SURANA & SURANA AND NUSRL NATIONAL CRIMINAL LAW MOOT COURT COMPETITION

TEAM CODE- TC32

SURANA & SURANA AND NUSRL NATIONAL CRIMINAL LAW

MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2024

IN THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF ARRAKIS

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO………../2025

JAMIE APPELLANT
Vs.
STATE OF ARRAKIS RESPONDENT

MEMORIAL DRAWN ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

COUNSEL APPEARING ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

1
 SURANA & SURANA AND NUSRL NATIONAL CRIMINAL LAW MOOT COURT COMPETITION

INDEX

The index of authorities

List of Abbreviations

Case Cited

The statement of jurisdiction

The statement of facts

The statement of issues

The summary of arguments

The arguments advanced

The prayer

2
 SURANA & SURANA AND NUSRL NATIONAL CRIMINAL LAW MOOT COURT COMPETITION

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

JUDICIAL DECISION
1. HUSSIAN VS. UNION OF INDIA
2. RAM AND ORS VS. STATE OF RAJASTHAN
3. MANEKA GANDHI VS. UNION OF INDIA

BOOKS REFERED
1) K.T. Thomas, M.A. Rashid (Rev.), Ratan Lal & Dhiraj Lal’s The Indian Penal Code, (35th
ed., 2017)
2) K.D. Gaur, Criminal Law : Cases and Materials, (8th ed., 2015)
3) R.C. Nigam, Law of Crimes in India (Vol. I) (1965)
4) V.B. Raju, Commentary on Indian Penal Code, 1860 (Vol. I & II) (4th ed., 1982)
5) K.N.C. Pillai & Shabistan Aquil (Rev.), Essays on the Indian Penal Code (The Indian Law
Institute, 2005)
6) K. I. Vibhute (Rev.), P.S.A. Pillai’s Criminal Law (13th ed., 2017)
7) Syed Shamsul Huda, The Principles of the Law of Crimes in British India(1902)
8) K.N. Chandrasekharan Pillai, General Principles of Criminal Law (2nd ed., 2011)

STATUE REFERED
(a) Constitution of Jotunheim 1950
(b) Jotunheim Penal Code 1860
(c) Jatindhan Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita 2024

WEBSITE REFERED
1. https://www.scconline.com/
2. https://www.manupatrafast.com/
3. https://www.lexisnexis.com/

3
 SURANA & SURANA AND NUSRL NATIONAL CRIMINAL LAW MOOT COURT COMPETITION

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

1. A.I.R All India Reporter

2. F.I.R First Information Report

3. J.P.C Jotunheim Penal Code

4. J.N.S.S Jatindham Nagarik

Suraksha Sanhita

5. Art. Article

6. S. Section

7. u/s Under Section

8. Cr.P.C. The Code of Criminal

Procedure

9. HC The High Court

10. SCC Supreme Court Cases

4
 SURANA & SURANA AND NUSRL NATIONAL CRIMINAL LAW MOOT COURT COMPETITION

CASE CITED

S. NO. NAME PAGE NO

1. Hussain v. Union of India, AIR 11

2017 SC 1362

2. Maneka Gandhi vs Union Of India 12

1978 AIR 597

3. Kader Khan vs State of West 13

Bengal is 2022 SCC OnLine Cal
1038

4. Atma Ram vs The State Of 14

Rajasthan AIR 2019 SUPREME
COURT 1961

5. Deepu & Ors. V. State of U.P 2024 15

AHC:126843-DB

6. Sheikh Arif v. State of Maharashtra 18

LAWS(SC)-2024-1-64.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

7. Yedla Srinivasa Rao vs State of 18

A.P, 2006 (11) SCC 615

8. Pradeep Kumar Verma vs State of 18

Bihar18, Air 2007 SC 3059

5
 SURANA & SURANA AND NUSRL NATIONAL CRIMINAL LAW MOOT COURT COMPETITION

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

The Hon’ble High Court of Arrakis has the jurisdiction to hear the instant matter under Section
415

of the JNSS, 2023 which are as follows –

Section 415: Appeals from convictions-

(1) Any person convicted on a trial held by a High Court in its extraordinary original criminal
jurisdiction

may appeal to the Supreme Court.

(2) Any person convicted on a trial held by a Sessions Judge or an Additional Sessions Judge
or on a trial held by any other Court in which a sentence of imprisonment for more than seven
years has been passed against him or against any other person convicted at the same trial, may
appeal to the High Court.

(3) Save as otherwise provided in sub-section (2), any person,

(a) convicted on a trial held by Magistrate of the first class, or of the second class; or

(b) sentenced under section 364; or

(c) in respect of whom an order has been made or a sentence has been passed under section 401
by any Magistrate, may appeal to the Court of Session.

(4) When an appeal has been filed against a sentence passed under section 64, section 65,
section 66, section 67, section 68, section 70 or section 71 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita,
2023, the appeal shall be disposed of within a period of six months from the date of filing of
such appeal

6
 SURANA & SURANA AND NUSRL NATIONAL CRIMINAL LAW MOOT COURT COMPETITION

SUMMARY OF FACT

The Democratic Republic of Jotunheim (also called Jatindham) gained independence from
British rule in 1947. The British had introduced a penal code, the Jotunheim Penal Code
(1860), along with the Criminal Procedure Code (1862) and Jotunheim Evidence Act
(1872). These colonial laws were revised post-independence, with the Criminal Procedure
Code updated in 1973 to align with the new constitution. In 2023, three new laws replaced
these colonial codes: the Jatindham Nyaya Sanhita (JNS), Jatindham Nagarik Suraksha
Sanhita (JNSS), and Jatindham Sakshya Adhiniyam (JSA), effective from 1st July 2024.

Jamie, a 32-year-old entrepreneur, met Oliver, a 30-year-old banker, in May 2023 at a business
event and offered her a job. They grew close and entered into a romantic relationship. Jamie
expressed the intention to marry Oliver, and both began saving money for the wedding. Over
time, Oliver used Jamie’s accounts without permission, and they purchased a house together.
In November 2023, an argument occurred after Jamie confronted Oliver about her relationship
with a colleague. They reconciled, and Jamie proposed to Oliver in December, promising
marriage by 2025.

However, by May 2024, Jamie grew distant, avoiding discussions of marriage. Oliver became
suspicious and accessed Jamie’s social media accounts without his knowledge. Jamie withdrew
money saved for the wedding and deposited it into a joint account with another person, Alexa.
By August, Jamie broke off the relationship, explaining his family’s disapproval and their plans
for him to marry Alexa. He also sold the house they shared and transferred the proceeds.

Feeling betrayed, Oliver posted intimate images of them online and filed a police report against
Jamie, accusing him of exploitation. Jamie was arrested in September 2024 under Section 69
of JNS. Despite multiple extensions of police remand, Jamie was tortured but refused to
confess. He was granted default bail in December due to delays in filing the chargesheet. The
police later charged him under Sections 375 and 376 (rape) of the Jotunheimian Penal Code.

After Jamie failed to appear in court, he was declared a proclaimed offender in January 2025.
The trial proceeded in absentia, and Jamie was convicted and sentenced to life imprisonment
under Section 376 in April 2025. Jamie’s lawyer filed an appeal, challenging the remand
proceedings and the conviction.

7
SURANA & SURANA AND NUSRL NATIONAL CRIMINAL LAW MOOT COURT COMPETITION

ISSUES

1. Whether the appeal in the present case is maintainable before the High Court?
2. Whether the trial in absentia adhered to the provisions and principles of due process?
3. Whether the lower court’s application of substantive and procedural laws in the given
factual context was correct?
4. Whether any offence in the instant case has been committed, if so, under which laws?
5. Whether the repeated authorisation of police remand by the lower court till 14th
December was in accordance with the provisions of criminal procedure and the
principles enshrined under the Constitution of Jotunheim?

8
 SURANA & SURANA AND NUSRL NATIONAL CRIMINAL LAW MOOT COURT COMPETITION

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS
1) Whether the appeal in the present case is maintainable before the High Court
It is humbly submitted in the Hon'ble Court that the appeal is not maintainable as the accused
is declared a proclaimed offender and has failed to appear before the court as required by
Section 356(7) of the JNSS, which states that no appeal can be filed unless the accused presents
himself. The accused’s absence, despite being summoned and having two warrants issued,
indicates a waiver of his right to appeal. This process ensures that justice is not delayed due to
the accused’s evasion. Allowing this appeal would violate the statutory provisions of the JNSS.
2) Whether the trial in absentia adhered to the provisions and principles of due process
It is humbly submitted in the Hon'ble Court that the Court of Session followed all procedural
requirements as per Section 356 of JNSS for a trial in absentia. The accused was declared a
proclaimed offender, and necessary warrants were issued, ensuring compliance with due
process. The law allows for trials in absentia to prevent delays in justice, especially when the
accused willfully absconds. Thus, the trial was valid and did not violate the principle of due
process, as the accused had the opportunity to defend himself but chose to abscond.
3) Whether the lower court’s application of substantive and procedural laws in the given
factual context was correct
It is humbly submitted in the Hon'ble Court that the lower court correctly applied both
substantive and procedural laws, as procedural laws are retrospective and substantive laws are
prospective. The FIR was filed under the IPC due to the offence occurring before the enactment
of JNSS, but the procedural laws followed JNSS. Therefore, the court’s application of law was
justified and in accordance with legal standards.
4) Whether any offence in the instant case has been committed, and if so, under which
law
It is humbly submitted in the Hon'ble Court that an offence of rape under Sections 375 and 376
of the IPC has been committed, as the accused’s actions indicated no intention to marry and
misled the victim into a sexual relationship. The lack of genuine consent due to deceit
constitutes rape, as the accused’s behavior demonstrates that he did not have the victim's true
consent.
5) Whether the repeated authorization of police remand by the lower court till 14th
December was in accordance with the provisions of criminal procedure and the principles
enshrined under the Constitution of Jotunheim
It is humbly submitted in the Hon'ble Court that the lower court's authorization of police
remand was lawful and followed the provisions of the JNSS. The Magistrate exercised the
authority to detain the accused beyond 15 days, adhering to the statutory framework for serious
offences. This removal of distinctions between police and judicial custody facilitates effective
investigations, ensuring that justice is served efficiently.

9
 SURANA & SURANA AND NUSRL NATIONAL CRIMINAL LAW MOOT COURT COMPETITION

ARGUMENTS ADVANCE

1) Whether the appeal in the present case is maintainable before the High Court
It is humbly submitted before this Hon'ble Court that, in the present factual matrix, the appeal
is not maintainable in law or on facts. The accused has been declared a proclaimed offender 1
and has filed this appeal through his advocate, which is barred by Section 356(7) of JNSS.
It is humbly submitted before the Hon'ble High Court of Arrakis that Under Section 413 of
JNSS., “no appeal shall lie unless otherwise provided for by this Code or by any other law for
the time being in force”.
It is humbly further submitted before the Hon'ble High Court of Arrakis that under Section
415(2) JNSS “any person convicted on a trial held by a Sessions Judge or an Additional
Sessions Judge or on a trial held by any other Court in which a sentence of imprisonment for
more than seven years has been passed against him or against any other person convicted at
the same trial, may appeal to the High Court”. Is not maintainable to this hon’ble court Because
this section is for those offenders who has not been declared as an proclaimed offender. An
appeal to the high court under section 415 of JNSS can be restricted by the provision of section
356(7) of JNSS
Section 356 of JNSS- Inquiry, trial or judgment in absentia of proclaimed offender.
356(7)of JNSS says that - "No appeal shall lie against the judgment under this section unless
the proclaimed offender presents himself before the Court of appeal"
The criminal justice system is designed in a way to secure a fair trial and to meet the ends of
justice. Nonetheless, the criminal trial procedure cannot be static and inevitably must match
the pace of the changing interests. In order to remove any hindrance to administration of justice,
doctrine of waiver and theory of public interest2 seem to gain populace by actively advocating
for trial in absentia. It is based on the idea that though the right to be tried in the accused’s
presence is a negative right; it does not amount to infringement if the legal system tries the
accused in his absence due to his conduct3. In other words, by the act of abscondence, the
accused waives his right to be tried in his presence4.
1
the expression "proclaimed offender" includes any person proclaimed as an offender by any Court or authority
in any territory in India to which this Sanhita does not extend, in respect of any act which if committed in the
territories to which this Sanhita extends, would be an offence punishable under any of the offence punishable with
imprisonment for ten years or more or with imprisonment for life or with death under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita,
2023
2
Extent of Valid Waiver of Criminal Procedure” (December 1911) Harvard Law Review, Vol. 25, No. 2, 179-181
3
James G. Starkey, “Trial in Absentia”, (1979) St. John’s Law Review, Vol. 53, No. 4, 733-745.
4
Fawzia Cassim, “The Accused’s Right to be Present: A Key to Meaningful Participation in the Criminal Process”
(July 2005) The Comparative and International Law Journal of Southern Africa, Vol. 38, No. 2, 285-303.

10
 SURANA & SURANA AND NUSRL NATIONAL CRIMINAL LAW MOOT COURT COMPETITION

The accused has voluntarily waived his right to appeal by failing to appear before the court
when summoned by the Judicial Magistrate. Furthermore, the court issued two subsequent
warrants, but the accused remained absconding. It is also respectfully submitted to this
honourable court that the court of session has applied its adjudication when declaring him as a
proclaimed offender and has duly followed the procedural requirement of section 84 of the
JNSS. After following all procedural laws, the trial and conviction of the accused stand
justified. Allowing this appeal would amount to a violation of statutory provisions under JNSS.
For an appeal to be maintainable, the accused must present himself before the court. Since he
has failed to do so, no appeal should lie before the High Court or Supreme Court. After the
requisite process has been followed by the Judicial Magistrate5, and the accused was declared
proclaimed offender, the appeal should not be entertained.
It is respectfully submitted to the hon’ble court that the accused was given ample opportunities
to defend himself and was aware that he was charged with the offence of rape. His failure to
appear in court constitutes the waiving off his right6, and he cannot now claim that his absence
was unintentional. Even after conviction is done by the court of session, he is not coming
himself to file the appeal but he is filing in behalf of his advocate.
It is respectfully submitted to the Hon’ble court that section 423 of the JNSS won’t be
applicable to the accused who has been declared proclaimed offender by the virtue of section
356(7) in that for the appeal the accused must be present in the court
Moreover, allowing the accused to file an appeal through his advocate, without his physical
presence, will be the violation of statutory provisions, that the legislature has intentionally
enacted this section for the purpose of speedy trial and justice to the victim and the guilty must
be punished. It is further submitted to the court allowing this appeal, will only amount to abuse
of the court and also burden on the court, that if high court also find guilty to the accused, he
will file appeal in Supreme Court through his advocate, and after number of years when
supreme court will also find guilty, the accused may never come to India to face punishment.
In Hussain v. Union of India7, the Supreme Court noted that trials were delayed due to the
absconding of accused persons and recommended amendments to the Cr.P.C to address such
delays. The introduction of JNSS seeks to expedite trials and ensure swift justice.
Therefore, my submission to court is that appeal should not be allowed.

5
Moot proposition .pg no. 5 para no. 25 line 1
6
Jatindham Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita Sec 356
7
Hussain v. Union of India, AIR 2017 SC 1362

11
 SURANA & SURANA AND NUSRL NATIONAL CRIMINAL LAW MOOT COURT COMPETITION

2) Whether the trial in absentia adhered to the provisions and principles of due process
It is humbly submitted that the Court of Session has strictly adhered to the provisions and
principles of due process. In the instant case, all the essential requirements under Section 356
of JNSS were fulfilled, and the conviction was in accordance with the law after following all
procedural requirements.
Earlier, before the enactment of the JNSS, Cr.P.C only allows in few cases that is to say section
299 and section 317 of Cr.P.C to proceed with the trial absence of accused. But the legislature
has brought this new section that
Section 356(1) of JNSS -(1) “Notwithstanding anything contained in this Sanhita or in any
other law for the time being in force, when a person declared as a proclaimed offender, whether
or not charged jointly, has absconded to evade trial and there is no immediate prospect of
arresting him, it shall be deemed to operate as a waiver of the right of such person to be present
and tried in person, and the Court shall, after recording reasons in writing, in the interest of
justice, proceed with the trial in the like manner and with like effect as if he was present, under
this Sanhita and pronounce the judgment”
The legislature has enacted this section, because in the past many accused flee the country after
committing the offence, and trial could not be initiated only the property could be seized.
Therefore, this section provides a relief that the process will not be halted waiting for the
Proclaimed offender to join the process. The victim and society need not wait for the justice.
There will be an imaginary presumption that the accused was present in the trial

2.1) Whether the trial in absentia violates the principle of natural justice

In Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India8, the Supreme Court interpreted "procedure established
by law" as equivalent to "due process of law."
It is respectfully submitted to the hon’ble court that the trial in absentia does not violate the
principle of natural justice. The law relating to trials in absentia is not applied arbitrarily; it
specifically applies only to the proclaimed offender those accused who have willfully
absconded after the court has ordered of summons and warrants. Moreover, the law regarding
trial ab sentia provision includes the principle of natural justice that there is safeguards to
ensure fairness, Even after conviction, the accused can file appeal and move to set aside the
conviction under Section 356(7) JNSS by presenting himself before the court. However, in this
case, the accused has chosen to have his advocate file an appeal on his behalf9, without
personally appearing. Such an action would undermine the justice system and invite misuse,
where accused persons of heinous crimes could abscond and frustrate the trial process, as has
been seen in the past.

12
 SURANA & SURANA AND NUSRL NATIONAL CRIMINAL LAW MOOT COURT COMPETITION

8
Maneka Gandhi vs Union Of India 1978 AIR 597
9
Moot Proposition Pg 5 Para 26 line 1

It is Respectfully submitted before to the hon’ble court that

Section 346 of JNSS (1) In every inquiry or trial the proceedings shall be continued from day-
to-day basis until all the witnesses in attendance have been examined, unless the Court finds
the adjournment of the same beyond the following day to be necessary for reasons to be
recorded: “Provided that when the inquiry or trial relates to an offence under section
64,section 65, section 66, section 67, section 68, section 70 or section 71 of the Bharatiya
Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 the inquiry or trial shall be completed within a period of two months from
the date of filing of the chargesheet” in the present case charge sheet was framed in the end of
December10 and because the accused was absconding, trial cannot be commenced unless the
court has declared him as an proclaimed offender and for that 90 days is required, that is to say
at the end of March, and court of session has convicted him in the April, that is to say they were
justified according to section 346 JNSS.
For a trial in absentia under JNSS to proceed, the following conditions must be satisfied:
Firstly, The accused must be declared a proclaimed offender.
Secondly, Two consecutive warrants must have been issued within a 30-day period.
Thirdly, The trial cannot commence until 90 days have elapsed from the date of framing the
charges.
Fourthly, The court must notify a relative or friend of the accused about the trial’s
commencement.
Fifthly, A notice must be published in a national or local newspaper circulating in the area of
the accused’s last known address, informing him that the trial will commence if he fails to
appear.
Lastly, The notice must be affixed conspicuously at the accused's last known residence and
displayed at the local police station.
Kader Khan vs State Of West Bengal11 The HC ordered that “The Trial Court is directed that
by next date if police is not able to apprehend the absconding accused, then in that case it would
be proper for the Court to split up the case of the petitioners for trial from the absconding
accused persons and to proceed with their trial strictly in terms of the provisions of section 309
Cr.P.C12." Provided that when the inquiry or trial relates to an offence under section 376,
section 376A, section 376AB, section 376B, section 376C or section 376D, section 376DA,
section 376DB of the Indian Penal Code, the inquiry or trial shall be completed within a period
of two months from the date of filing of the charge sheet.

10
Moot Proposition pg 4 para no. 24 line 1
11
Kader Khan vs State of West Bengal is 2022 SCC OnLine Cal 1038

13
 SURANA & SURANA AND NUSRL NATIONAL CRIMINAL LAW MOOT COURT COMPETITION

12
Criminal Law (Amendment) Act, 2018

In the present case, all these steps were duly followed. The police filed the chargesheet in the
end of December, summons and two consecutive warrants were issued, and the trial
commenced after the statutory 90-day period had passed. And after following the requisite
procedure of JNSS, court has declared him as an proclaimed offender Therefore, the trial in
absentia fully adhered to legal provisions. Considering the victim-centric approach, trials in
absentia allow for faster conclusions where the accused evades the law. Delaying justice solely
because the accused is not present constitutes justice denied, as famously expressed: "Justice
delayed is justice denied."

2.1) Whether there should be a de-novo trial due to the trial in absentia or conviction can
be done in this.
In the case Atma Ram vs The State of Rajasthan13, the supreme Court while deciding the
trial absentia, held that It is certainly in the societal interest that the guilty must be punished
and at the same time the procedural requirements which ensure fairness in trial must be adhered
to. But the legislature has now removed this procedural requirement for the trial absentia.

14
 SURANA & SURANA AND NUSRL NATIONAL CRIMINAL LAW MOOT COURT COMPETITION

13
Atma Ram vs The State Of Rajasthan AIR 2019 SUPREME COURT 1961

3) Whether the lower court’s application of substantive and procedural laws in the given
factual context was correct
It is humbly submitted that the lower court correctly applied both substantive and procedural
laws. Because substantive law is prospective in nature while procedural law is retrospective in
nature.
In Deepu & Ors. V/S State of U.P14., the Court held that if an FIR is registered on or after 1st
July 2024 for an offence committed before that date, the FIR would be registered under the
IPC, but the investigation would proceed under JNSS.
Section 358 JNS. Repeal and savings
(1) The Indian Penal Code is hereby repealed.
(2) Notwithstanding the repeal of the Code referred to in sub-section (1), it shall not affect,
(a) the previous operation of the Code so repealed or anything duly done or suffered thereunder;
or (b) any right, privilege, obligation or liability acquired, accrued or incurred under the Code
so repealed; or (c) any penalty, or punishment incurred in respect of any offences committed
against the Code so repealed; or (d) any investigation or remedy in respect of any such penalty,
or punishment; or (e) any proceeding, investigation or remedy in respect of any such penalty
or punishment as aforesaid, and any such proceeding or remedy may be instituted, continued
or enforced, and any such penalty may be imposed as if that Code had not been repealed.
(3) Notwithstanding such repeal, anything done or any action taken under the said Code shall
be deemed to have been done or taken under the corresponding provisions of this Sanhita.
(4) The mention of particular matters in sub-section (2) shall not be held to prejudice or affect
the general application of section 6 of the General ClausesAct,1897 with regard to the effect of
the repeal.
Section “531 JNSS. Repeal and savings.
(1) The Code of Criminal Procedure,1973 is hereby repealed.
(2) Notwithstanding such repeal—
(a) if, immediately before the date on which this Sanhita comes into force, there is any appeal,
application, trial, inquiry or investigation pending,then, such appeal, application, trial, inquiry
or investigation shall be disposed of, continued, held or made, as the case may be, in accordance
with the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, as in force immediately before
such commencement (hereinafter referred to as the said Code), as if this Sanhita had not come
into force.

14
Deepu & Ors. V. State of U.P 2024 AHC:126843-DB

15
 SURANA & SURANA AND NUSRL NATIONAL CRIMINAL LAW MOOT COURT COMPETITION

(b) all notifications published, proclamations issued, powers conferred, forms provided by
rules, local jurisdictions defined, sentences passed and orders, rules and appointments, not
being appointments as Special Magistrates, made under the said Code and which are in force
immediately before the commencement of this Sanhita, shall be deemed, respectively, to have
been published, issued, conferred, specified, defined, passed or made under the corresponding
provisions of this Sanhita;
(c) any sanction accorded or consent given under the said Code in pursuance of which no
proceeding was commenced under that Code, shall be deemed to have been accorded or given
under the corresponding provisions of this Sanhita and proceedings may be commenced under
this Sanhita in pursuance of such sanction or consent.
(3) Where the period specified for an application or other proceeding under the said Code had
expired on or before the commencement of this Sanhita, nothing in this Sanhita shall be
construed as enabling any such application to be made or proceeding to be commenced under
this Sanhita by reason only of the fact that a longer period therefore is specified by this Sanhita
or provisions are made in this Sanhita for the extension of time."
The issue of investigation procedure when an FIR is registered after the commencement of new
criminal laws for an offence committed before their enforcement is not addressed by Section
531(2)(a) of JNSS. To resolve this, Section 6 of the General Clauses Act, 1897, is relevant, as
it outlines the effect of repealing a Central Act or Regulation.
Section 6 of the General Clauses Act (GCA). Effect of repeal- Where this Act, or any Central
Act or Regulation made after the commencement of this Act, repeals any enactment hitherto
made or hereafter to be made, then, unless a different intention appears, the repeal shall not
(a) revive anything not in force or existing at the time at which the repeal takes effect; or
(b) affect the previous operation of any enactment so repealed or anything duly done or suffered
thereunder; or
(c) affect any right, privilege, obligation or liability acquired, accrued or incurred under any
enactment so repealed; or
(d) affect any penalty, forfeiture or punishment incurred in respect of any offence committed
against any enactment so repealed; or
(e) affect any investigation, legal proceeding or remedy in respect of any such right, privilege,
obligation, liability, penalty, forfeiture or punishment as aforesaid;
and any such investigation, legal proceeding or remedy may be instituted, continued or
enforced, any any such penalty, forfeiture or punishment may be imposed as if the repealing
Act or Regulation had not been passed."
It is Humbly submitted to the hon’ble court From the perusal of the above section, it is clear
that offence committed prior to the enforcement of jns, will be governed by the JPC. The sexual
intercourse was done in the December 2023, on the false promise of marriage by the appellant
16
 SURANA & SURANA AND NUSRL NATIONAL CRIMINAL LAW MOOT COURT COMPETITION

that is to say under misconception of fact that is not a consent. Means the offence will be
governed by the ipc not by the JNSS And f.i.r was registered on 29th August 2024 that means
after the JNSS came into existence and that is a procedural law which is retrospective in nature.
Means the procedural law will be governed by the JNSS. Therefore my submission to the court
is lower court application to substantive and procedural was justified.
114A. Presumption as to absence of consent in certain prosecution for rape. In a
prosecution for rape under clause (a), clause (b), clause (c), clause (d), clause (e), clause (f),
clause (g), clause (h), clause (i), clause (j), clause (k), clause (l), clause (m) or clause (n) of
sub-section (2) of section 376 of the Indian Penal Code, where sexual intercourse by the
accused is proved and the question is whether it was without the consent of the woman alleged
to have been raped and such woman states in her evidence before the court that she did not
consent, the court shall presume that she did not consent.
Now the burden of the proof is on the accused to prove there was a consent and therefore the
court of session was justified to convict the accused.

4) Whether any offence in the instant case has been committed, if so, under which law
It is humbly submitted that the offence of rape under Section 375 read with Section 90 of the
IPC has been committed in this case.
375 JPC. Rape
A man is said to commit "rape" if he—
(a) penetrates his penis, to any extent, into the vagina, mouth, urethra or anus of a woman
or makes her to do so with him or any other person; or
(b) inserts, to any extent, any object or a part of the body, not being the penis, into the
vagina, the urethra or anus of a woman or makes her to do so with him or any other
person; or
(c) manipulates any part of the body of a woman so as to cause penetration into the vagina,
urethra, anus or any part of body of such woman or makes her to do so with him or any
other person; or
(d) applies his mouth to the vagina, anus, urethra of a woman or makes her to do so with
him or any other person, under the circumstances falling under any of the following
seven descriptions:
(First.)— Against her will.

(Secondly.) — Without her consent.

90. Consent known to be given under fear or misconception-

A consent is not such a consent as it intended by any section of this Code, if the consent is
given by a person under fear of injury, or under a misconception of fact, and if the person doing

17
 SURANA & SURANA AND NUSRL NATIONAL CRIMINAL LAW MOOT COURT COMPETITION

the act knows, or has reason to believe, that the consent was given in consequence of such fear
or misconception;
In Deepak Gulati vs State of Haryana15, the SC held that intercourse under promise to marry
constitutes rape only if from initial stage accused had no intention to keep promise. An accused
can be convicted for rape only if the court reaches a conclusion that the intention of the accused
was mala fide, and that he had clandestine motives
Sheikh Arif v. State of Maharashtra16 “If it is established that from the inception, the consent
by the victim is a result of a false promise to marry, there will be no consent, and in such case
the offence of rape will be made out,
Yedla Srinivasa Rao vs State of A.P17, Pradeep Kumar Verma vs State of Bihar18, it was
held if consent given under misconception of fact to the extent that the accused is likely to
marry her, submits to the lust of the accused, such a fraudulent act cannot be said to be
consensual, so far as the offence of the accused is concerned.
It is humbly submitted to this hon’ble court, their were multiple time false promise of marriage
by the appellant that he will marry her, and only on that belief that the appellant would marry
her respondent has submitted her body to the lust of accused, it is also respectfully submitted
to the hon’ble court that their was no consensual relationship from the respondent, because
respondent has entered into the sexual relationship only on the sole ground that is by the
repetitive promise by the accused that he will marry her.
It is clear that Appellant never had the intention to marry Oliver. His actions show that from
the beginning, he restricted her from announcing their relationship publicly, which raises
serious doubts about his commitment. Appellant had repeatedly falsely promised marriage to
gain Oliver's trust, and based on this belief, she entered into a sexual relationship with him.
However, within five months, his behavior drastically changed he began avoiding her,
maintaining distance, and consistently deflecting any discussions about marriage. This pattern
of behavior makes it evident that Appellant’s sole intention was to engage in a sexual
relationship, not to marry Oliver. Even if we accept the contention of appellant that it was
because of professionalism that the relationship should not be announced in public and they
were both saving money for their marriage.

15
Deepak Gulati vs State of Haryana AIR 2013 SC 2071
16
Sheikh Arif v. State of Maharashtra LAWS(SC)-2024-1-64. SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
17
Yedla Srinivasa Rao vs State of A.P, 2006 (11) SCC 615
18
Pradeep Kumar Verma vs State of Bihar18, Air 2007 SC 3059

18
 SURANA & SURANA AND NUSRL NATIONAL CRIMINAL LAW MOOT COURT COMPETITION

Still, Appellant clearly did not intend to marry Oliver. He asked his parents to find a suitable
partner, indicating he was not committed to her. Additionally, on June 2, 2024, he withdrew
their wedding savings without informing Oliver, falsely claiming it was to cover startup losses
when the business was actually profitable. This all indicates prima facie that their was never
intention to marry the respondent, During their business trip to Nagaur on July 10, 2024, they
had multiple sexual encounters. This whole chain of events shows that their was never an
intention to marry the respondent, and objection taken such as he has been getting pressurized
by parents for marry, are stains and law footing in the eyes of laws. If he really wanted to marry
the respondent he would have communicated to his parents regarding the respondent.
5) Whether the repeated authorisation of police remand by the lower court till 14th
December was in accordance with the provisions of criminal procedure and the principles
enshrined under the Constitution of Jotunheim

It is humbly submitted that the authorisation of police remand was in full accordance with both
the criminal procedure and the Constitution.
Under Section 187(3) JNSS, the Magistrate has the authority to authorise detention beyond 15
days, up to a maximum of 90 days in heinous offences, such as rape.
Section 187(3) -The Magistrate may authorise the detention of the accused person, beyond the
period of fifteen days, if he is satisfied that adequate grounds exist for doing so, but no
Magistrate shall authorise the detention of the accused person in custody under this sub-section
for a total period exceeding
(i) ninety days, where the investigation relates to an offence punishable with death,
imprisonment for life or imprisonment for a term of ten years or more;
(ii) sixty days, where the investigation relates to any other offence, and, on the expiry of the
said period of ninety days, or sixty days, as the case may be, the accused person shall be
released on bail if he is prepared to and does furnish bail, and every person released on bail
under this sub-section shall be deemed to be so released under the provisions of Chapter XXXV
for the purposes of that Chapter.
Appellant was arrested on 16th September, and the Magistrate authorised his detention for 90
days, which is valid under Section 187 of JNSS. Prior to JNSS, police custody was limited to
15 days, with the remaining detention in judicial custody. However, JNSS has removed the
distinction between police and judicial custody, granting the Magistrate discretion to determine
custody type based on investigative needs.
The legislature removed the term "judicial custody" to make investigations easier for the police.
Once someone is in judicial custody, it can be hard to return them to police custody, which
limits the police's ability to gather important information. To properly investigate a case, the
police need direct access to the accused so they can ask questions and gather necessary details.
This change helps ensure that investigations are thorough and efficient.

19
 SURANA & SURANA AND NUSRL NATIONAL CRIMINAL LAW MOOT COURT COMPETITION

PRAYER

In light of the aforementioned arguments, it is most humbly prayed before this Hon’ble Court
that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to:

• Appeal should not be allowed.

• Conviction is justified and is according to statutory provision.
• The repeated authorization of police remand by lower court was according to law.

All of which is humbly submitted

Counsel for Respondent

_____________________________

20