of the property. When an accused found a thing and retained it in
his possession then he will not be charged under this offence.

12
 THE PRAYER

Wherefore, in the light of the legal precedents and principles cited; and in the light of the
provisions of the statutes applied and arguments advanced; it is respectfully prayed before the
Hon’ble Court that this Court adjudges that Mr. B should be exculpate of all the charges under
Section 378,408,441,442,107 of IPC and pass any other order or relief that it may deem fit in the
best interests of justice.

ALL OF WHICH IS MOST RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED

The Accused

SD/

……………………

(Counsel for “Accused”)

13