4 th AMITY INTERNATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2016 BEFORE THE HONOURABLE HIGH COURT OF GODAM In the matter of, Sections 107, 120A, 204, 302, 415 of the Godam Penal Code, 1860 Sections 7, 13 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 Sections 3 of Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 PETITION FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226, CONSTITUTION OF GODAM WRIT PETITION NO. ________/2014 Hank Jefferson & Liam Jackson v. International Federation of Cricket & Others ALONG WITH PETITION FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226, CONSTITUTION OF GODAM WRIT PETITION NO. ________/2014 Mandeva Kites v. International Federation of Cricket & Others ALONG WITH APPEAL FILED UNDER SECTION 374, CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE OF GODAM, 1973 CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. ________/ 2014 IN THE MATTER OF: Xerxese, B.C.CGo & Others v. Central Authority of Investigation BEFORE SUBMISSION TO THE HON’BLE JUDGES OF THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF GODAM MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE APPLICANTS AIM 036
26
Embed
BEFORE THE HONOURABLE HIGH COURT OF GODAM€¦ · · 2016-11-11BEFORE THE HONOURABLE HIGH COURT OF GODAM In the matter of, Sections 107, 120A, 204, ... U.S.L.W United States Law
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
4th
AMITY INTERNATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2016
BEFORE THE HONOURABLE HIGH COURT OF GODAM
In the matter of,
Sections 107, 120A, 204, 302, 415 of the Godam Penal Code, 1860
Sections 7, 13 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988
Sections 3 of Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002
PETITION FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226, CONSTITUTION OF GODAM
WRIT PETITION NO. ________/2014
Hank Jefferson & Liam Jackson v. International Federation of Cricket & Others
ALONG WITH
PETITION FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226, CONSTITUTION OF GODAM
WRIT PETITION NO. ________/2014
Mandeva Kites v. International Federation of Cricket & Others
ALONG WITH
APPEAL FILED UNDER SECTION 374, CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE OF GODAM, 1973
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. ________/ 2014
IN THE MATTER OF:
Xerxese, B.C.CGo & Others v. Central Authority of Investigation
BEFORE SUBMISSION TO
THE HON’BLE JUDGES OF
THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF GODAM
MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE APPLICANTS
AIM 036
4TH
AMITY INTERNATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2016 – (AIM 036)
MEMORIAL FILED ON BEHALF OF THE APPLICANTS ii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
TABLE OF CONTENTS ...................................................................................................................... II
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS ............................................................................................................ III
INDEX OF AUTHORITIES .............................................................................................................. IV
STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION ................................................................................................ VI
STATEMENT OF FACTS ............................................................................................................... VII
STATEMENT OF ISSUES ............................................................................................................. VIII
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS ....................................................................................................... IX
WRITTEN ARGUMENTS ................................................................................................................... 1
I.WHETHER THE APPLICANTS WERE RIGHTLY SUSPENDED ON THE CHARGES OF
MATCH FIXING AND SPOT FIXING ............................................................................................... 1
A. The principle of fair hearing was not followed before suspending the Applicants ................... 1
B. The Applicants are not guilty of match fixing and spot fixing ................................................... 2
B.1 Entrapment by the news channel ............................................................................................ 2
B.2 Newspaper Article by Altaf Aslam is an inadmissible evidence ............................................ 3
II.WHETHER APPELLANTS ARE LIABLE FOR MURDER OF PETER WOODFORD ................ 4
A. B.C.C.Go, as a legal entity, cannot be held liable for murder .................................................. 4
B. Xerxese and Sweat Equity Owners are not liable under the Alter Ego & Attribution Theory .. 5
C. There is no common intention between the parties ................................................................... 5
D. There are no merits to the conviction ........................................................................................ 6
D.1 There is no proven motive ...................................................................................................... 6
D.2 There is no Circumstantial Evidence ...................................................................................... 6
D.3 Reports suggested that it could not be murder ....................................................................... 6
III.WHETHER XERXESE AND B.C.CGO SHOULD BE ACQUITTED FOR CORRUPTION,
MATCH-FIXING AND SPOT FIXING ............................................................................................... 7
A. Appellants are not liable for action under Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 ....................... 7
B. Appellants are not liable under the Penal Code of Godam, 1860 ............................................. 8
C. B.C.CGo is not liable for money laundering ........................................................................... 10
D. Xerexese Morrenio cannot be held liable under the cricket regulations................................. 10
IV.WHETHER MANDEVA KITES WERE RIGHTLY RESTRICTED BY THE
INTERNATIONAL FEDERATION OF CRICKET .......................................................................... 11
A. The Principles of Natural Justice was not followed by IFC .................................................... 12
B. Applicant falls under the exclusive jurisdiction of B.C.C.Go and not IFC ............................. 13
C. Applicant took action against the corrupt players .................................................................. 14
D. Restriction amounts to restrain of trade to the rest of the team .............................................. 15
PRAYER ............................................................................................................................................... XI
4TH
AMITY INTERNATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2016 – (AIM 036)
MEMORIAL FILED ON BEHALF OF THE APPLICANTS iii
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
¶ Paragraph
SCC Supreme Court Cases
GPL Godam Premier League
IFC International Federation of Cricket
B.C.CGo Board of cricket control of Godam
AIR All Indian Reporter
CAS Court of Arbitration of Sports
KER Kerala
SCR Supreme Court Reporter
SC Supreme Court
EWHC England & Wales High Court
ILR Indian Law Reporter
SLT Scots Law Times
KAR Karnataka
CompCas Company Cases
ER English Reporter
KB King’s Bench
ICR Industrial Cases Reporter
N.Y.S New York State
N.W North Western
N.C North Carolina
ICC International Cricket Council
B.C.C.I Board of Cricket Council of India
IPL Indian Premier League
MAD Madras
Cal.Rptr California Reporter
QB Queens bench
U.S.L.W United States Law Week
S.W South Western Reporter
4TH
AMITY INTERNATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2016 – (AIM 036)
MEMORIAL FILED ON BEHALF OF THE APPLICANTS iv
INDEX OF AUTHORITIES
International Cases
Australian Securities Commission v. Multiple Sclerosis Society of Tasmania (1993) 10 ACSR 489
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 ........................................................................................................................ 7
Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 ............................................................................................... 7, 10, 11
Lexicons
Blacks' Law Dictionary (9th Edition)……………………………………………….…………………..7
4TH
AMITY INTERNATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2016 – (AIM 036)
MEMORIAL FILED ON BEHALF OF THE APPLICANTS vi
STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION
The Applicants Hank Jefferson, Liam Jackson and Mandeva Kites have approached the Hon’ble High
Court of Godam under Article 226 of the Constitution of Godam.
226. Power of High Courts to issue certain writs and appeal provisions under CRPC
(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)…
(3)…
(4)…
The Appellants Xerxese, B.C.CGo, Zia Kuriet, Kaifi Shaik and Gogo Morrenio have approached the
Hon’ble High Court of Godam under Section 374 of the Criminal Procedure Code of Godam, 1973.
374. Appeals from convictions:
(1)…
(2) Any person convicted on a trial held by a Sessions Judge or an Additional Sessions Judge or on a
trial held any other Court in which a sentence of imprisonment more than seven years has been against
him or against any other person convicted at the same trial may appeal to the High Court.
(3)…
4TH
AMITY INTERNATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2016 – (AIM 036)
MEMORIAL FILED ON BEHALF OF THE APPLICANTS vii
STATEMENT OF FACTS
I. BACKGROUND: GODAM PREMIER LEAGUE
Godam Premier League (GPL) is a form of cricket tournament launched in 2009 by Board of Cricket
Control of Godam (B.C.C.Go). In its 5th
edition, one team Kondra Ranges (KR) was found guilty of
match-fixing.
DESCRIPTION OF CONCERNED PARTIES
B.C.C.Go: B.C.C.Go is the body responsible for all the activities related to cricket in Godam.
Xerxese: Xerxese was the commissioner of GPL and the business development manager of B.C.CGo.
Mandeva Kites: MK had entered GPL in its 6th
edition. The major shareholders of KR were the sweat
equity shareholders of the new ‘ Mandeva Kites’ i.e Zia Kuriet, Kaifi Shaik and Gogo Morennio. Two
of its players Hank Jefferson and Liam Jackson, were found guilty of match fixing and spot fixing in
the 6th
edition of GPL.
II. PETER WOODFORD FOUND DEAD
When KR was dissolved after the 5th
edition, its coach Peter Woodford was found dead in his hotel
room with his belongings. He had made several calls before his death, including those to Zia Kuriet
and Xerxese.
III. ALLEGATIONS OF CORRUPTION IN 6TH
EDITION OF GPL
MK lost in the semi-finals in the 6th
edition of GPL. There were allegations of match fixing and spot
fixing made on MK and its two players, Liam Jackson and Hank Jefferson. Subsequently, players were
suspended by MK. Also MK was restricted by IFC to take part in any world event. These orders were
confirmed by the Anti-Corruption Unit Tribunal of International Federation of Cricket (IFC).
IV. EPILOUGE
Altaf Aslam filed a PIL in Supreme Court, which ordered B.C.CGo to look into the matter and to
submit detailed reports. Committee Reports were rejected by the Supreme Court and an order was
passed directing CIA Special court to look into the matter. CIA Court found Xerxese, B.C.C.Go and
three sweat equity owners as guilty of corruption, match fixing, spot fixing murder and other offences.
The parties went in appeal to the High Court of Godam.
The two suspended players and Mandeva Kites have also approached the High Court challenging the
orders imposed on them. The matters have been consolidated by the High Court of Godam.
4TH
AMITY INTERNATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2016 – (AIM 036)
MEMORIAL FILED ON BEHALF OF THE APPLICANTS viii
STATEMENT OF ISSUES
ISSUE I:
Hank Jefferson & Liam Jackson v. B.C.CGo & Others
WHETHER THE APPLICANTS WERE RIGHTLY SUSPENDED ON THE CHARGES OF
MATCH FIXING AND SPOT FIXING.
ISSUE II:
Xerxese, B.C.CGo and Others v. Central Agency of Investigation
WHETHER APPELLANTS CAN BE LIABLE FOR MURDER OF PETER WOODFORD.
ISSUE III:
Xerxese & B.C.CGo v. Central Authority of Investigation
WHETHER XERXESE AND B.C.CGO SHOULD BE ACQUITTED FOR CORRUPTION,
MATCH-FIXING AND SPOT FIXING.
ISSUE IV
Mandeva Kites v. International Federation of Cricket
WHETHER MANDEVA KITES WERE RIGHTLY RESTRICTED BY THE
INTERNATIONAL FEDERATION OF CRICKET.
4TH
AMITY INTERNATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2016 – (AIM 036)
MEMORIAL FILED ON BEHALF OF THE APPLICANTS ix
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS
ISSUE I:
Hank Jefferson & Liam Jackson v. B.C.CGo & Others
WHETHER THE APPLICANTS WERE RIGHTLY SUSPENDED ON THE CHARGES OF
MATCH FIXING AND SPOT FIXING.
It is humbly contended that the players were not rightly suspended as there was violation of the
principle of fair hearing. Also, the players were also not guilty of match fixing and spot fixing as they
were entrapped by a news agency by its fabricated sting operation. Additionally, the confession of an
offence, given to Altaf Aslam, is considered as an extrajudicial in nature and thus, inadmissible.
ISSUE II:
Xerxese, B.C.CGo and Others v. Central Agency of Investigation
WHETHER APPELLANTS CAN BE LIABLE FOR MURDER OF PETER WOODFORD.
It is humbly contended that the three sweat equity owners, Xerxese and B.C.CGo cannot be held
liable for the offence of murder of Peter Woodford on the grounds that B.C.C.Go, as a legal
entity, cannot be held liable for murder, Xerxese and sweat equity owners are not liable under the
alter ego & attribution theory, there was no common intention between the parties and that there
were no merits to the conviction, it is humbly submitted that the conviction order be set aside by
the Hon’ble High Court.
ISSUE III:
Xerxese & B.C.CGo v. Central Authority of Investigation
WHETHER XERXESE AND B.C.CGO SHOULD BE ACQUITTED FOR CORRUPTION,
MATCH-FIXING AND SPOT FIXING.
It is humbly contended that the applicants are not liable under Section 13(d)/13(2) and Section 7 of
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 as B.C.CGo and Xerxese as there exists no unerring circumstance
to prove that they have abused their position to show favour towards anyone. Applicants are also not
liable u/s 415, 107 and 120A of Godam Penal Code, 1860 as they did not at any circumstance deceive
4TH
AMITY INTERNATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2016 – (AIM 036)
MEMORIAL FILED ON BEHALF OF THE APPLICANTS x
the franchises or other stakeholders of GPL. The applicants have not disguised or gained any pecuniary
benefit and therefore can’t be held liable u/s 3 of Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002. There
was also no agreement to commit a crime nor was there any circumstances to establish a common
intention u/s 120A, therefore, since the applicants are not liable under any of the above provisions, the
offence of abetment cannot be upheld.
ISSUE IV
Mandeva Kites v. International Federation of Cricket
WHETHER MANDEVA KITES WERE RIGHTLY RESTRICTED BY THE
INTERNATIONAL FEDERATION OF CRICKET.
It is humbly contended that that the restriction imposed on Mandeva Kites by the International
Federation of Cricket was erroneous, because IFC violated the principles of Natural Justice. IFC does
not have jurisdiction over MK. Action was already taken by MK against the players who were found
guilty of match-fixing and spot fixing and that the restriction of the team amounts to restraint of trade.
4TH
AMITY INTERNATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2016 – AIM 36
MEMORIAL FILED ON BEHALF OF THE APPLICANTS 1
WRITTEN ARGUMENTS
ISSUE I
Hank Jefferson & Liam Jackson v. B.C.CGo & Others
WHETHER THE APPLICANTS WERE RIGHTLY SUSPENDED ON THE CHARGES OF
MATCH FIXING AND SPOT FIXING.
1. It is humbly contended before the Hon’ble High Court of Godam that the applicants were wrongly
suspended from the Godam Premier League (herein after referred to as ‘GPL). The applicants were
expelled by the management of their team on the charges of match fixing and spot fixing and the
expulsion order was approved by B.C.CGo and IFC. The contention of wrongful suspension is two-
fold: firstly, the principle of fair hearing was not followed before suspending the Applicants [A]
and secondly, the Applicants were not guilty of match fixing and spot fixing [B].
A. The principle of fair hearing was not followed before suspending the Applicants
2. The principle of fair hearing (audi alteram partem) is a central principle of natural justice, which
requires that no person is condemned unheard.1 A person to be affected by an order has a right to be
heard in his own defence2 and to correct or contradict any relevant statement to his prejudice.
3 The
authorities after hearing the parties and considering their objections should pass a reasoned order.4
3. It is judicially recognized that courts can interfere with a sport organisation’s decision when the
principles of natural justice are not followed.5 Even though sports federations derive their powers from
the Code which regulates the relationship between the players and the federation, yet they are subjected
to control by courts.6 The tribunals within these federations are imposed with limitations of public
1 Grayson, 2000; Parpworth, 1996; Boyes 2000
2 Navarro v. Spanish-Australian Club of Canberra ACT Inc (1987) 87 FLR 390; Australian Securities Commission v.
Multiple Sclerosis Society of Tasmania (1993) 10 ACSR 489 at 515. 3 Ceylon University v. Fernando (1960) 1 WLR 223, 232; PC Local Govt. Board v. Arlidge (1915) AC 120
4 Punjab SEB v. Ashwini Kumar (1997) 5 SCC 120
5 Ajay Jadeja v. Union of India & Ors. 2002 (61) DRJ 639; St Johnston Football Club Ltd. v. Scottish Football Association
Ltd 1965 SLT 171; Navarro v. Spanish-Australian Club of Canberra ACT Inc (1987) 87 FLR 390; Ambalal Sarabhai v.
Phiroz H. Antia AIR 1939 Bom 35 6Lord Denning, M.R. in Breen v. Amalgamated Engineering Union and others [1971] 1 All E. R. 1148 (C.A.)
4TH
AMITY INTERNATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2016 – AIM 36
MEMORIAL FILED ON BEHALF OF THE APPLICANTS 2
policy, for instance, observance of the principles of natural justice.7 This is applicable even though
sports organizations are autonomous and have the authority to govern themselves and their members.8
4. It is mandatory for the suspending authority, whether it is B.C.CGo or IFC, to necessarily provide the
accused player with a reasonable opportunity to be heard on the charges imposed on him, show cause
and accordingly produce evidence during the course of enquiry.9 Thus, a player can only be suspended
after a fair hearing has been provided to him.10
5. In the present case, when the charges of match fixing and spot fixing arose against the Applicants, IFC
directed B.C.CGo to conduct preliminary enquiries and make appropriate enquiries, for which
B.C.CGo asked Mandeva Kites to show cause, but instead Mandeva Kites suspended the players.11
B.C.CGo did not follow the applicable procedures and accepted the order of suspension of Appellants
by MK, and IFC confirmed the suspension orders without conducting any inquiries or hearing the
accused.
6. The order of suspension by MK which was approved by B.C.C.Go and confirmed by IFC is therefore
in clear violation to the element of fair hearing under the principle of natural justice. On the basis of
this, it is contended that the order of suspension is subject to judicial review and should be set aside by
the Hon’ble Court.
B. The Applicants are not guilty of match fixing and spot fixing
7. It is contended that the Applicants are not guilty of match fixing and spot fixing as shown by news
agencies because, firstly, they were entrapped by the news channel [A.1]; secondly, the newspaper
article by Altaf Aslam is inadmissible evidence [A.2].
B.1 Entrapment by the news channel
8. It is a well-accepted principle that the media is not permitted to entice and try to actively induce an
individual into committing an offence which otherwise he is not likely to commit.12
The Courts
discourage such acts that implant in an innocent person's mind a disposition to commit a criminal act.13
7 Denning L.J. in Lee v. Showmen’s Guild of Great Britain [1952] 2 All E.R. 1175 (C.A.); Baird v. Wells [1890] 44 Ch. D.
661, p. 670. 8Hilary A. Findlay, “Rules of a Sport-Specific Arbitration Process as an Instrument of Policy Making” (2005)
Marquette Sports Law Review [Fall 2005], at 6 9 Articles 4.5 and 4.6, BCCI Anti-Corruption Code for Participants; Rule 2.2.3 and 6.3.8, Operational Rules for the 2013
Indian Premier League 10
Article 4.6.3, ICC Anti-Corruption Code 11
Refer to Para 12, page 6, Moot proposition. 12
Court on its own motion v. State 2008 (100) DRJ 144 (Delhi School teacher case) 13
Keith Jacobson v. United States 503 US 540(1992)
4TH
AMITY INTERNATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2016 – AIM 36
MEMORIAL FILED ON BEHALF OF THE APPLICANTS 3
9. The criminal jurisprudence differentiates between ‘the trap for the unwary innocent’ and ‘the trap for
the unwary criminal’14
and the operations concerning the former, where the crime is the ‘product of the
creative activity’ should be censored.15
While artifice is employed to catch those who are engaged in
criminal enterprises, it has to be established beyond reasonable doubt that the person had a
predisposition to commit the said criminal act prior to being approached by the enforcement agencies.16
10. In the present case, a news agency conducted a sting operation on the Applicants using a bookmaker,
named as Abu Zawahar, wherein they recorded their conversations, on the basis of which players were
held guilty by the news channel.17
11. It is contended that the news agency entrapped the Applicants by its fabricated sting operation, which
induced them into committing an act which they otherwise would not have attempted. The operation
implanted in the mind of innocent persons a disposition to commit an offence.
12. To hold the Applicants liable under the charges of match-fixing and spot-fixing, there is thus a need to
establish beyond reasonable doubt that they were going to commit the offence without being
approached by the news agency. As no such proof has been made, it is submitted that the Applicants
were entrapped by the news agency and therefore, cannot be held guilty on the alleged charges.
B.2 Newspaper Article by Altaf Aslam is an inadmissible evidence
13. Newspaper is not a document by which an allegation of fact can be proved.
18 The presumption of
genuineness attached to a newspaper
report cannot be treated as proved of the facts reported therein.
19
A statement of fact contained in a newspaper
is merely hearsay and therefore inadmissible
in evidence
in the absence of the maker of the statement appearing in court and deposing to have
perceived the fact reported.20
14. A confessional statement cannot be acted upon when it is not put by accused in his examination-in-
chief.21
Moreover, where there is any extrajudicial confession, it must be corroborated with
circumstantial evidence.22
14
Chief Justice Warren in Sherman v. United States 356 US 359 (1958) 15
Sorrell v. United States 287 US 435 (1932) 16
Keith Jacobson v. United States 503 US 540 (1992) 17
Refer to Paragraph 12, Page 5, Moot Proposition
18 Sunil Ramdas Kotkar And Ors. v. State Of Maharashtra And Ors., 2005 (4) BomCR 117
19 State Of Haryana And Others vs Ch. Bhajan Lal And Another, AIR 1993 SC 1348
20 Sunil Ramdas Kotkar And Ors. v. State Of Maharashtra And Ors., 2005 (4) BomCR 117 21
Priya Bal Ghosh v. Suresh Chandra Ghosh AIR 1971 SC 1153 22
Pakkirisamy v. State of T.N. (1997) 8 SCC 158; Podyami Sukada v. State of Madhya Pradesh (Now Chhattisgarh) AIR
2010 SC 2977
4TH
AMITY INTERNATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2016 – AIM 36
MEMORIAL FILED ON BEHALF OF THE APPLICANTS 4
15. In the present case, Altaf Aslam wrote a newspaper article stating the Applicants confessed to him
towards admitting the offence of match fixing and spot fixing and further extending the liability to
other cricket officials and the B.C.CGo.
16. It is contended that any confession of an offence, such as the one to the Altaf Aslam, is considered as
an extrajudicial confession. The Applicants cannot be convicted on the basis of such a confession,
unless such a confession is also made during the examination-in-chief or there is corroborative
circumstantial evidence to prove the same.
17. It is humbly submitted that the suspension order of the Applicants should be quashed as they were not
given a fair hearing by B.C.CGo and IFC, and evidence procured through entrapment and extrajudicial
statements are not admissible as evidence against the Applicants for the offences of match fixing and
spot fixing.
ISSUE II
Xerxese, B.C.CGo and Others v. Central Agency of Investigation
WHETHER APPELLANTS ARE LIABLE FOR MURDER OF PETER WOODFORD.
18. In the instant matter, the Central Authority of Investigation (CIA) Court convicted Xerxese, B.C.C.Go
and three sweat equity owners for the offence of murder of the Peter Woordford. The prima facie
evidence presented before the criminal court is insufficient and inconclusive evidence to show that the
Appellants can be made even accused for the aforementioned offence; and the appeal has been filed for
the setting aside the conviction order. The arguments of the Appellants are as follows:
A. B.C.C.Go, as a legal entity, cannot be held liable for murder
B. Xerxese and Sweat Equity Owners are not liable under the Alter Ego & Attribution Theory
C. There is no common intention between the parties
D. There are no merits to the case
A. B.C.C.Go, as a legal entity, cannot be held liable for murder
19. Murder is defined as the unlawful killing of a human being by another with malice aforethought, either
express or implied.23
There are some crimes, which in their nature cannot be committed by
corporations, such as murder, rape etc.,24
i.e. those punishable with mandatory imprisonment,25
unless
the charge is against a specific person within the entity.26
23
Black’s Law Dictionary, 4th edition, 1891; State v. Hutter, 18 N.W.2d 203, 206 24
Ratanlal & Dhirajlal, The Indian Penal Code 71 (31st ed. 2006)
4TH
AMITY INTERNATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2016 – AIM 36
MEMORIAL FILED ON BEHALF OF THE APPLICANTS 5
20. In the present case, B.C.CGo was charged with murder and was convicted for the same by the CAI.27
It
is contended that since the offence of murder was not against a particular person within the association,
the charge is not valid and hence the conviction is not proper.
B. Xerxese and Sweat Equity Owners are not liable under the Alter Ego & Attribution
Theory
21. The principles of attribution are generally invoked to ascertain the identity of individuals within a
company whose mental element will be attributed to that of the company for the purpose of foisting
criminal liability.28
The natural person or persons who had management and control in relation to the
act or omission in point could be regarded as its directing mind and will for that purpose.29
22. In the present case, Xerxese and three sweat equity owners were considered alter ego of GPL and KR
respectively. Assuming but not admitting that the murder accusations arose due to the corruption
charges on KR, it is contended that there was incorrect application of alter ego and attribution theory as
firstly, B.C.C.Go and not Xerxese were under direct control for the acts of GPL and secondly, KR’s
owner was Takishi and not the sweat equity owners of MK.
C. There is no common intention between the parties
23. The sharing of the common intention and not the individual acts of the persons constitute the crime.30
While determining the common intention, the incriminating facts should establish beyond reasonable
doubt the incompatibility with the innocence of the accused and incapability of explanation or any
other reasonable hypothesis.31
24. In the present case, B.C.C.Go is the governing body of cricket in Godam,32
where Xerxese was the
business developer manager.33
Xerxese appointed the deceased as the coach of KR to give a world
class exposure to the GPL team.34
Xerxese believed that GPL was fortunate to have Peter Woodford as
25
Standard Charted Bank v. Directorate of Enforcement (2005) 4 SCC 50 26
N.Y. Cent. & Hudson River R.R. v. United States, 212 U.S. 481, 494 (1909) 27
Refer to Para 28, Page 10, Moot Proposition
28 Len Sealy & Sarah Worthington, Cases and materials in Company Law, 8th
ed., Oxford University Press, 2007 page 152 29
El-Ajou v. Dollar Land Holdings Plc.; [1994] 2 All E.R 30
Lallan Rai and Others v. State of Bihar (2003) 1 SCC 268 31
Hukam Singh v. State of Rajasthan (1977) 2 SCC 99, Eradu v. State of Hyderabad AIR 1956 SC 316, Earabhadrappa v.
State of Karnataka (1983) 2 SCC 330, State of Uttar Pradesh v. Sukhbasi (1985) Suppl. SCC 79, Balwinder Singh v. State of
Punjab (1987) 1 SCC 1 32
Refer to Paragraph 2, Page 2, Moot Proposition 33
Refer to Paragraph 5, Page 3, Moot Proposition 34
Refer to Paragraph 11, Page 4, Moot Proposition
4TH
AMITY INTERNATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2016 – AIM 36
MEMORIAL FILED ON BEHALF OF THE APPLICANTS 6
the coach of a team in GPL.35
There is nothing that shows the common intention of the accused parties
to murder the deceased with such certainty to their guilt.
D. There are no merits to the conviction
25. It is contended that the present conviction is erroneous as it had been done without having any merits.
This is contended on the basis of three grounds:
D.1 There is no proven motive
26. Mens rea is one of basic requirements which leads to determine homicidal character of offence under
Section 302 GPC.36
In the present case, it is given that in a talk show, the deceased did not comment on
any question which projected his difference towards the organising committee of GPL.37
It is
contended that such incidents does not prove any motive to murder the victim.
D.2 There is no Circumstantial Evidence
27. In cases where motive is absent, the role of the accused in committing the offence should be fully
established and ocular motive should be clear and convincing.38
The chain of circumstantial evidence
should be clearly established to such an extent that an irresistible conclusion about the guilt of the
accused can be safely drawn.39
In the present case, the deceased had made phone calls to several people
on the day of his death including the Appellants.40
However, this is not a trustworthy evidence to
establish a chain of circumstances that could link the Appellants with the murder.
D.3 Reports suggested that it could not be murder
28. In a case concerning another cricket coach, Bob Woolmer, who died in a manner very similar to the
present case, the ICC had confirmed that he had died of natural causes and that his death was not
related to various on-going speculations such as murder, suicide or corruption.41
29. In the present case, the autopsy report states that the deceased could not have died due to strangulation
as his hiod bone was intact.42
After a detailed report, death by natural causes was the only plausible
conclusion.43
35
Refer to Paragraph 11, Page 5, Moot Proposition 36
Ravji alias Ram Chandra v. State of Rajasthan AIR 1996 SC 787; State of Orissa v. Wateka Mani 2009 (2) OLR 403 37
Refer to Paragraph 11, Page 5, Moot Proposition 38
Yunis v. State of Madhya Pradesh AIR 2003 SC 539; Thaman Kumar v. State of UT Chandigarh AIR 2003 SC 3975 39
Section 8 Evidence Act, 1872; Bhag Chand v. State of Rajasthan 2006 (18) CriCC 598; Gulab Chand v. State Of Madhya
Pradesh 1995 (3) SCR 27; Abdul Ghani v. State of Uttar Pradesh AIR 1973 SC 264 40
Refer to Paragraph 11, Page 5, Moot Proposition 41