Moot Respondent

2nd BENNETT NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2020
BEFORE THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
W.P. NO…………..OF 2019
UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA
IN THE MATTER OF
AINETIC CORPORATION & ANOTHER………………………………………….…(PETITIONER)
VERUS
MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIM TRIBUNAL………………………………………….. (RESPONDENT)
UNDER SECTION 482 OF CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973
IN THE MATTER OF
RAYMOND SKETCHER & OTHERS…………………………………………………. ( PETITIONER)
VERSUS
STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH……………………………………………………………( RESPONDENT)
(MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT)
MOST RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED BY THE COUNSEL
APPEARING MEMORIAL
ON BEHALFON OF THEOF
BEHALF RESPONDENT
RESPONDENT Page !1 of !18
TABLE OF CONTENTS
TITLE PAGE NO.
1. INDEX OF AUTHORITIES………………………………………………… 3
2. ABBREVIATIONS USED ………………………………………………… 4
3. STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION………………………………………… 5
4. STATEMENT OF FACTS………………………………………………… 7
5. STATEMENT OF ISSUES………………………………………………… 9
6. SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS…………………………………………… 10
7. DETAILED PLEADINGS………………………………………………… 11
8. PRAYER………………………………………………………………….. 18  
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF
INDEX OF AUTHORITIES
STATUES REFERRED
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW OF INDIA,1949
CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
SMART CITIES ( REGULATION OF PRODUCT LIABILITY) ACT, 2034
MOTOR VEHICLE ACT, 2019
BOOKS AND ARTICLES REFERRED
MP JAIN CONSTITUTIONAL LAW
R.V. KELKAR’S CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
WEBSITE REFERRED
www.manupatra.com
www.scconline.com
www.wikipidea.org
www.indiankanoon.com
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
@…………………………………………………………………………. At
s…………………………………………………………………………… Section
&……………………………………………………………………………And
v…………………………………………………………………………….Versus
Art…………………………………………………………………………..Article
Ors………………………………………………………..……………….. Others
Viz..............................................................………………..………………..Namely
Edn.............................................................………………..………………..Edition
No..............................................................………………..………………..Number
Cri..............................................................………………..………………..Criminal
Apt.............................................................………………..………………..Appropriate
u/s..............................................................………………..………………..Under Section
SC..............................................................………………..………………..Supreme Court
UOI............................................................………………..………………..Union of India
AIR.............................................................………………..………………..All India Reporter
IPC..............................................................………………..………………..Indian Penal Code
Dept............................................................………………..………………..Department
U.P..............................................................………………..………………..Uttar Pradesh
STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION
The Counsel is appearing before this Hon’ble Court responding to the petitions filed under
Article 226 of Constitution of India and Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
Article 226 in The Constitution Of India 1949

226. Power of High Courts to issue certain writs
(1) Notwithstanding anything in Article 32 every High Court shall have powers, throughout the
territories in relation to which it exercise jurisdiction, to issue to any person or authority,
including in appropriate cases, any Government, within those territories directions, orders or
writs, including writs in the nature of habeas corpus, mandamus, prohibitions, quo warranto and
certiorari, or any of them, for the enforcement of any of the rights conferred by Part III and for
any other purpose
(2) The power conferred by clause ( 1 ) to issue directions, orders or writs to any Government,
authority or person may also be exercised by any High Court exercising jurisdiction in relation to
the territories within which the cause of action, wholly or in part, arises for the exercise of such
power, notwithstanding that the seat of such Government or authority or the residence of such
person is not within those territories
(3) Where any party against whom an interim order, whether by way of injunction or stay or in
any other manner, is made on, or in any proceedings relating to, a petition under clause ( 1 ),
without
(a) furnishing to such party copies of such petition and all documents in support of the plea for
such interim order; and
(b) giving such party an opportunity of being heard, makes an application to the High Court for
the vacation of such order and furnishes a copy of such application to the party in whose favour
such order has been made or the counsel of such party, the High Court shall dispose of the
application within a period of two weeks from the date on which it is received or from the date
on which the copy of such application is so furnished, whichever is later, or where the High
Court is closed on the last day of that period, before the expiry of the next day afterwards on
which the High Court is open; and if the application is not so disposed of, the interim order shall,
on the expiry of that period, or, as the case may be, the expiry of the aid next day, stand vacated
(4) The power conferred on a High Court by this article shall not be in derogation of the power
conferred on the Supreme court by clause ( 2 ) of Article 32
Section 482 in The Code Of Criminal Procedure, 1973

482. Saving of inherent powers of High Court. Nothing in this Code shall be deemed to limit or
affect the inherent powers of the High Court to make such orders as may be necessary to give
effect to any order under this Code, or to prevent abuse of the process of any Court or otherwise
to secure the ends of justice.
STATEMENT OF FACTS
Safecargo trucks, true to their name, pride themselves on being zero-risk carriers and there has
never been a case of missing or damaged cargo in its entire history. A state-of-the-art
autonomous Safecargo articulated intermodal Truck manufactured by Ainetic Corporation,
Noida and operated by Smalogis Corporation, Mumbai, entered Greater Noida on 2nd July
2035 where the speed limit in the Smart City is 100 km per hour.
The truck had been programmed to privilege the safety of the freight in the truck in crisis
situations. The trailer at the rear fishtailed dangerously close to the right edge of the road. The
onboard artificial intelligence system acted fast to avert danger and instantly steered the truck
to the right to prevent the trailer from falling off the ledge. However, the nose of the truck
smashed into the school bus toppling it and a fraction of a second later the fishtailing trailer
slammed into the bus. Unfortunately, a cow, attached to a local smart temple, which was on a
morning stroll blissfully unaware of the smart environment was also fatally hit. The truck came
to standstill in a classic jack-knife wreck, but the trailer and cargo were intact.
Robotic cops arrived at the scene within minutes, gathered evidence of the accident, and
cleared the accident scene to enable free flow of traffic while ambulances rushed to the scene
and carried the injured to the nearest hospital with trauma-care facilities. The Robotic cops was
designed and developed by ArtIntel Corporation, which held several patents covering robotic
technology. A municipal van removed the carcass of the cow and smart traffic was restored
within half an hour of the incident. Out of 45 school students, 25 died and 20 suffered from
grievous injuries of whom 16 suffered total permanent disability. The bus driver escaped with
multiple fractures as he leaped away from his seat sensing the danger and was lucky to suffer
only loss of a lower limb assessed as partial permanent disability
A FIR was registered at the Greater Noida Smart City Police Station in Crime No. 1212 of
2035 by Paresh Rawat, a local plumber, who was an eye-witness to the accident. He described
how the driver had rashly and foolishly steered the truck to the right thereby hitting the school
bus. Investigation commenced and in due course, the Inspector of Police of the Greater Noida
Smart 4 | P a g e City Police Station lodged a final report before the competent court citing (i)
the CEO of Ainetic Corporation, Mr. Raymond Sketcher as A1 and the CEO of Smalogis
Corporation, Ms. Nafisa Fareed as A2 under section 302 IPC; (ii) the CEO of ArtIntel
Corporation, Mr. Lawrence Bosh, which designed and developed the software for Safecargo
Trucks as A3 and the Project Head of the team, Mr. Avinash Iyer in ArtIntel Corporation which
worked on the Safecargo Trucks project as A4, and the CEO of the Greater Noida Smart City,
Mr. Sumeet Gupta as A5 under section 304 IPC; and (iii) the driver of the truck, Mr. Gulshan
Singh as A6 and the Engineer, Ms. Talveen Meena as A7 under section 304A IPC.
On 10th November 2035 a joint petition was filed by parents and guardians of the dead and
injured children for compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act 1988 against Ainetic
Corporation, Smalogis Corporation and ArtIntel Corporation for compensation. On receiving
notice of the above petition, Ainetic and ArtIntel filed a writ petition in the Allahabad High
Court arguing that they do not operate motor vehicles and as such, the Motor Accident Claims
Tribunal has no jurisdiction over the claim against them and that no cause of action has been
made out in law against them for such a claim; and that claims, if any could only be filed
before the Commissioner under the Smart City (Regulation of Product Liability) Act.
On 3rd March 2036, A1 to A5 in the criminal proceedings filed petitions before the Allahabad
High Court under its inherent power under section 482 CrPC to prevent abuse of process of
court and secure the ends of justice praying for quashing of the criminal proceedings filed
against them inter alia on the ground that admittedly they were not directly involved in the
accident; that there could be no vicarious liability in criminal law; that the disclaimers in the
relevant contracts had not been taken note of; that the investigation officer has not
comprehended the nature and limitations of advanced technologies like artificial intelligence
and robotics; that the evidence gathered by robotic 7 | P a g e cops is unreliable and not
admissible in evidence; that the Smart City (Regulation of Product Liability) Act excluded the
jurisdiction of criminal courts as well; and lastly, even if the facts narrated in the chargesheet
and the material cited are assumed to be true, no criminal offences have been made out against
them, as alleged, and at best it makes out a case for tortious liability.
Both the Writ Petitions filed by and the Petition to quash criminal proceedings are posted
before the Allahabad High Court
STATEMENT OF ISSUES
Issue 1: Whether the writ petition challenging the jurisdiction of the Motor Accident
Claims Tribunal is maintainable in law?
Issue 2: Whether the petition filed under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
is maintainable in law? 
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS
The Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 is an Act of the Parliament of India which regulates all the aspects
of road transport vehicles. Any person who has suffered injury, permanent disability or death
caused by a motor accident, the victim or their next of kin is entitled to claim a compensation
from the Motor Accidents Claim Tribunal or MACT. A compensation is awarded to alleviate the
suffering of the victims or their family members. It is considered as an alternative for the loss of
income that the victims and their dependents have encountered as a direct result of the motor
accident. Such compensations take into account the total earning capability of a victim over his/
her lifetime. But the nature of the compensation is that of a receipt as a means to mitigate a
personal loss. The Smart Cities ( Regulation of Product Liability) Act, 2034 which is based on
National Smart Technology Confederation’s (NSTC) report of May 2030 to restrict product
liability is not attracted in the instant case. Therefore the petition is not maintainable.
is maintainable in law?
The code has obviously tried to make itself exhaustive and complete in every respect; and it has
generally succeeded in this attempt. However the Court have specific provision to exercise
limitless powers but it extends only upto certain cases. They have been vested in Section 482 of
CRPC, 1973. Section 482 Cr.P.C has a very wide scope and is an essential part of statue to meet
the end of justice where injustice can take place but at the same time the said Power is too wide
and hence, it is important for the courts to use it wisely and according to the guidelines laid down
by High Courts and Supreme Court time to time. And hence, the petition filed under Section 482
of CrPC, 1973 is not applicable in the instant case.
DETAILED ARGUMENTS
1. The Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 is an Act of the Parliament of India which regulates all the
aspects of road transport vehicles. This Act came into force from 1 July 1989. This act
replaced the previous motor vehicle act 1939 which earlier replaced the motor vehicle act
1914. Motor vehicles act created a new forum named motor accidents claims tribunals which
substituted civil courts in order to provide cheaper and speedier remedy to the victims of
accident of motor vehicles.
2. According to the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, any person who has suffered injury, permanent
disability or death caused by a motor accident, the victim or their next of kin is entitled to
claim a compensation from the Motor Accidents Claim Tribunal or MACT. In case of delays
in settling the claims, as often is the case, the tribunal also awards interest on the
compensation amount provided for the duration of the delay.
3. A compensation is awarded to alleviate the suffering of the victims or their family members.
It is considered as an alternative for the loss of income that the victims and their dependents
have encountered as a direct result of the motor accident. Such compensations take into
account the total earning capability of a victim over his/her lifetime. But the nature of the
compensation is that of a receipt as a means to mitigate a personal loss.
4. It was held in U.O.I. v. Bhagwati Prashad, 2002 SCC (Cri.) 694: JT 2002(3) (SC): AIR
2002 SC 1301, where there is involvement of the Motor Vehicle in the accident,
the MACT has the jurisdiction to decide the claim petition. The subsequent finding that it
was not the M.V. negligent but accident occurred due to some other reasons may be the
negligence of the train. The jurisdiction of the MACT is not to be ousted.
5. Traveling in the bus – Suit case fell on the leg due to the sudden brakes. Fracture of the leg.
It is accidental injury. (Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Arun Dutta, 3(2003) ACC 444
Gau.)
6. One cannot apply for compensation before both the agencies i.e. MACT and the W.C. Act
The choice of one is that of the petitioner. 2(1992) ACC 677, 686.
7. Accident- Murder is also an accident. (U.I.I. Co. Ltd. & Ors. v. Ummadi Shankunthala &
Ors. 1(2005) ACC 112 A.P)
8. In the case of National Ins. Co. Ltd. v. Shiv Dutt Sharma 1(2005) ACC 473 J&K. , bomb
blast in the bus- Insurer liable to pay the compensation to the claimants.
9. Death due to the collapse of the school building managed by the village education
committee constituted by the Govt. State is liable to pay the compensation. (Dharandhar
Panda & anr. V. State of Orissa & Ors. 1(2005) ACC 333 Orissa)
10. In Ashwani Gupta v. Govt. of India & Ors. 1(2005) ACC 361 Delhi, it was held by the
apex court Bomb blast in the procession. Govt.’s duty to maintain law and a order and hence.
The State is liable for granting the compensation.
11. The Procedures And Powers Of Claim Tribunals is vested in Section 169 of Motor Vehicle
Act, the verbatim of Section 169 is as follows:
(1) In holding any inquiry under section 168, the Claims Tribunal may, subject
to any rules that may be made in this behalf, follow such summary procedure as
it thinks fit.
(2) The Claims Tribunal shall have all the powers of a Civil Court for the
purpose of taking evidence on oath and of enforcing the attendance of witnesses
and of compelling the discovery and production of documents and material
objects and for such other purposes as may be prescribed; and the Claims
Tribunal shall be deemed to be a Civil Court for all the purposes of section 195
and Chapter XXVI of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974).
(3) Subject to any rules that may be made in this behalf, the Claims Tribunal
may, for the purpose of adjudicating upon any claim for compensation,
choose one or more persons possessing special knowledge of and matter relevant
to the inquiry to assist it in holding the inquiry.
12. In the Para 3 of the factsheet given, it is clearly mentioned that there was an accident
between the Truck and the Bus which attracts the provision of Motor Vehicle Act as both of
them comes under Section 2(47) of the Act, which states
“transport vehicle" means a public service vehicle, a goods carriage, an
educational institution bus or a private service vehicle;
13. The Smart Cities ( Regulation of Product Liability) Act, 2034 which is based on National
Smart Technology Confederation’s (NSTC) report of May 2030 to restrict product liability.
Product liability refers to a manufacturer or seller being held liable for placing
a defective product into the hands of a consumer. Responsibility for
a product defect that causes injury lies with all sellers of the product who are in
the distribution chain.
14. In the present case, there was no failure in the product as it can be clearly interpreted from
Para 3 of the given factsheet, that the truck in order to save the carriage autonomously took
towards the right end of the road, which establishes that the truck i.e. product in the instant
case was working decently. And Hence, it is case of Accident, which can be claimed before
Motor Accident Claims Tribunal.
15. In the light of above cases cited and arguments advanced, the counsel humbly submits that it
was clear case of accident and Smart Cities ( Regulation of Product Liability) Act, 2034
cannot be attracted in the case. Hence, the writ petition filed challenging the jurisdiction of
Motor Accident Claim Tribunal should be quashed immediately. 
is maintainable in law?
1. The code has obviously tried to make itself exhaustive and complete in every respect; and it
has generally succeeded in this attempt. However the Court have specific provision to
exercise limitless powers but it extends only upto certain cases. They have been vested in
Section 482 of CRPC, 1973.
2. The Verbatim of the words of Section 482 is as follows:
“Nothing in this Code shall be deemed to limit or affect the inherent powers of
the High Court to make such orders as may be necessary to give effect to any
order under this Code, or to prevent abuse of the process of any Court or
otherwise to secure the ends of justice.”
3. The powers of the High Court U/s 482 Cr.P.C are partly administrative and partly judicial.
The section was added by the Code of Criminal Procedure (Amendment) Act of 1923, as the
High Courts were unable to render complete justice even if in a given case the illegality was
palpable and apparent. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Karnataka v. Muniswami–
AIR 1977 SC 1489, held that the section envisages 3 circumstances in which the inherent
jurisdiction may be exercised, namely, "to give effect to an order under CrPC, to prevent
abuse of the process of the court, and to secure the ends of justice”.
4. Inherent powers u/s 482 of Cr.P.C. include powers to quash FIR, investigation or any
criminal proceedings pending before the High Court or any Courts subordinate to it and are
of wide magnitude and ramification. Such powers can be exercised to secure ends of justice,
prevent abuse of the process of any court and to make such orders as may be necessary to
give effect to any order under this Code, depending upon the facts of a given case. Court can
always take note of any miscarriage of justice and prevent the same by exercising its powers
u/s 482 of Cr.P.C. These powers are neither limited nor curtailed by any other provisions of
the Code. However, such inherent powers are to be exercised sparingly and with caution.
5. It is well settled that the inherent powers under section 482 can be exercised only when no
other remedy is available to the litigant and NOT where a specific remedy is provided by the
statute. If an effective alternative remedy is available, the High Court will not exercise its
powers under this section, especially when the applicant may not have availed of that
remedy.
6. Ordinarily, a High Court will not interfere at an interlocutory stage of criminal proceeding in
a subordinate court but HC is under an obligation to interfere if there is harassment of any
person (Indian citizen) by illegal prosecution. It would also do so when there are any
exceptional or extraordinary reasons for doing so.
7. The SC, in Madhu Limaye v. Maharashtra, has held that the following principles would
govern the exercise of inherent jurisdiction of the HC:
1. Power is not to be resorted to, if there is specific provision in code for redress of
grievances of aggrieved party.
2. It should be exercised sparingly to prevent abuse of process of any Court or
otherwise to secure ends of justice.
3. It should not be exercised against the express bar of the law engrafted in any other
provision of the code.
8. In the landmark case State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal (1992 Supp.(1) SCC 335), a two-
judge bench of the Supreme Court of India considered in detail, the provisions of section 482
and the power of the High Court to quash criminal proceedings or FIR. The Supreme Court
summarised the legal position by laying the following guidelines to be followed by High
Courts in exercise of their inherent powers to quash a criminal complaint:
1. Where the allegations made in the first information report or the complaint, even
if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie
constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused.
2. Where the allegations in the first information report and other materials, if any,
accompanying the FIR do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation
by police officers under Section 156(1) of the Code except under an order of a
Magistrate within the purview of Section 155(2) of the Code.
3. Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint and the evidence collected in
support of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case
against the accused.
4. Where the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a cognizable offence but
constitute only a non-cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer
without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under Section 155(2) of the Code.
5. Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently
improbable on the basis of which, no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion
that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused.
6. Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code
or the concerned Act (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution
and continuance of the proceedings and/or, where there is a specific provision in the
Code or the concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the
aggrieved party.
7. Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where
the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance
on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge.
9. Even though the inherent jurisdiction of the High Court under Section 482 is very wide, it
has to be exercised sparingly, carefully and with caution and only when such exercise is
justified by the tests specifically laid down in the section itself. It is to be exercised exdebito
justitiae to do real and substantial justice for the administration of which alone, courts exist.
This view has been taken by the Hon'ble SC in many of its judgments including the recent
Monica Kumar v. State of Uttar Pradesh. In a proceeding under section 482, the High
Court will not enter into any finding of facts, particularly when the matter has been
concluded by concurrent finding of facts of two courts below.
10. In R.P. Kapoor v. State of Punjab, Hon'ble Supreme court went on to limit the powers of
the Hon'ble High Court within the ambit of the Cr.P.C. It was held,
"Inherent power of the High Court cannot be invoked in regard to matters which are
directly covered by specific provisions in the Cr.P.C.”.
11. It is well settled that the inherent powers under section 482 can be exercised only when no
other remedy is available to the litigant and NOT where a specific remedy is provided by the
statute. If an effective alternative remedy is available, the High Court will not exercise its
powers under this section, specially when the applicant may not have availed of that remedy.
12. In the light of above cited authorities and arguments presented, the counsel would like to
submit that Section 482 Cr.P.C has a very wide scope and is an essential part of statue to
meet the end of justice where injustice can take place but at the same time the said Power is
too wide and hence, it is important for the courts to use it wisely and according to the
guidelines laid down by High Courts and Supreme Court time to time. And hence, the
petition filed under Section 482 of CrPC, 1973 is not applicable in the instant case. 
PRAYER
In the light of the facts stated, issues raised, arguments advanced and authorities cited, it is most
humbly prayed before this Honourable Court, that it may be graciously pleased to adjudge and
declare that –
1. Petition is not maintainable, hence no further proceedings can not be held.
AND/OR
And Pass any other Order, Direction, or Relief that it may deem fit in the Best Interests of
Justice, Fairness, Equity & Good Conscience.
For This Act of Kindness, the Appellant Shall Duty Bound Forever Pray
COUNSEL ON THE BEHALF OF DEFENDANTS

Moot Respondent

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Moot Respondent

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Moot Respondent

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

2nd BENNETT NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2020

2nd BENNETT NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2020

BEFORE THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD

W.P. NO…………..OF 2019

UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA

AINETIC CORPORATION & ANOTHER………………………………………….…(PETITIONER)

MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIM TRIBUNAL………………………………………….. (RESPONDENT)

UNDER SECTION 482 OF CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973

RAYMOND SKETCHER & OTHERS…………………………………………………. ( PETITIONER)

STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH……………………………………………………………( RESPONDENT)

(MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT)

MOST RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED BY THE COUNSEL

TITLE PAGE NO.

2. ABBREVIATIONS USED ………………………………………………… 4

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW OF INDIA,1949

CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE

SMART CITIES ( REGULATION OF PRODUCT LIABILITY) ACT, 2034

MOTOR VEHICLE ACT, 2019

BOOKS AND ARTICLES REFERRED

MP JAIN CONSTITUTIONAL LAW

R.V. KELKAR’S CRIMINAL PROCEDURE

Article 226 in The Constitution Of India 1949

Section 482 in The Code Of Criminal Procedure, 1973

1. Petition is not maintainable, hence no further proceedings can not be held.

COUNSEL ON THE BEHALF OF DEFENDANTS

You might also like

Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.