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