Criminal and civil matter, Exercises of Mock Trial and Moot Court

Download Criminal and civil matter and more Exercises Mock Trial and Moot Court in PDF only on Docsity! 1st National online Moot Court Competition MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER P a g e | i DR. ASHOK KUMAR MOHAPATRA MEMORIAL STATE LEVEL MOOT COURT COMPETITION - 2021 IN THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF WINTERFELL (Jurisdiction under Article 226 of Constitution of Kings Landing and under Section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973) IN THE CLUBBED MATTERS OF: WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) No. _____/2021 MRS. DANNY…………………………………………..………..……............ PETITIONER -VERSUS- STATE OF WINTERFELL & ANOTHER…….…….……………………………………...……............ RESPONDENT And CRL. M.C. No. _____/2021 JEMMIE AND THEON …………………..…………..………..…….......... PETITIONERS -VERSUS- STATE OF WINTERFELL………………..………..…..….……................ RESPONDENT DISPUTE RELATING TO: CIVIL WRIT PETITION OF MANDAMUS UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF CONSTITUTION OF KINGS LANDING FILED BY MRS. DANNY i.e. THE PETITIONER IN THE FIRST CASE AND CRL.M.C. PETITION U/S 482 OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE, 1973 FILED BY JEMMIE AND THEON i.e. THE PETITIONERS IN THE SECOND CASE. TO THE HON’BLE CHIEF JUSTICE AND HIS COMPANION JUDGES OF THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF WINTERFELL THE HUMBLE SUBMISSION OF MRS. DANNY- PETITIONER OF THE FIRST CASE & STATE OF WINTERFELL- RESPONDENT OF THE SECOND CASE MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER OF THE FIRST CASE AND RESPONDENT OF THE SECOND CASE TEAM CODE:- AKM- 01 Dr. Ashok Kumar Mohapatra Memorial State Level Moot Court Competition - 2021 MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER OF THE FIRST CASE AND RESPONDENT OF THE SECOND CASE P a g e | ii TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS……………………………………………………………….iii INDEX OF AUTHORITIES………………………………………………………………...iv I. LIST OF CASES………………………………………………………………………..….iv II. LIST OF FOREIGN DECISIONS………………………………………………………...v III. LIST OF STATUTES…………………………………………………………………......vi IV. LIST OF BOOKS REFERRED…………………………………………………………..vi V. LIST OF ONLINE DATABASES…………………………………………….…..……………………….......vi-vii STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION……………………………………...…………………………………viii-ix STATEMENT OF FACTS…………………………………………………………….....x-xii STATEMENT OF ISSUES …………...……………………………………………….......xiii SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS…………………………………………………………..xiv ARGUMENTS ADVANCED…………………………………………………………….....1 [I] WHETHER THERE IS CIVIL NEGLIGENCE ON THE PART OF THE COMPANY OR NOT? ……...............................................................................................1-6 [II] WHETHER THE WRIT PETITION IS MAINTAINABLE OR NOT? .................7-8 [III] WHETHER THE COGNIZANCE ORDER OF THE LEARNED J.M.F.C. OF NIGHT WATCH UNDER SECTION 304-A & 336 K.P.C. IS LIABLE TO BE QUASHED? ........................................................................................................................8-11 PRAYER……………………………………….………….………………………………....12 Dr. Ashok Kumar Mohapatra Memorial State Level Moot Court Competition - 2021 MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER OF THE FIRST CASE AND RESPONDENT OF THE SECOND CASE P a g e | v 20. S.Ruckmani vs Tamil Nadu Electricity Board ... on 28 January, 2016 21. K.K. Mehta & Anr. vs Delhi Vidyut Board And Anr. on 20 September, 2013 22. Saria Sahu And Others vs State Of Orissa And Others on 11 December, 2000 23. Shanti Mukand Hospital vs Ms. Rinchu And Ors. on 7 December, 2007 24. Joginder Singh vs In This Case on 24 March, 2011 25. The K.S.E.Board vs Kurian Thomas on 6 October, 2009 26. Raman vs Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam ... on 17 December, 2014 27. In The High Court Of Judicature At ... vs The Secretary To Government on 14 February, 2014 28. Executive Engineer Electricity ... vs Chairman Permanent Lok Adalat And ... on 17 September, 2015 29. Jyoti Singh vs The State Of Bihar on 18 February, 2016 30. Pushpa vs The Superintending Engineer on 21 April, 2009 31. Naval Kumar Alias Rohit Kumar vs State Of H.P. & Ors on 9 January, 2015 32. The Commissioner vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 17 November, 2016 33. Padmeswar Konch vs Assam Power Distribution Company ... on 3 February, 2021 34. State vs . Jitender Etc. on 6 February, 2013 35. State vs . 1) Hukum Chand S/O Durga Ram, R/O ... on 20 December, 2011 36. The Station Manager, Matangini ... vs Smt. Sabita Mondal, Wife Of Late ... on Dr. Ashok Kumar Mohapatra Memorial State Level Moot Court Competition - 2021 MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER OF THE FIRST CASE AND RESPONDENT OF THE SECOND CASE P a g e | vi 30 May, 2014 37. Chiranji Lal & Anr. vs Delhi Development Authority on 13 July, 2017 38. Arulmeri vs The Superintendent Engineer on 9 October, 2012 39. Raman vs State Of Haryana And Others on 2 July, 2013 40. N.Nizhalkodi vs The Chairman on 16 August, 2012 III. LIST OF STATUTES SL. NO. STATUTES 1- • Delhi Law House's Commentary on The Electricity Laws of India by S. K. 2- The Electricity Act ,2003 3- Indian Penal Code Also read as Kings Landing Penal Code 4- The Tort Law of India-Ratanlal & Dhirajlal IV. LIST OF BOOKS REFERRED SL. NO. BOOKS 1. A.N.Saha, Supreme Court On CriminalLaw,(NewDelhi,AshokaLawHouse)Vol. 4 (ed. 2nd) 2008 2. Anderw Grubb, Priciples Of Medical Law, Oxford University Press,3rd Ed. 2010 3. ARCHBOLD,Criminal Pleading Evidence & Practice, 41st Ed. 4. B.M.Gandhi, Indian Penal Code, (Eastern Book Company) 2nd Ed. 2006 (read as Kings Landing Penal Code) 5. BatukLal‟s Commentary On The Indian Penal Code,(Orient Publishing Company) Vol. 2 (2nd Ed.) 2011 read as Kings Landing Penal Code Dr. Ashok Kumar Mohapatra Memorial State Level Moot Court Competition - 2021 MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER OF THE FIRST CASE AND RESPONDENT OF THE SECOND CASE P a g e | vii 6. Electricity Act,2003 & Regulations 7. A Functional Legal Design for Reliable Electricity Supply Book by Hamilcar Pieter Anton Knops 8. Commercial's Central Electricity Authority Regulations Bare Act. 9. • Delhi Law House's Commentary on The Electricity Laws of India by S. K. 10. • The Tort Law of India-Ratanlal & Dhirajlal V. LIST OF ONLINE DATABASES SL. NO. ONLINE DATABASES 1. Indian Kanoon (indiankanoon.org) 2. Live Law (www.livelaw.in) 3. Casemine (www.casemine.com) 4. Manupatra (www.manupatra.com) 5. SCC Online (www.scconline.in) 6. Legitquest (www.legitquest.com) Dr. Ashok Kumar Mohapatra Memorial State Level Moot Court Competition - 2021 MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER OF THE FIRST CASE AND RESPONDENT OF THE SECOND CASE P a g e | x STATEMENT OF FACTS PRELIMIARY FACTS 1. “Kings Landing" one of the disaster-prone countries, widely recognized for its rich culture and heritage where "Winterfell" is one of the state located in the eastern part of it. In 2016 UNDRR praised the Chief Minister "Ned Stark" of "Winterfell" for his preparation during natural calamities. On 23rd June, 2021 a strongest tropical cyclone "Night King" hit eastern Kings Landing. Storm and powerful winds reaching 140km/hr blew off the roof of the houses, uprooted trees & damaged power lines, however "Winterfell" successfully prevented the loss of life because of successful strategies and preparation. 2. IPCWDL is a joint venture between Iron Power and Government of Winterfell with the majority stake being held by Iron Power Company (51%). It is responsible for medium voltage power transmission and distribution across 13 districts of Winterfell and "Night Watch" is one of the districts among them. 3. John Snow aged 42years was working as A.S.O. in Winterfell High Court, Citadel. He was husband of Danny aged 38 years a housewife and they had two children; one son namely Drogon aged 14 years & one girl child aged 7 years. MAIN FACTS 4. On the fateful day of 20.07.21 John and Drogon while returning home through their regular pathway heavy rain started falling. Within a fraction of second a live power line wire directly fell on the head of John Snow and he fell down. 5. His son Drogon while trying to pull him out also was electrocuted and fell down at the spot. Both of them in an unconscious state were taken to the nearest hospital. Upon reaching the hospital the doctor declared both of them to be already dead. 6. Post-mortem report conducted by doctor, it was found that there was blackening and charring of the skin and cause of death of both was "Electrocution". 7. Two days after their death Danny filed a complaint against the company –IPCWDL alleging that due to negligence and improper discharge on duty by the Company and its authorities her husband and son died. More so they have failed to adhere to the statutory duties cast upon them. Dr. Ashok Kumar Mohapatra Memorial State Level Moot Court Competition - 2021 MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER OF THE FIRST CASE AND RESPONDENT OF THE SECOND CASE P a g e | xi PROCEDURAL FACTS 8. Local Police registered the FIR u/s 304A of KPC against IPCWDL & 2 persons - Jemmie aged 58 years and Theon aged 55 years (working as Executive Engineer and Assistant Executive Engineer respectively in IPCWDL Company) as they were on duty on that fateful day of occurrence. 9. The Inquest Reports conducted on the bodies of the deceased persons was prepared by the Inspector of Police which mentioned their cause of death to be Electrocution. 10. Statement of witnesses were recorded by the Investigating Officer. One witness named Tyrion has made a statement u/s 161 of C.r.P.C before I.O that has seen that on 20th July 2021 at about 4 PM the deceased 1’s head was touched with a hanging wire and suddenly he became unconscious and fell on the ground after that his son started pulling him as a result of which he also fell down on the ground. There after some co-villagers took both of them to be a nearby hospital where doctors declared him already dead. Investigation was carried out and a charge sheet was filed against Jemmie and Theon u/s 304A and 336 of KPC. The learned J.M.F.C of Night Watch took cognizance under Section 304-A & 336 against Jemmie and Theon. EVENTS LEADING TO THE FILING OF WRIT PETITION BY DANNY 11. On 26.08.2021 w/o deceased approached the District Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission claiming rupees 20 Lakhs as compensation against the Company. She withdrew the same with the liberty from the commission to file the case before the Civil Court. 12. On 25.09.21 at 6.00 PM, while Danny and her old ailing in-laws were sitting in her house, suddenly electricity went off. After that for next 2 days electricity was not given to her house. She went to IPCWDL office and requested the H.O.D. to restore the electricity. 13. However, he replied to her grievance by showing appropriate documents which showed her husband John has not paid electricity bill amounting Rs. 15,000/- for last 5 months thus electricity cannot be restored unless the areas are cleared. 14. After that Danny told him that John's brother, Archer succumbed to COVID-19 after staying in super - specialty hospital for more than a month and hospital bill was borne by John which finished his savings. Then she prayed for mutual settlement and assured to pay rest amount through instalments and requested for reconnection of electricity. Although the official gave consent to the proposal, however IPCWDL did not restore the connection. Dr. Ashok Kumar Mohapatra Memorial State Level Moot Court Competition - 2021 MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER OF THE FIRST CASE AND RESPONDENT OF THE SECOND CASE P a g e | xii FILING OF WRIT PETITION BY DANNY 15. Danny saw that there was slow progress in the criminal case registered by her and electricity to her house was not restored, thereafter she approached the Hon'ble High Court by filing writ petition on 05.10.2021 wherein she claimed rupees 40 Lakhs as compensation for death of her husband and son on ground of negligence done by Company & prayed for direction for restoration of electricity to her house. FILING OF CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS CASE BY JEMMIE AND THEON 16. Meanwhile, Jemmie & Theon jointly filed a petition before this Hon’ble Court to quash the cognizance order of the learned J.M.F.C. Of Night Watch. Dr. Ashok Kumar Mohapatra Memorial State Level Moot Court Competition - 2021 MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER OF THE FIRST CASE AND RESPONDENT OF THE SECOND CASE P a g e | 1 ARGUMENTS ADVANCED [I] WHETHER THERE IS CIVIL NEGLIGENCE ON THE PART OF THE COMPANY OR NOT? It is humbly submitted before this Hon'ble Court that the non performance of standard degree of care and due diligence on the part of the Company which resulted in loss of two precious lives, holds them liable of Negligence. [A] NEGLIGENCE [1] Meaning In everyday usage, the word ‘negligence’ denotes mere carelessness. In legal sense it signifies failure to exercise standard of care which the doer as a reasonable man should have exercised in the circumstances. In general, there is a legal duty to take care when it was reasonably foreseeable that failure to do so was likely to cause injury. Negligence is a mode in which many kinds of harms may be caused by not taking such adequate precautions. [II] Definition According to Winfield and Jolowicz - Negligence is the breach of a legal duty to take care which results in damage, undesired by the defendant to the plaintiff.2 Ref. In Blyth v. Birmingham Water Works Co.3 ; ALDERSON, B. defined negligence as, negligence is the omission to do something which a reasonable man…….. would do, or doing something which a prudent or reasonable man would not do. In Lochgelly Iron & Coal Co. v. Mc Mullan 4 ; LORD WRIGHT said, negligence means more than headless or careless conduct, whether in commission or omission; it properly connotes the complex concept of duty, breach and damage thereby suffered by the person to whom the duty was owing. 2 Winfield and Jolowicz on Tort, Ninth Edition, 1971, p. 45 3 (1856) LR 11 Exch. 781 4 1934 AC 1 Dr. Ashok Kumar Mohapatra Memorial State Level Moot Court Competition - 2021 MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER OF THE FIRST CASE AND RESPONDENT OF THE SECOND CASE P a g e | 2 [III] Essentials Of Negligence: - In an action for negligence, the plaintiff has to prove primarily 6 main essentials. An act will be categorized as negligence only if, all the following conditions are satisfied – 1) Duty Of Care It is one of the essential conditions of negligence in order to make the person liable. It means that every person owes, a duty of care, to another person while performing an act. Although this duty exists in all acts, but in negligence, the duty is legal in nature and cannot be illegal or unlawful and also cannot be of moral, ethical or religious nature. In the case of Stansbele vs Troman (1948)5 A decorator was engaged to carry out decorations in a house. Soon after The decorator left the house without locking the doors or informing anyone. During his absence, a thief entered the house and stole some property the value of which the owner of the house claimed from the decorator. It was held that the decorator was liable as he was negligent in leaving the house open and failed his duty of care. In Grant v. Australian Knitting Mills Ltd.6 the plaintiff purchased two sets of woolen underwear from a retailer and contacted a skin disease by wearing an underwear. The woolen underwear contained an excess of sulphates which the manufacturers negligently failed to remove while washing them. The manufacturers were held liable as they failed to perform their duty to take care. 2) The Duty must be towards the plaintiff A duty arises when the law recognizes a relationship between the defendant and the plaintiff and requires the defendant to act in a certain manner toward the plaintiff. It is not sufficient that the defendant owed a duty of care towards the plaintiff but it must also be established which is usually determined by the judge. The case of Donoghue v. Stevenson (1932)7 has evolved the principle that we each have a duty of care to our neighbour or someone we could reasonably expect to be affected by our acts or omissions. It was held that, despite no contract existed between the manufacturer and the person suffering the damage an action for negligence could succeed since the plaintiff 5 Stansbele vs Troman (1948) 6 1935 AC 85 7 Donoghue v. Stevenson (1932) Dr. Ashok Kumar Mohapatra Memorial State Level Moot Court Competition - 2021 MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER OF THE FIRST CASE AND RESPONDENT OF THE SECOND CASE P a g e | 3 was successful in her claim that she was entitled to a duty of care even though the defective good i.e a bottle of ginger beer with a snail in it was bought, not by herself, but by her friend. 3)Breach of Duty to take care It’s not enough for a plaintiff to prove that the defendant owed him a duty of care but he must also establish that the defendant breached his duty to the plaintiff. A defendant breaches such a duty by failing to exercise reasonable care in fulfilling the duty. In other words, the breach of a duty of care means that the person who has an existing duty of care should act wisely and not omit or commit any act which he has to do or not do as said in the case of Blyth v. Birmingham Waterworks Co. (1856).8 In simple terms, it means non-observance of a standard of care. In the case of Ramesh Kumar Nayak vs Union of India(1994)9 The post authorities failed to maintain the compound wall of a post office in good condition on the collapse of which the defendant sustained injuries. It was held that postal authorities were liable since that had a duty to maintain the post office premises and due to their breach of duty to do so, the collapse occurred. Hence they were liable to pay compensation. In the case of Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. Subhagvanti (AIR 1966)10 A very old clock tower situated right in the middle of a crowded area of Chandni Chowk suddenly collapsed thereby causing the death of many people. The clock tower was 80 years old although the normal life span of the clock tower should have been 40-45 years. The clock tower was under the control of The Municipal Corporation of Delhi and they had a duty of care towards the citizens. By ignoring to repair the clock tower, they had breached their duty of care toward the public and were thereby liable In Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. Sushila Devi 11; a person passing by the road died because of fall of branch of a tree standing on the road, on his head. The Municipal Corporation was held liable. 9 Ramesh Kumar Nayak vs Union of India(1994) 10 Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. Subhagvanti (AIR 1966) 11 AIR 1999 SC 1929 Dr. Ashok Kumar Mohapatra Memorial State Level Moot Court Competition - 2021 MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER OF THE FIRST CASE AND RESPONDENT OF THE SECOND CASE P a g e | 6 [2.1] All The Aforementioned Essential Conditions Of Negligence Are Satisfied It is humbly submitted that it was the legal duty of the IPCWDL Company to duly check the grid lines and make them ready for the rainy season. This satisfies the first condition i.e. Duty of care. The second condition is The Duty must be towards the plaintiff. In the instant case the deceased were and the plaintiff is a consumer of electricity service provided by the Company and consumers are entitled to safety. As stated above it was the duty of the company to check the grid and power lines which is of utmost importance to ensure the safety of the consumers. With this the second condition is satisfied. Moving forward to the third and fourth condition which are namely 'Breach of duty to take care' and 'Actual cause or cause in fact' respectively. The 'Breach of Duty to take care' means non observance of standard of care which is expected from the Company. It is a matter of fact that in rainy seasons ill maintained grid and power lines cause loss of lives and properties. The Company in the instant case should have taken care of this in order to prevent the same. And 'Actual cause or cause in fact' which is Company's lack of care in maintenance of the grid lines which resulted in physical contact of the deceased 1 with the live power line which fell on his head when it was raining. Then comes the fifth condition i.e. 'Proximate Cause' which says - A defendant in a negligence case is only responsible for those damages that the defendant could have foreseen through his actions. As discussed above the standard care of grid lines if not taken results in such incidents of loss of lives. Thus it was foreseeable on the part of the company that if the grid lines ain't maintained and weak power line wires ain't replaced, it will result in loss of lives yet they didn't take care of the power grid and line wires. Finally with the death of both the deceased last and most important condition i.e. Consequential harm to the plaintiff stands satisfied. This condition requires that failure of the respondent to exercise reasonable care resulted in damages to the petitioner to whom the respondent owed a duty of care. The non observance of duty to exercise reasonable care Dr. Ashok Kumar Mohapatra Memorial State Level Moot Court Competition - 2021 MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER OF THE FIRST CASE AND RESPONDENT OF THE SECOND CASE P a g e | 7 resulted in death of both the deceased due to electrocution (cause of death as confirmed by the post mortem report and inquest report). Hence this final condition is also satisfied. With all the essential conditions fulfilled, the allegation of Negligence on the part of the IPCWDL Company stands proved. [II] WHETHER THE WRIT PETITION IS MAINTAINABLE OR NOT? It is the humble submission of the counsels for the petitioner that the writ of Mandamus by the petitioner wherein she (i) claimed 40 lakhs as compensation for the death of her husband and son which was caused due to negligence done by the Company and (ii) prayed for a direction to the Company to restore electricity connection to her house as such action is violative of her constitutional rights, is maintainable as both the claim and the prayer for direction are reasonable and backed by law. [1] WRIT FOR COMPENSATION IS MAINTAINABLE WHEN ALLEGATION OF NEGLIGENCE ON THE PART OF RESPONDENT IS ESTABLISHED BY THE CLAIMANT The Apex Court in the case of Chairman Grid Corporation Of Orissa Ltd. (GRIDCO) & Ors. Vs Smt. Sukamani Das And Anr. Etc15, held that - "all these cases for compensation are actions in tort and negligence is required to be established firstly by the claimants." In the instant case Negligence on the part of the Respondent-Company has been established under ISSUE - I. Therefore the claim for compensation is maintainable. [2] PETITIONER'S PRAYER FOR DIRECTION FOR RESTORATION OF ELECTRICITY TO HER HOUSE IS REASONABLE It is humbly submitted that the petitioner's prayer for direction to Company IPCWDL to restore electricity connection is also reasonable as the action taken by Company is violative of the fundamental right to electricity of the petitioner. [2.1] RIGHT TO ELECTRICITY IS A FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT 15 Chairman Grid Corporation Of Orissa Ltd. (GRIDCO) & Ors. Vs Smt. Sukamani Das And Anr. Etc Dr. Ashok Kumar Mohapatra Memorial State Level Moot Court Competition - 2021 MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER OF THE FIRST CASE AND RESPONDENT OF THE SECOND CASE P a g e | 8 It is most humbly submitted that just like every other fundamental rights, the right to electricity is also a fundamental right of every individual. Reliance is placed on the recently decided case of K.N. Raveendranadhan vs The Kerala State Electricity Board16. In that case, a single bench of Kerala High Court presided by Justice Murali Purushothaman has rightly held that, - "Electricity is a basic amenity in life. Water and electricity are integral part of right to life within the meaning of Article 21 of the Constitution of India." The petitioner in the present case has old ailing in laws and a 7 year old minor daughter to take care of. It is needless to say the level of difficulty we face when we live without electricity. We all have experienced that during post cyclone power outage of 7 days. We can only imagine the level of difficulty she must be going through and the same will persist if no direction for restoration of electricity connection is issued. Further, the petitioner who at present is incapable to pay the arrears due to her weak financial condition, did give an assurance to the Head of the department of IPCWDL to pay the same in instalments, to which the official agreed yet no re connection was provided to her. Such conduct creates assumption that IPCWDL is doing this having a revenge mentality against the petitioner and such acts are not at all expected from a reputed Company which has done commendable job in the past during natural calamities. Also, such act is not permissible under our law which gives the right to sue and to be sued for wrongs committed. Therefore keeping in view the facts of the case and authorities cited it can be safely concluded that the writ petition filed by the petitioner is maintainable and thus she is entitled to the compensation amount claimed by her and restoration of electricity to her house. [III] WHETHER THE COGNIZANCE ORDER OF THE LEARNED J.M.F.C. U/S 304A & 336 K.P.C. IS LIABLE TO BE QUASHED? 16 K.N. Raveendranadhan vs The Kerala State Electricity Board Dr. Ashok Kumar Mohapatra Memorial State Level Moot Court Competition - 2021 MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER OF THE FIRST CASE AND RESPONDENT OF THE SECOND CASE P a g e | 11 2. Such act must be endangering human life or personal safety of others. Negligence in performance of duty by the two accused is satisfactory of the ingredients of this section. As proved under sub-issue (1) of this issue, the act of the two accused was negligent in nature and the same is fatal to life and personal safety of others. Such act if continues will cause in loss of many lives and properties in future, hence they are guilty of the offence u/s 336 K.P.C. Therefore taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the present case and the evidences adduced against the two accused, it is clear that their guilt has been established beyond any reasonable doubt and thus the cognizance order u/s 304-A & 336 K.P.C. which is rightly made by the learned J.M.F.C. is not liable to be quashed Dr. Ashok Kumar Mohapatra Memorial State Level Moot Court Competition - 2021 MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER OF THE FIRST CASE AND RESPONDENT OF THE SECOND CASE P a g e | 12 PRAYER Therefore, in the light of the facts stated, issues raised, authorities cited, and arguments advanced, it is most humbly prayed before this Honourable Court that it may be pleased to adjudge and declare that: 1. There is civil negligence on the part of the IPCWDL Company; 2. The writ petition of Mandamus filed by the petitioner of the first case is maintainable; 3. The cognizance order of the learned J.M.F.C. of Night Watch U/S 304-A & 336 against the petitioners of the second case is not liable to be quashed. . All of which is respectfully submitted and for this act of kindness, the Petitioner of the first case and Respondent of the second case as in duty bound, shall ever pray. Place: Citadel, Winterfell. Sd/-_______________ Date: 30 & 31st October, 2021 COUNSELS ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER OF THE FIRST CASE&RESPONDENT OF THE SECOND CASE