1 ARMY INSTITUTE OF LAW, MOHALI CLASS MOOT 8TH SEMESTER IN THE COURT OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE FIRST CLASS, CHANDIGARH STATE (UT OF CHANDIGARH) ……….………………………………. PROSECUTION VS. DEEPAK KUMAR AND HIS WIFE …………………………………………….. ACCUSED Most Respectfully Submitted before this Hon’ble Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Chandigarh WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF THE PROSECUTION DRAWN AND FILED BY COUNSELS FOR THE PROSECUTION WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF PROSECUTION 2 TABLE OF CONTENTS INDEX OF AUTHORITIES ……………………………………………………………… 3-5 STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION STATEMENT OF FACTS ...……………………………………………………………. ISSUES RAISED ……………………………………………………………………………. 9 SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS ARGUMENTS ADVANCED …………………………………………………… 6 7-8 ….………………………………………………… 10-11 ………………………………………………………... 12-21 1. Whether the accused Mr. Deepak and his wife are liable to be convicted for the offence of Criminal Breach of Trust by clerk or servant? ...................................................... 12-14 1.1 That Mr. Deepak and his wife are servants of Mr. Satinder Singh and are covered under S. 408 IPC 1.2 That all the ingredients of S. 406 and 408 of IPC are fulfilled in the present case 2. Whether the accused had common intention and are liable convicted?..................................................................................................................... to be 15-17 2.1 That there was a prior meeting of minds 2.2 That the manner in which they acted shows they had a common intention 3. Whether the accused are liable to be convicted for the offence of Criminal Conspiracy?............................................................................................................... 18-20 3.1 That the manner in which both of them acted amounts to criminal conspiracy 3.2 That all the necessary ingredients of Section 120-A are fulfilled in the present case PRAYER……………………………………………………………………………….. WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF PROSECUTION 21 3 INDEX OF AUTHORITIES CASES CITED S. No. Name of the case Citation 1. Chander Parsa Singh Vs State AIR 2005 SC 149 2. Kalka Prasad Vs. State 1979 Cri. L.J. 1264 3. Kanta Lal Vs State Air 1974 SC 222 4. Bohinder Vs State 1996 SCC(Cri.) 165 5. Jagan Nath Vs State AIR 1977 SC 1132 6. Bhagwan Das Vs. State AIR 1979 SC 898 7. Rajiv Kumar v. State of U.P (2017) 8 SCC 791 8. Abhal Singh Vs State 2010 Cri.L.J. 370 9. Banwari Lal Vs State 1999 Cri. L.J. 1000 10. N. Shahu Vs State 1993 Cri. L.J. 1272 11. Duruguppa Vs State 1956 Cri. L.J. 630 12. Shushil Gupta Vs Joy Shankar AIR 1971 SC 1543 13. State of Maharashtra & Ors. v. Som Nath Thapa &Ors. (1996) 4 SCC 659 14. Jiwan Das Vs State of Haryana AIR 1999 SC 1301 15. Sardar Singh Vs State of Haryana (1977) 1 SCC 463 16. State of Gujarat Vs Jaswantlal Nathanlal AIR 1968 SC 700 17. Somnath Puri Vs State AIR 1972 SC 1490 18. Roshan Lal Vs State AIR 1983 SC 631 19. Laxmi Narayan Vs State AIR 1980 SC 439 20. M.V.S. Bany Vs State 1989 Cri. L.J. 667 21. Madhusudan Malhotra Vs Kishore Chandra Bhandari (1988) SCC (Cr) 854 22. JRD Tata Vs Payal Kumar (1999) CrLJ 447 (Del) WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF PROSECUTION 4 23. Mir Naqri Vs CBI (2009) 15 SCC 643 24. Labo Vs. State 1994 Cri. L.J. 1582 SC 25. Shambhu Singh Vs State 1994 Cri. L.J.1584 SC 26. Suresh Chander Bahri Vs. State 1994(2) Crimes 1027 27. Firozuddin Basheeruddin and others vs. State of Kerala 2001 SCC ( Crl) 1341 28. Mahboob Shah v. Emperor AIR 1945 PC 118 29. Tuka Ram vs. State AIR 1974 SC 514 30. Radha Krishan Vs State 1973 Cri. L.J. 481 31. Ram Tehal Vs State AIR 1972 SC 254 32. Anand Vs State AIR 1966 SC 148 BOOKS REFERRED S. NO. NAME 1. RATANLAL DHIRAJLAL, THE INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1860 2. D.R. K.D. GAUR, COMMENTARY ON THE INDIAN PENAL CODE, 2nd EDITION 3. P.S.A. PILLAI CRIMINAL LAW, 13TH EDITION STATUTES REFERRED 1. INDIAN PENAL CODE,1860 2. CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973 WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF PROSECUTION 5 TABLE OF ABBREVIATIONS AND SYMBOLS A.I.R. All India Reporter Anr. Another Crpc Code of Criminal Procedure IPC Indian Penal Code CrLJ Criminal Law Journal Hon’ble Honorbale No. Number Ors. Others P&H Punjab and Haryana All Allahabad SCC Supreme Court Cases r/w Read with Sec. Section U/s Under section Vol. volume Vs. versus SC Supreme Court Etc. etcetera & And FIR First Information Report Ltd. Limited WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF PROSECUTION 6 STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION The counsel for the State (UT, Chandigarh) is approaching this Honorable court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Chandigarh under Section 1771 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The present memorandum sets forth the facts, contentions and arguments. 1 177. Ordinary place of inquiry and trial—Every offence shall ordinarily be inquired into and tried by a Court within whose local jurisdiction it was committed. WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF PROSECUTION 7 STATEMENT OF FACTS For the sake of brevity and convenience of the Hon`ble Court the facts of the present case are summarized as follows: 1. Satinder Singh, 85 year old lives in Chandigarh with his wife. His children are settled abroad and he has retired after serving in the Indian Navy and thereafter from the Merchant Navy. 2. Deepak Kumar was working in his house as a domestic helper for the past 10 years and was being paid an amount of Rs. 12,000-/- month for his services. Along with Deepak Kumar, his wife Rani and son Sunny were also living in the house of Satinder Singh, his master. Therefore, all of them had a very good relation. 3. In the month of November 2019, Satinder Singh’s son visited Chandigarh, he found that huge sums of money had been taken out from the account of Satinder Singh by various cheques and the account of Satinder Singh has a meagre amount of Rs. 6 Lacs left in his account. 4. On further scrutiny, it was found that a huge amount of Rs. 28 lacs was transferred in the accounts of his domestic helper and his family (including his son and wife) in the past three years. 5. Further, also an amount of Rs. 44 lacs was taken out as self-clearing cheques in the last five years. When Satinder Singh’s son enquired about the same from his father, he told him that he has not authorized any such transactions. 6. Further, Satinder Singh also told that he had no medical expenditures as all of his medical bills were covered under ECHS scheme. Apart from that, Satinder Singh also does not have any huge expenses at all 7. Furthermore, Mr. Satinder Singh also agreed to the fact that he used to ask his domestic helper Deepak Kumar to take out money from bank by giving him signed cheques 8. Satinder Singh made a complaint to the police and an FIR under Sections 406, 408 and 420 r/w Section 34 of the INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1860. WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF PROSECUTION 8 9. Deepak and his wife Rani are the accused, the helper gave an explanation that the said money was given to him by Satinder Singh himself as he was happy with his services as his children were settled abroad. \ WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF PROSECUTION 9 ISSUES RAISED 1. Whether the accused Mr. Deepak and his wife are liable to be convicted for the offence of Criminal Breach of Trust by clerk or servant? 2. Whether both the accused had a common intention and are liable to be punished? 3. Whether the accused Mr. Deepak and his wife are liable to be convicted for the offence of Criminal Conspiracy? WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF PROSECUTION 10 SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS 1. Whether Mr. Deepak and his wife are liable to be convicted for the offence of Criminal Breach of Trust by clerk or servant? The counsel humbly submits that both the accused Mr. Deepak and his wife are liable to be convicted under Section 406 and 408 of IPC, 1860 as the acts done by them fulfils all the essential ingredients of the relevant sections. Mr. Satinder Singh had shown trust in his helper, there was an entrustment by him, and he trusted his helper completely because he was working since long. On the other hand, Mr. Deepak and his wife broke his trust and did a criminal act that is an offence under the IPC, 1860. Both of the accused misused the amounts and converted those to their own use. 2. Whether both the accused had a common intention and are liable to be punished? The counsel humbly submits that both of the accused Mr. Deepak Kumar and his wife had a common intention to do this kind of illegal act of transferring of huge amounts of money from the accounts of Mr. Satinder Singh for their own use. They had their eyes set on his bank balance since the beginning because they knew that Mr. Satinder Singh won’t be able to do anything as he was helpless and can’t go and access passbooks and all other documents physically by going to the bank. Deepak’s wife helped him by boosting his morale and their conduct clearly shows that they shared a common intention of misappropriating Mr. Singh’s funds. Furthermore, she also gave her bank details to Deepak so that some amount can be transferred to her account too. 3. Whether the accused Mr. Deepak and his wife are liable to be convicted the offence of Criminal Conspiracy? The counsel humbly submits that both the accused conspired to transfer the funds of Mr. Satinder Singh to their accounts so that they can live a happy and prosperous life afterwards and can settle somewhere else. Their acts clearly shows that they were into an agreement WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF PROSECUTION 11 to deceive Mr. Singh as they clearly knew about him, his background and already knew that Mr. Singh is completely dependent on them for all work that is related to bank. So, they got confidence that even if they misappropriate the amounts, Mr. Singh won’t do anything nor his family members would do as all of them were settled abroad. Such a misappropriation of huge amounts of funds can’s be done by a single person, it must be his wife who supported him emotionally and gave confidence to him that boosted his morale to do such act. Also, she provided her bank account to be used by Mr. Deepak so that all transfers can be done smoothly without any iota of doubt in the mind of Mr. Singh. So, the acts of Mr. Deepak and his wife clearly pinpoints to a conspiracy between them. WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF PROSECUTION 12 ARGUMENTS ADVANCED 1. Whether Mr. Deepak and his wife are liable to be convicted for the offence of Criminal Breach of Trust by clerk or servant? It is humbly submitted that both the accused here are liable to be convicted for the offence of Criminal Breach of Trust by clerk or servant. It is an aggravated form of Criminal Breach of Trust, higher punishment is provided for this offence as servant follows a close relationship with the master Section 405 of the IPC, 1860 provides for criminal breach of trust. It states that ‘Whoever, being in any manner entrusted with property, or with any dominion over property, dishonestly misappropriates or converts to his own use that property, or dishonestly uses or disposes of that property in violation of any direction of law prescribing the mode in which such trust is to be discharged, or of any legal contract, express or implied, which he has made touching the discharge of such trust, or willfully suffers any other person so to do, commits criminal breach of trust.’2 Section 408 of IPC states that Criminal breach of trust by clerk or servant.—Whoever, being a clerk or servant or employed as a clerk or servant, and being in any manner entrusted in such capacity with property, or with any dominion over property, commits criminal breach of trust in respect of that property, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine. 1.1 That both the accused are servants of Mr. Satinder Singh S. 408 IPC applies in cases of criminal breach of trust by clerk or servant. Here, it is very vital to prove that the person who misappropriated the property was servant. In the case of Chander Parsa Singh vs. State3, it was held that the prosecution must prove that criminal breach of trust was done by servant with a dishonest intention. A servant acts under the direct control and supervision of the master and is bound to confirm to all reasonable orders given by him. 2 3 S.405 of IPC, 1860 AIR 1956 SC 149 WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF PROSECUTION 13 In the case of Banwari Lal vs Suraya Narayan4, it was held that For conviction under this section, the prosecution is required to prove that the accused was the clerk or servant and he was entrusted with the property in question or he was having dominion over the property and he committed criminal breach of trust as defined under Section 405 IPC. Deepak and his wife were hired by Satinder Singh for helping him and were paid monthly wages of Rs. 12,000 with accommodation. So, the relationship between them is that of a master and servant. There’s no dispute with regards to this fact, so they are covered by the provisions of Section 408 of IPC. In my further contention I will be proving that essential ingredients of Criminal Breach of Trust too are fulfilled in this case 1.2 That all the ingredients of S. 405 and 408 of IPC are fulfilled in the present case The essential ingredients of Section 405 of IPC are as followsa. The accused must be entrusted with property or with dominion over it b. The person so entrusted must use that property c. The accused must dishonestly use or dispose of that property or willfully suffer any other person to do so in violation of that trust So, the main ingredients can be summed up as followsa. There must be an entrustment of property by one to another b. That property must be dishonestly used 1.2.1 There was an entrustment by Mr. Satinder Singh to the helper In the case of Kalka Prasad Vs State5, it was held by the court that What is required under S.408 IPC is the actual entrustment of property and it is irrelevant to consider whether the property could have been legally entrusted or not. Where the accused was entrusted with money and he misappropriate it , he will be guilty regardless of the fact whether the amount could be legally entrusted to him or not. 4 5 1994 Cri.L.J. 370 1959 Cri. L.J. 1264 WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF PROSECUTION 14 Here, in this present case, Mr. Deepak and his wife were entrusted with the money and the cheques by Mr. Satinder Singh. Mr. Satinder because of his old age can’t perform such functions such as going to the bank and clearing cheques, etc. Due to his inability to perform such actions which involves going to the bank, standing in queue, filling up forms, etc., he hired Mr. Deepak as his domestic helper so that he could perform all of such functions which Mr. Satinder himself can’t perform due his old age. 1.2.2 Deepak and his wife misappropriated the amount Here, Mr. Deepak has clearly misused his position and taken undue advantage of the old age of Mr. Satinder Singh and has indulged in wrong act which constitutes an offence under the IPC. An ordinary man would never ever give huge amount of 50 lacs to a domestic helper just because his children are settled abroad and he is happy with the services of the helper. Just for the sake of argument, for a moment, let us assume that an ordinary man can give but the amount would not be huge, it can be limited such as 10,000. Why would a man give his wealth to a domestic helper, even if he is impressed by his services, then too an amount of above 50 lacs is too much. If such huge amount is transferred from the master’s account to the helper’s account, it clearly raises suspicion and there’s no doubt that it was done under duress or was not done by the owner, but was misappropriated by the helper. In the case of Kanta Lal Vs State6, it was held that Where the accused were incharge of the funds of the society, his instruction to the accountant to make a wrong cross entry in the ledge book may raise a inference of misppropriation Now, in this present case, Mr. Satinder Singh, a retired navy officer, who is 85 years old has hired Mr. Deepak Kumar for domestic help and has also given to him the responsibility of taking out money from the bank and transferring, etc So, it can be inferred from the arguments that an offence of Criminal Breach of Trust is clearly there and the fact that they were servants, provisions of Section 408 IPC would attract this case. 6 AIR 1974 SC 222 WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF PROSECUTION 15 2. Whether both the accused had a common intention and are liable to be punished? It is humbly submitted that both the accused had a common intention to misappropriate the amounts of Mr. Singh and to use them for improving their lifestyles and settle somewhere else with their child .By doing this, they would be able to secure a good and a prosperous future of their child and would no longer have to do this domestic help work. All thanks to Mr. Satinder Singh’s son that he enquired about the balance of bank accounts that Mr. Satinder Singh (a very old-aged man who wasn’t able to do his daily chores) had. Had he not enquired at the appropriate time, both Deepak and his wife would have fled away and would have made it impossible to catch them. 2.1 That there was a prior meeting of minds S.34 of IPC, 1860 deals with intention. It states that “When a criminal act is done by several persons in furtherance of the common intention of all, each of such persons shall be liable for that act in the same manner as if it were done by him alone." So, in a nutshell it means that when a crime is committed and is done by two or more persons in furtherance of common intention of all of them, each one of them shall be liable for that act in the same manner as if it were done by him alone. All of them will be charged with the same offence & would be presumed that he alone had done this act. In the case of Hare Krishna Vs State7, it was held that S.34 is not a substantive offence, rather it is added with other sections, for e.g. S.302 r/w 34 of IPC.8 Here, in this case, both the accused had the knowledge that they will misappropriate the funds of Mr. Satinder Singh and there was prior meeting of minds too. Also, they planned it excellently to 7 8 AIR 1988 SC 963 AIR 1988 SC 863 WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF PROSECUTION 16 ensure that there remains no doubt in the minds of Mr. Satinder Singh. Had Satinder’s son not enquired, they would have caused irreparable damage to Mr. Satinder Singh’s hard earned wealth that he wanted to invest on his children. In the case of Mahboob Shah v. Emperor9, it was held that Common intention implies a pre-arranged plan, prior meeting of minds, prior consultation in between all the persons constituting the group In the case of Anand Vs State10, it was held that Direct proof of common intention is difficult and it must be gathered from the act and conduct of the accused and other circumstances of the case 2.2 That the manner in which they acted shows they had a common intention In the case of Tuka Ram Vs. State11, it was held that A person supplying key from a distance and waiting at distance for receipt of booty in house breaking may be deemed to have participated. In this instant case, here Deepak’s wife act is also similar to providing key to the main doer of crime. Had she not provided her account details and boosted her husband’s confidence, Deepak would have never done such an act. Both had a common intention to misappropriate the funds of Mr. Satinder and utilize them for their own use. They acted malafidely with proper discussion and executed the plan accordingly. In the case of Radha Krishan vs. State197312, it was held that It is difficult to procure direct evidence of common intention. In most of the cases, it has to be inferred from the acts and conduct of the accused. 9 AIR 1945 PC 118 AIR 1966 SC 148 11 AIR 1974 SC 514 12 1973 Cri. L.J.481 10 WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF PROSECUTION 17 In this case, the manner and the degree of care which the accused practiced was so high and to remove any sort of doubt, they carried out this pre planned offence very cleverly and hence are liable to be punished. Their actions clearly shows their malafide intention to make Mr. Satinder Singh, an innocent person a pauper and enjoy their lives with his money by settling somewhere else. It is the duty of a helper to work according to the directions given by his master, but here they didn’t follow the directions and acted according to their own whims and fancies and misappropriated the amount to their advantage 3. Whether the accused Mr. Deepak and his wife are liable for the offence of Criminal Conspiracy? It is humbly submitted before this court that the acts of Mr. Deepak and his wife amounts to an offence of criminal conspiracy as defined under S. 120-A of IPC. 3.1 That all the necessary ingredients of Section 120-A are fulfilled Criminal conspiracy is defined under Section 120-A of IPC, 1860 as When two or more persons agree to do, or cause to be done,— an illegal act, or an act which is not illegal by illegal means, such an agreement is designated a criminal conspiracy: Provided that no agreement except an agreement to commit an offence shall amount to a criminal conspiracy unless some act besides the agreement is done by one or more parties to such agreement in pursuance thereof. Explanation.—it is immaterial whether the illegal act is the ultimate object of such agreement, or is merely incidental to that object.13 As mentioned earlier, the essential ingredients required for a criminal conspiracy areWhen two or more persons Agrees to do something illegal, or do something legal by illegal means, they are said to have commit criminal conspiracy 13 S. 120-A IPC,1860 WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF PROSECUTION 18 Here, in the instant case, the first ingredient being clearly available as there are two persons involved- Mr. Deepak and his wife. Coming down to the second ingredient, they must agree to do any illegal thing or legal thing by illegal means. Here, misappropriating the amounts is an illegal act as is prohibited by law. So, both of the accused have done an illegal act. Hence, second ingredient too is fulfilled and they are liable to be convicted for the offence. Apart from that, they have completed the offence In the case of Rajiv Kumar v. State of U.P14, it was held that The essential ingredients of the offence of criminal conspiracy are: an agreement between two or more persons; the agreement must relate to doing or causing to be done either (a) an illegal act; or (b) an act which is not illegal in itself but is done by illegal means. It is, therefore, plain that meeting of minds of two or more persons for doing or causing to be done an illegal act or an act by illegal means is sine qua non of criminal conspiracy. 3.2 That the manner in which they acted amounts to criminal conspiracy In the case of State of Maharashtra & Ors. v. Som Nath Thapa &Ors15, it was held that “for a person to conspire with another, he must have knowledge of what the co-conspirators were wanting to achieve and thereafter having the intent to further the illegal act takes recourse to a course of conduct to achieve the illegal end or facilitate its accomplishment.” Here Deepak has misappropriated the money from Mr. Satinder’s account. He has used his account as well as his wife’s account. Since the amount was too much, he in order to remove any sort of doubt, acted very cleverly by transferring the amounts to three different accounts including his individual account, wife’s individual account and joint account. 14 15 (2017) 8 SCC 791 (1996) 4 SCC 659 WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF PROSECUTION 19 Now, here his wife too had played an important role in making this transfer a successful one as without the active support from his wife, it would not have been possible for him to transfer such huge amounts with precision. A man when gets support from his wife, can easily execute any task, here also, Rani has lended him a helping hand by providing her account details along with all necessary support such as ensuring that Mr. Satinder Singh does not come to know anything about this transfer, she kept herself busy in daily chores activities of the house and made a good image in the mind of Mr. Satinder Singh. So, she impressed Mr. Satinder Singh with her work so that they can misappropriate the funds to their own use and welfare. Although, she has not herself gone to the bank and transferred the amounts but has supported her husband, this clearly amounts to conspiracy. It is really impossible for a man to do such a big illegal act without even discussing it with his spouse.16 Deepak used to stay with his wife, so there is high probability that he has told all this to his wife. And to execute such a huge plan of misappropriating around 70 lacs of rupees, a pre plan must have taken place in which he discussed with his wife. Here, in the instant case, the acts of Deepak and his wife clearly amounts to a conspiracy. There was a conspiracy between him and his wife to remove money from the accounts of Mr. Satinder Singh so that they can live a lavish life afterwards and can enjoy. It is clear from their behavior that they were into an agreement to remove money from the accounts of Mr. Satinder. To remove any iota of doubt, they did it very clearly by transferring the amounts in different installments in different accounts. Here, the account of Deepak’s wife too was used. Also, it is not necessary that there needs to be any sort of active involvement in the commission of an offence. Partly taking part in any offence to do anything which will lead to the commission of an offence also amounts to conspiracy. To constitute an offence of conspiracy, it’s not necessary to enter into any written agreement, it can be oral too.17 16 17 2010 Cri.L.J. 370 2010 Cri.L.J. 370 WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF PROSECUTION 20 In the case of Firozuddin Basheeruddin and others vs. State of Kerala18, it was held by the court that “The conspirators invariably deliberately, plan and act in secret over a period of time. It is not necessary that each one of them must have actively participated in the commission of the offence or was involved in it from start to finish. What is important is that they were involved in the conspiracy or in other words, there is a combination by agreement, which may be expression or implied or in part implied…” Hence, it can be concluded that the act done by the accused is serious in nature, was done by both of them acting jointly and are liable to be convicted for the offence of Criminal Conspiracy too. 18 2001 SCC (Crl) 1341 WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF PROSECUTION 21 PRAYER Wherefore, in light of the facts stated, issues raised, authorities cited & arguments advanced may this Hon`ble Court be pleased to adjudge & declare : That the accused are guilty for the offence of Criminal Breach of Trust by clerk or servant and Criminal Conspiracy Sentence them to undergo 7 years of imprisonment with fine Order Rs. 2 crore ( 65 lacs loss due to misappropriation & other loss due to mental agony& pain, litigation expenses) compensation to Mr. Satinder Singh AND Pass any other order that it may deem fit in the interest of justice, equity & good conscience. All of which is most humbly prayed. Sd-/- (Counsel for State) WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF PROSECUTION