Scribd
Upload
8 views

10th SLCUTAC_Clarifications

The document outlines clarifications for the 10th Trial Advocacy and Judgment Writing Competition at CHRIST (Deemed to be University). Key points include that memorial submission is not required, the researcher must act as all witnesses in preliminary rounds, and the judgment writing component does not affect advancement in the competition. Additionally, teams can submit compendiums but are prohibited from submitting additional evidence not included in the trial proposition.

Uploaded by

yimabe4709
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
8 views

10th SLCUTAC_Clarifications

The document outlines clarifications for the 10th Trial Advocacy and Judgment Writing Competition at CHRIST (Deemed to be University). Key points include that memorial submission is not required, the researcher must act as all witnesses in preliminary rounds, and the judgment writing component does not affect advancement in the competition. Additionally, teams can submit compendiums but are prohibited from submitting additional evidence not included in the trial proposition.

Uploaded by

yimabe4709
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 3

ADVANCED CRIMINAL LAW STUDIES COMMITTEE

SCHOOL OF LAW, CHRIST (DEEMED TO BE UNIVERSITY)

10th School of Law, CHRIST (Deemed to be University), Trial Advocacy and Judgment
Writing Competition, 2025 in association with Khaitan & Co

CLARIFICATIONS
1. Is the submission of a memorial necessary? If so, what is the deadline?
Ans. The competition does not require memorial submission.

2. Could you please provide us with a format for the witness list, the submission
deadline for which is 04.01.24 (basics like how many witnesses can we select? what is
the roll of the researcher as a witness etc.)
Ans. For the collection of witness lists a google form will be shared with all participants once
the final registration is closed. The teams can call as many witnesses they require for
backing their case. The time mentioned for chief and cross examination of the witnesses
is the total time for all witnesses and not for individual witnesses. The researcher shall be
the witness for the preliminary rounds where he/she is expected to play the role of the
different characters mentioned in the trial proposition. The team can decide how many
characters they want to call from their side to be chief examined. The cross examination
will only be done on the basis of characters called by the opposite team.

3. Are the statements of witnesses in the trial proposition, the statements given to the
police officers during the investigation stage? Are we supposed to consider these
statements to be on oath before a Magistrate, for the judgment writing competition?
Ans. Yes, the statements of witnesses are the ones given to the police officers during the
investigation stage. No assumption about them being made on oath should be made.

4. Is the researcher supposed to act as all the witnesses for the preliminary rounds or
just one of the witnesses? Would it be the team's choice as to which witness the
researcher may act as?
Ans. The researcher is supposed to act as all the witnesses the team wishes to present in the
preliminary rounds. It is up to the teams to decide on the witnesses to be enacted.

5. Is the judgement writing component of the competition compulsory to advance to


further stages in the Trial Advocacy?
Ans. Judgement writing competition is distinct from the Trial advocacy competition and does
not affect a team’s advancement to further rounds. However, the researcher from each team
is supposed to participate in the judgment writing competition.

6. In the FIR, Annexure 1, Rekha mentions 'Josyn D’silva, the director and Prateek
Johar'. Since Josyn's position is that of assistant director, here does 'the director'
refer to him (Josyn) or Sandeep Chaturvedi (the director)?
Ans. In Annexure 1, ‘the director’ is to be read as ‘the assistant director’ and it shall refer to
Josyn only.

7. The deposition of DW-5 mentions that certain capsules of size 3 were found in the
investigation. However, the property seizure memo (Annexure 6) does not mention
any such capsule. Is this a deliberate omission?
Ans. No Clarification needed.

8. Can the Assistant Commissioner of Police (ACP) be presented as a prosecution


witness, considering the ambiguity in the proposition and the rulebook on this
matter?
Ans. It is mandatory for the team representing Prosecution to examine the Assistant
Commissioner of Police (ACP) as a prosecution witness.

9. Regarding Prateek Johar’s arrest on 14.11.2024, there are discrepancies in the


recorded time 12:30 AM in Annexure No.4 and 11:30 AM in Annexure No. 5. Could
you clarify the correct timing?
Ans. No Clarification needed

10. The committal order dated 18.11.2024 is mentioned on page 10. However, we are
unable to locate the corresponding reference in the proposition and how it differs
from the one issued on 12.12.2024.
Ans. The Committal order referred to on page 10 is the committal order issued on 12.12.2024
on page 12. The teams are to ignore the mention of an order dated 18.11.2024.

11. Josyn and Prateek were sent to judicial custody until December 16th. However, the
Court of Sessions summoned them on January 10th. What was their status during
the period between December 16th and January 10th? Were they still in judicial
custody?
Ans. Josyn and Prateek are still in judicial custody.

12. The rulebook clearly states that no memo submission is required. However, are there
any documents that need to be submitted before or during the oral rounds, such as a
cause of action or cause of defence? Additionally, is submission of a compendium to
the judges allowed??
Ans. The teams are allowed to submit compendiums for reference. They should submit two
copies of the compendium (one for the other side and one for the bench) to the court officer
before the commencement of the proceeding. There is no mandate for any document to be
submitted before or during the oral rounds. However, the teams are at liberty to submit
documents to fulfil the procedural requirements. Further, the teams are prohibited from
submitting additional evidence, such as toxicology/FSL reports, Court Orders, Video
Annexures, Receipts, etc which are not part of the Trial Proposition.

NOTE
▪ Additional evidences will be posted on the Instagram page of the Committee as well as the
committee website, in phases. The teams are allowed to present those evidences before the
bench through the court masters. Check the Instagram handle @aclsc_slcu
Website: slcuaclsc.com
▪ It is mandatory for the prosecution to examine ACP Chulbul Pandey as a prosecution
witness.
▪ The researcher is to play the role of all the witnesses the team wishes to call on stand for
the preliminary rounds. It is mandatory to call a minimum of 3 witnesses from each side.
There is no upper limit on the number of witnesses to examine as long as it is within the
time limit specified. The teams participating in the quarter finals, semi finals and finals
will be provided with witnesses by the Committee, a while before the commencement of
the round.

You might also like