I

TABLE OF CONTENTS

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES……………………………………………II

INDEX OF ABBREVIATIONS.......................................................III

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION…………………………………..IV

STATEMENT OF FACTS……………………………………………V

STATEMENT OF ISSUES……………………………………………VI

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS………………………………………VII

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED……………………………………………IX

PRAYER OF RELIEF.........................….....................................XV

MEMORANDUM FOR PETITIONER

 II

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

BOOKS REFERRED
1. J N Pandey, Constitutional Law Of India, Central Law Agency, 2014, 51th Edition
2. Dr. R. K. Bangia, Law Of Torts, Allahabad Law Agency, 2018, 24th Edition
3. K.D. Gaur, Text Book On India Penal Code, Universal Law Publishing, 2016, 6th Edition

WEBSITE REFERRED

1. Https://rightsinfo.org/corporate-manslaughter-work/
2. https://www.nibusinessinfo.co.uk/content/what-corporate-manslaughter
3. https://www.thehindu.com/opinion/op-ed/article-142-and-the-need-for-
judicialrestraint/article18474919.ece
4. https://indiankanoon.org

CASES REFERRED

1. S. Nagraj Versus State Of Karnataka, (1993) Supp (4) Scc 595

2. Vishakha Versus State Of Rajasthan, (1997) 6 Scc 241
3. R. Versus Prentice, (1993) 3 WIR 937
4. Municipal Corp. Of Delhi Versus Subhagwati, Air (1996) Sc 1750
5. Kurban Hussain Mohhamadali Bangwalla Versus State Of Maharashtra, Air (1965) Sc 1616
6. Haynes Versus Harwood, (1935) 1 K.B. 146
7. Baker Versus T. E. Hopkins And Sons, (1956) 1 WIR 966

MEMORANDUM FOR PETITIONER

 III

INDEX OF ABBREVIATIONS

AIR ALL INDIA REPORTER

Anr. ANOTHER

Art. ARTICLE

IPC INDIAN PENAL CODE

CONSTI. CONSTITUTION

HON’BLE HONORABLE

ST. STATE

SC SUPREME COURT

SCC SUPREME COURT CASES

CORP. CORPORATION

LTD. LIMITED

CO. COMPANY

SUPP. SUPPLEMENTARY

MEMORANDUM FOR PETITIONER

 IV

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

The Hon’ble court of Vidishwa pradesh has the inherent jurisdiction to try, entertain and dispose of the present
case by virtue of article 136 of the constitution of Vidishwa pradesh.

Article 136 in The Constitution Of India 1949

136. Special leave to appeal by the Supreme Court

(1) Notwithstanding anything in this Chapter, the Vidishwa pradesh may, in its discretion, grant special leave
to appeal from any judgment, decree, determination, sentence or order in any cause or matter passed or made
by any court or tribunal in the territory of Vidishwa pradesh.

(2) Nothing in clause (1) shall apply to any judgment, determination, and sentence or order passed or made by
any court or tribunal constituted by or under any law relating to the Armed Forces.

MEMORANDUM FOR PETITIONER

 V

STATEMENT OF FACTS

1. Vidishwa Pradesh which is a country whose legal system is similar as Indian legal system. Jargon weaponries
was public listed well known company for making weapons. Company was also engaged in the project of
manufacturing drones for surveillances.

2. On May, 2015 Company decided to test the drone and scientist strictly advice to first test the drone in jungle or
desert area because the technology used to make that advanced drone was unstable. Company tested the 1st 3
hours in jungle then immediately Company ordered to use it in the nearby inhabited area.

3. When the drone was being used in the inhabited area due to overcharged cells of drone resulted explosion that
caused fire in a dwelling house and 7 year boy stuck inside the house. Her mother while returning from nearby
store saw house was burning and rushed to save her son but was stopped by people. She was shouting for help
then john spark who was passing nearby rushed to rescue the boy, army jawan also arrived but stopped himself
because there was not enough space to enter into the house.

4. John got afraid and came without completing the rescue of that 7 year old boy. Later army entered into the
house and took out the boy but it was too late and boy died. Doctor said that if boy would have saved earlier,
he would not have been died.

MEMORANDUM FOR PETITIONER

 VI

STATEMENT OF ISSUES

1. Whether the court of Vidishwa Pradesh can make the corporate manslaughter
law while exercising his power under article 999 of the constitution?

2. Whether the co. Jargon weaponries ltd. has killed the boy under law of
corporate manslaughter?

3. Whether John Spark can be held liable for negligence?

MEMORANDUM FOR PETITIONER

 VII

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS

1. Whether the court of Vidishwa Pradesh can make the corporate manslaughter law
while exercising his power under article 999 of the constitution?

Yes, the court of Vidishwa Pradesh can make the corporate manslaughter law while
exercising his power under article 999 of the constitution.

In the current case there is no exiting law as to govern corporate manslaughter hence,

in the absence of legislation and to achieve complete justice court can make law and for
exercising of power laid down in art.999 is necessary as it is stated in art.999 which lays down no
limitations regarding cases and circumstances in which the power is to be exercised and it is left
completely to highest court

Justice is a virtue which transcends all barriers neither the rules or procedures nor technicalities of
law can stands in its way and also stated that justice insures that the court can exercise its power
under this article to do complete justice

2. Whether the co. Jargon weaponries ltd. has killed the boy under law of corporate
manslaughter?

Yes, the co. Jargon weaponries ltd. has killed the boy under law of corporate manslaughter.

Corporate manslaughter is a criminal offence, being an act of homicide committed by

a company or organization. In general, a juristic person is in the same position as a natural person,
and may be convicted for committing many offences.

In this case it was strictly advised by the scientist working for jargon weaponries co. Ltd. to first
test the drone in the jungle or desert area as the technology used in making the advanced drone,

MEMORANDUM FOR PETITIONER

 VIII

was unstable. The drone was used for first 3 hours in jungle and then in the city. As at the time
when the drone was being tested in the city the cells in it got overcharged which resulted in its
explosion because it was being used in a very low altitude. So there is lack of reasonable care and
caution and hence amount to breach of duty. Also the company by its act of negligent use of
drone which resulted in death of child have criminal liability under section 285, 287 read with
304A of IPC,1860 which are Negligent conduct with respect to fire or combustible matter,
Negligent conduct with respect to machinery and Causing death by negligence respectively. And
thereby co. held liable.

3. Whether John Spark can be held liable for negligence?

Yes. John Spark can be held liable for negligence as he willingly placed himself in a
position where harm might result.

In this case john spark voluntarily and willingly came forward to rescue by knowing the amount
of danger and later withdraw from it. The life could have been saved if john spark would have
rescued the 7 yr. Child or asked army men to rescue him but His omission of not performing the
rescue part amount to deliberate negligence due to which child died.

It is clear from the fact of the case that with the knowledge of imminent danger he entered into
the house by neglecting the fact that only one person can enter after seeing which army men
stopped himself from entering into house who was competent to rescue the child. And thereby
committed the offence and held liable under section 304A read with section 36 of IPC, 1860
which states death by negligence and effect caused partly by act and partly by omission.

MEMORANDUM FOR PETITIONER

 IX

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED

1. Whether the court of Vidishwa Pradesh can make the corporate manslaughter
law while exercising his power under article 999 of the constitution?

Yes, the court of Vidishwa Pradesh can make the corporate manslaughter law
while exercising his power under article 999 of the constitution.

According to Art. 999 of Consti{read the article of 142 of Indian consti.} court of Vidishwa
pradesh have power to make the law whenever there is a vacuum and so in the interest of
justice.

Article 142 in The Constitution Of India 1949

142. Enforcement of decrees and orders of Supreme Court and unless as to discovery, etc

( 1 ) The Supreme Court in the exercise of its jurisdiction may pass such decree or make such
order as is necessary for doing complete justice in any cause or matter pending before it, and
any decree so passed or orders so made shall be enforceable throughout the territory of India
in such manner as may be prescribed by or under any law made by Parliament and, until
provision in that behalf is so made, in such manner as the President may by order prescribe

(2) Subject to the provisions of any law made in this behalf by Parliament, the Supreme Court
shall, as respects the whole of the territory of India, have all and every power to make any
order for the purpose of securing the attendance of any person, the discovery or production of
any documents, or the investigation or punishment of any contempt of itself

In the case of S. Nagraj versus st. Of Karnataka1 it has been observed that justice is a virtue
which transcends all barriers either the rules or procedures nor technicalities of law can stands

1
1993 supp(4) scc 595

MEMORANDUM FOR PETITIONER

 X

in its way and also stated that justice insures that the court can exercise its power under this
article to do complete justice

Also In the famous case of vishakha versus st. Of Rajasthan2 SC laid down some guidelines
while passing judgement in PIL filed by vishakha over the famous bhawani devi gang rape.
Hearing the appeal the apex court took note of the fact that the civil and penal laws of the time
did not adequately provide for specific protection of women for sexual harassment @
workplace and made it legally binding to employers to follow guide lines and ensures the
prevention of sexual harassment of women, which has been taken from the CEDAW
convention, which lead to the act called sexual harassment of women at workplace act, 2013

As established by the maxim Salus populi suprema lex esto " which means welfare of the
people should be the supreme law" and from the above mentioned cases it is clear that in the
absence of legislation and to achieve justice court can make law and hence exercising of
power laid down in art.999 is necessary as it is stated in art.999 which lays down no

Limitations regarding cases and circumstances in which the power is to be exercised and it is
left completely to the discretion of the highest court.

Also One of the imp. Instance of application by the sc of art. 142 was in the union carbide case
‘BHOPAL GAS TRAGEDY’ where court felt a need to deviate from existing law to bring
relief to 100s of persons affected by gas leak and awarded 470 million people of victims and
went to the extent of by saying that to do complete justice sc could even override the laws
made by the parliament by holding that prohibitions or limitations or provisions contend in
ordinary law can’t ipso facto act as prohibitions or limitations on the constitutional power
under 142 and by this statement the sc placed itself above the law made by parliament or the
legislature of the state.

2
(1997)6 SCC 241

MEMORANDUM FOR PETITIONER

 XI

2. Whether the co. Jargon weaponries ltd. has killed the boy under law of corporate
manslaughter?

Yes, the co. Jargon weaponries ltd. has killed the boy under law of corporate manslaughter.

Deaths can result as a direct result of corporate behaviour. The offence of corporate manslaughter
allows a corporation to be punished for conduct that leads to a person’s death. an organisation is
guilty of manslaughter, “if the way in which its activities are managed or organised causes a
person’s death.”

The company by its act of negligent use of drone which resulted in death of child committed
offence punishable under section 285, 287 read with 304A of IPC,1860 which are Negligent
conduct with respect to fire or combustible matter, Negligent conduct with respect to machinery
and Causing death by negligence respectively.

Section 285 in the Indian Penal Code

285. Negligent conduct with respect to fire or combustible matter.—Whoever does, with fire or
any combustible matter, any act so rashly or negligently as to endanger human life, or to be likely
to cause hurt or injury to any other person, or knowingly or negligently omits to take such order
with any fire or any combustible matter in his possession as is sufficient to guard against any
probable danger to human life from such fire or combustible matter, shall be punished with
imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to six months, or with fine which
may extend to one thousand rupees, or with both.

Section 287 in the Indian Penal Code

287. Negligent conduct with respect to machinery.—Whoever does, with any machinery, any act
so rashly or negligently as to endanger human life, or to be likely to cause hurt or injury to any
other person, or knowingly or negligently omits to take such order with any machinery in his
possession or under his care as is sufficient to guard against any probable danger to human life
from such machinery, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which
may extend to six months, or with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees, or with both.

MEMORANDUM FOR PETITIONER

 XII

In the given case jargon weaponries’ co. Ltd. it was strictly advised by the scientist to first test the
drone in the jungle or desert area due to technology used in making the advanced drone, was
unstable. The drones was used for first 3 hours in jungle and then in the city but only 3 hours of
testing it in jungle is not sufficient prove of drone to be perfect. As at the time when the drone was
being tested in the city the cells in it got overcharged which resulted in its explosion because it was
being used in a very low altitude, and thereby co. acted very negligently with respect to fire and
combustible matter as well as with machinery. So there is lack of reasonable care and caution and
hence amount to breach of duty which resulted fire and death of child.

In the case of R. Versus Prentice3 held that the breach of duty amount to gross negligence.

Also In case of Municipal Corp. Of Delhi Versus Subhagwati4 corporation would be held liable
for its omission to take care in matters.
As the essential element which establishes mens rea are acting purposely, acting knowingly and
acting recklessly or acting negligently, the co. is of guilty mind as with the knowledge of eminent
danger and the amount of harm it continued with the test of drone in city.

The company has its criminal liability under s. 304-A, Indian Penal Code, as according to this
section it is necessary that the death should have been the direct result of a rash and negligent act of
the accused, and that act must be the proximate and efficient cause without the intervention of
another's negligence. It must be the cause causans; it is not enough that it may have been the cause
sine qua non.

Section 304A in the Indian Penal Code

[304A. Causing death by negligence.—whoever causes the death of any person by doing any rash
or negligent act not amounting to culpable homicide, shall be punished with imprisonment of either
description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both.]

3
(1993) 3 WIR 937
4
AIR(1966) SC 1750

MEMORANDUM FOR PETITIONER

 XIII

SC held in case of Kurban Hussain Mohhamadali Bangwalla Versus State of Maharashtra5

that "Whoever knowingly or negligently omits to take such order with any fire or any combustible
matter in his possession as is sufficient to guard against any probable danger to human life from
such fire or combustible matter, shall be punished........"

A profound philosopher professor Goodhart stated that crime is any act which is punishable
by the state. Protection of the public welfare rather than the support of private interests –
Which is the dominant purpose of this branch of the law.

So, from the above facts and argument advanced it is clear that Jargon weaponries ltd. Was just not
negligent when it was operate its first test in the city but was grossly negligent. As gross negligent
amount to knowledge and as the result of their negligent act death of a child caused, the co. would
be held liable for corporate manslaughter.

3. Whether John Spark can be held liable for negligence?

Yes. John Spark can be held liable for negligence as he willingly placed himself in a position where
harm might result.

In case of Haynes versus Harwood6, it was stated that it depends on the fact of particular case
weather what is considered to be an intervening cause could have been foreseen by the defendant or
not if the defendant could foresee that his act is not remote.

.Volenti non fit iniuria is a famous Latin maxim which states that if someone willingly places
themselves in a position where harm might result, knowing that some degree of harm might result,
they are not able to bring a claim against the other party

As we know that life of a person is very important and it is a fundamental right provided under
article 21 of constitution. The life could have been saved if john spark would have rescued the 7 yr.
Child or asked army men to rescue him but he voluntarily and willingly came forward to rescue by
knowing the amount of danger and later withdraw from it. His omission of not performing the
rescue part amount to deliberate negligence due to which child died.

5
AIR 1965 SC 1616
6
(1935) 1 K.B. 146

MEMORANDUM FOR PETITIONER

 XIV

7
In anr. Case Baker versus T. E. Hopkins and sons it was stated that where the probable
consequence could have foreseen the maxim of volenti non fit injuria arise and thereby liability arise

John spark also liable under section 304A read with section 36 of IPC, 1860 which states death by
negligence and effect caused partly by act and partly by omission. As John spark if had completed the
rescue process or would have not opted for the same her child would have lived but as he didn’t do any
of them he is liable for negligence.

Section 304A in the Indian Penal Code

[304A. Causing death by negligence.—whoever causes the death of any person by doing any rash or
negligent act not amounting to culpable homicide, shall be punished with imprisonment of either
description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both.]

Section 36 in the Indian Penal Code

36. Effect caused partly by act and partly by omission.—Wherever the causing of a certain effect, or an
attempt to cause that effect, by an act or by an omission, is an offence, it is to be understood that the
causing of that effect partly by an act and partly by an omission is the same offence. Illustration A
intentionally causes Z’s death, partly by illegally omitting to give Z food, and partly by beating Z. A has
committed murder.

He created a situation because of which army men fails into peril because of that situation. With the
knowledge of imminent danger he entered into the house by neglecting the fact that only one person can
enter into that sphere, upon his act army men stopped himself from entering into house who was
competent to rescue the child. And thereby committed the offence and held liable.

7
(1956) 1 WIR 966

MEMORANDUM FOR PETITIONER

 XV

PRAYER

Wherefore in the light of the issues raised, arguments advanced and authorities cited, it is humbly
prayed that the Hon’ble court of Vidishwa Pradesh may pleased to adjudge and declare that:

1. Vidishwa pradesh can make law by using power given under art. 999 of the constitution of
Vidishwa pradesh.

2. Jargon weaponries has killed the boy under corporate manslaughter.

3. John spark would be held liable for negligence.

And pass any other order, direction or relief that this Hon’ble court may deem fit in the interests of
justice, equity and good conscience.

All of which is humbly prayed

Team code B

Counsels for the appellant

MEMORANDUM FOR PETITIONER

 TEAM CODE: B

BEFORE THE HON’BLE COURT OF VIDHISHWA PRADESH

IN THE MATTERS OF:

SHERINA JOWTSIK ….APELLENT

Vs.

JARGON WEAPONARIES LTD & ORS. ... RESPONDENT

APPEAL NOS. ___/2019

ON SUBMISSION TO THE HON’BLE COURT OF VIDHISHWA PRADESH

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANTS

COUNSEL APPEARING ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT