Moot Problem 

The state of Meghwada in Tenjiku has long struggled with widespread corruption in public offices, particularly affecting it’s capital, Kalingapur. To address this persistent issue, the state government decided to create a specialized police force known as the Corruption Eradication Bureau (CEB). On February 2, 2012, a formal notification was issued to establish the CEB. The organizational structure of the CEB was carefully designed, with an Additional Director General of Police (ADGP) at the helm. Each of the state's thirty districts would be assigned a Deputy Superintendent of Police(DSP), who would be supported by two police inspectors and ten head constables or police constables. These officers were selected from the regular state police force, chosen for their experience. On February 06, 2012, the state government issued a notification granting police inspectors authority under Section 17(c) of the Corruption Eradication Act, 1988. Later, on February 15, 2012, the state government issued a final notification designating all DSP offices across districts as CEB police stations with territorial jurisdiction over their respective districts. Subir Arora, the father of the complainant Ritesh Arora, submitted an application to the Tahsildar of Hafeeznagar on August 30, 2012, requesting to have his name added to the revenue records. The Tahsildar endorsed the application the same day and forwarded it to the Mandal Revenue Inspector(MRI) of Hafeeznagar to conduct an enquiry and report. The MRI endorsed it to Mr. Rajendra Kumar, the Village Revenue Officer (VRO), Hafeeznagar [Accused Officer (AO) in this case] on September 01, 2012, instructing him to verify and submit a report.

              When Subir Arora and his son met with the MRI, they were informed that the application had been sent to the VRO for verification. The report was still pending with the VRO. As a result, Subir Arora and his son repeatedly contacted the VRO for the verification report. Although the VRO lacks authority to issue pattadar passbooks or mutate names in revenue records, their role is to enquire into mutation applications, verify them with revenuerecords, and report to the Mandal Revenue Inspector. The Mandal Revenue Inspector then submits this report to the Tahsildar for issuing pattadar passbooks after ordering the mutation. During these interactions, Rajendra Kumar demanded a bribe of Rs. 5,00,000 to process the application, later reducing the amount to Rs. 3,50,000 after negotiations, to complete the task of updating the revenue records in Subir Arora’s name. On September 06, 2012, the complainant met the Accused Officer (AO) and provided the original pattadar passbook, the title deed, his grandfather's death certificate, and photographs of his father, requesting that the pattadar passbook and title deed be issued in his father's name. The complainant was unwilling to pay the bribe of Rs. 3,50,000 demanded by the AO. Despite his reluctance, he pretended to agree to the bribe but subsequently reported the incident to the Deputy Superintendent of Police (DSP) of the Corruption Eradication Bureau (CEB) in Kalingapur on November 15, 2012, at 10:00 a.m., submitting a written complaint against the AO. After verifying the complaint's details, the DSP registered the case under Cr.No.15/RCT-CEB/KLN/2012 pursuant to Section 7 of the Corruption Eradication Act on November 16, 2012.

             The DSP then arranged a sting operation, involving two independent mediators. The complainant provided the Rs. 3,50,000 bribe amounts in cash, which was recorded, and the notes were treated with phenolphthalein powder. The authorities instructed the complainant to hand over the marked money to the accused. The following morning, the complainant handed over the demanded bribe to the accused. The accused took the money. As soon as the complainant left the scene, he signaled the authorities. The authorities promptly entered the premises and tested the accused's hands using a sodium carbonate solution, and his left-hand fingers showed signs of taint as they turned pink upon contact with the solution, indicating the presence of phenolphthalein. The prosecution presented seven witnesses (PW1 to PW7) and material objects (Mos.1 to 8). The defence marked Exhibit D1, a relevant portion of the statement of PW4 under Section 161 of the Tenjiku Criminal Procedural Law (T.Cr.P.L). After the prosecution's evidence was completed, the AO was examined under Section 313 T.Cr.P.L. on February 16, 2016, to address the incriminating material found against him, which he denied. The AO submitted a written statement and called the present Tahsildar of Hafeeznagar, B. Nilkamal, as DW1. Following detailed oral arguments and written submissions, the lower court found the AO guilty of offences under Sections 7 and 13(1)(b) read with Section 13(2) of the Corruption Eradication Act, 1988. Consequently, the AO was convicted under Section 248(2) T.Cr.P.L. for both counts. The AO has since appealed to the High Court, seeking to overturn the conviction and address the issues surrounding the case.

Issues : 

1.Whether the AO qualified as a public servant under Section 2(c) of the Corruption Eradication Act, 1988 at the relevant time of this case?

2.Whether the sanction for prosecuting the AO is valid?

3.Whether the prosecution has proven beyond a reasonable doubt that the AO committed an offence punishable under Section 7 of the Corruption Eradication Act, 1988?

4.Whether the prosecution has established beyond a reasonable doubt that the AO is guilty of the offence punishable under Section 13(1)(b) of the Corruption Eradication Act, 1988, and if so, whether the AO is liable to be punished under Section 13(2) of the CE Act?

NOTE:

Participants can make their own issues on the point of law. All Laws of Tenjiku are pari materia to the laws of India. Any Resemblance to any matter fictional or otherwise is purely coincidental and created for educational purposes.

ACCUSSED STATEMENT 

MATERIAL OBJECTS 

MOOT DEPOSITION