Dear Yogesh, I have tried a little bit to get understand the procedure of drafting written arguments. But, you should treat it in your prevailing law because the below mentioned pleadings is applicable in (Sindh) Pakistan.
IN THE COURT OF SESSIONS JUDGE/SPECIAL JUDGE C.N.S. SHAHEED BENAZIR ABAD
Sessions Case No. of 2009
State ……V/s…… Muhammad Azeem Kolachi
U/s 9(c) CNSO
P.S. Kazi Ahmed
The written arguments on behalf of accused is submitted as under :-
1. That the case of prosecution is totally depends upon malafide intention due to political victimization.
2. Infact, the applicant/accused Muhammad Azeem Kolachi is affiliated in politics with Dahri community who are against the ruling party, hence, at the political instance of ruling party applicant/accused was implicated in this case thricely, as prior to this the SHO of P.S. Sakrand lodged two FIRs bearing Crime No.108/2009, U/s 324, 353 PPC and Crime No.150/2009 U/s 365 PPC in which both FIRs applicant/accused was acquitted.
3. That when the political rivals seen the applicant roaming in territory on bail in above FIRs they managed the alleged false story through police and after foisting 1100 grams charas, present FIR was lodged in order to send him behind the bars for obtaining their illegal lust.
4. That malafidy from the part of prosecution can be judged from the fact that allegedly spy information was received to complainant during patrolling but despite of that he did not compel to pass such information to high officials or to associate any single private person to corroborate the version of complainant, which makes the case to be doubtful. Not only this, but after arrival of police at pointed place they apprehended the accused but could not arrange private mashir though the place of incident is populated area.
5. That the alleged recovered charas is foisted upon the accused at the instance of political rivals to applicant party.
6. That the quantity of alleged charas falls within the border line of section 9(c) CNSA in which the offence does not fall within prohibitory clause.
7. That the alleged recovered charas out of which 200 grams were sent to chemical examiner after lapse of (12) days, which delay also makes doubt in prudent mind and foisting of such substance can not be over ruled.
8. That neither the applicant/accused was selling the alleged charas at the time of his arrest nor any buyer was admittedly seen to buying charas from him, hence, it can not be said that the accused having charas was for the purpose of selling, which fact is not established during trial.
9. That the P.W’s of the incident are setup, interested and subordinates to complainant, therefore, their evidence can not be believed.
10. That neither applicant/accused has committed the alleged offence nor he is previous convict (per instruction) but the complainant has implicated him in this case falsely due to political enmity with ruling party in whose hands the police is playing.
11. That on the basis of aforesaid arguments, it can safely be said that the story of alleged incident is managed one which was cooked due to political rivalry, hence, on such account the false implication of accused can not be ruled out.
12. It is settled principle of law that for the purpose of safe administration of criminal justice, more than one infirmity is not required and even single infirmity creating doubt in prudent mind regarding the truthness of charge makes the whole case as doubtful, hence, the accused of above case may be acquitted in above case which based on contradictory evidence of prosecution.
Dt: .01.2012 Advocate for accused