9TH JAMIA NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2022 JNMC31 R

9TH JAMIA NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2022

[ONLINE]

3rd – 5th June, 2022

IN THE HON’BLE SUPREME COURT OF KYMLICKA

[PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 32 AND 136 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF KYMLICKA, 1950]

TO BE HEARD THROUGH THE SUPREME COURT’S VIRTUAL PLATFORM

In the matter of

ANDY WHITE (PETITIONER)

V.

UNION OF KYMLICKA (RESPONDENT)

[WRIT PETITION (CRIMINAL) NO. 488 OF 2022]

Along - With

ANDY WHITE & ANR.

V.

NATIONAL CAPITAL TERRITORY OF NIMBUS

[SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CRIMINAL) NO. 198 OF 2020]

Written submissions on behalf of the Respondents

Counsels for the Respondents

MEMORANDUM FOR RESPONDENTS 1|Page

 9TH JAMIA NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2022
TABLE OF CONTENTS

S.NO. TABLE OF CONTENTS PG. NO.

1. LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS IV-VI

2. INDEX OF AUTHORITIES VII- XVII

3. STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION XVIII

4. STATEMENT OF FACTS XIX

5. ISSUES RAISED XX

6. SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS XXI-XXII

7. ARGUMENTS ADVANCED 1-20

(1). WHETHER THE CRIMINAL PROCEDURE (IDENTIFICATION) ACT, 1- 6

2022 CONSTITUTIONALLY VALID, AND WHETHER ANDY CAN BE
COMPELLED TO GIVE MEASUREMENTS AND BIOLOGICAL
SAMPLES TO THE JAIL AUTHORITIES?
1.1. THERE IS NO VIOLATION OF RIGHT TO PRIVACY.
1.1.1 Restriction on a right must be with a reasonable objective.
1.1.2 Rational connection between means and ends.
1.1.3 Absence of any less intrusive but equally effective and preferable
alternative.
1.1.4 No disproportionate impact on the right holder.
1.2. THE IMPUGNED ACT DO NOT VIOLATE ARTICLE 14 OF THE CONSTITUTION.
1.2.1 Identification Act satisfies the test of reasonable classification.
a. Principle of Intelligible Differentia
b. There is Rational Nexus between Classification and Objective Sought
1.3. IDENTIFICATION ACT HAS BEEN BROUGHT ABOUT TO GIVE EFFECT TO

DIRECTIVE PRINCIPLES OF STATE POLICY.

1.4. STATUS QUO OF SIMILAR STATUTORY PROVISIONS INTERNATIONALLY.

(2). WHETHER S. 50 OF PMLA, 2002 UNCONSTITUTIONAL? 6-9

2.1. OBJECTION ON THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF S.50 OF THE PMLA IS

MISLEADING.

2.1.1. Mere issuance of summons u/s 50 of PMLA does not infringe Art 20(3) as
PMLA is a stand-alone offence.

MEMORANDUM FOR RESPONDENTS I|Page

 9TH JAMIA NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2022
2.2. PMLA IS SPECIAL LEGISLATION THAT OVERRIDES GENERAL LEGISLATION.

2.3. SEVERITY OF THE OFFENCE DULY DEMANDS THE ISSUANCE OF SUMMONS.

2.3.1 S. 63 of PMLA is an essential component of the scheme of the Act.

2.4. ED OFFICERS ARE NOT POLICE OFFICERS THUS ADMISSIBILITY OF THE

STATEMENTS GIVEN DURING INVESTIGATION IN THE SPECIAL COURT IS

UNASSAILABLE.

2.4.1 ED has not been invested with all the powers exercisable by an officer-in
charge of police station.

(3). WHETHER THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN APPLYING THE 9-15

PROCEDURAL LAWS APPROPRIATELY?

3.1.ED IS NOT CONSIDERED AS ‘POLICE OFFICERS’ U/S MEANING 25 OF THE

INDIAN EVIDENCE ACT.

3.1.1 ED officers do not stand on the functional test.
3.2.INTERCEPTED CALLS IS ADMISSIBLE EVIDENCE & VOICE SAMPLES IS NOT

VIOLATION OF PRIVACY.

3.2.1 Right to privacy is not absolute right.

3.2.2 Interception is valid and there was emergent situation.
3.2.3 Doctrine of fruit of poisonous tree is not applicable in Union of Kymlicka
3.3.ELECTRONIC EVIDENCE CAN BE TREATED AS PRIMARY EVIDENCE
3.3.1 Electronic evidences are rightly acceptable evidence
3.4. RIGHT TO DEFENCE GIVEN PROPERLY TO ACCUSED DURING TRIAL
3.5. SHELLY CAN BE MADE CO- ACCUSED AS PRIMA FACIE EVIDENCE WAS

AVAILABLE AGAINST HER.

(4). WHETHER THE SPECIAL COURT ERRED IN CONVICTING ANDY 15-20

FOR THE OFFENCES U/3 13,16,17,18 OF UAPA; U/S 4 OF PMLA AND U/S
124A, 120B OF IPC; AND SHELLY U/S 4 OF PMLA AND U/S 120B OF IPC?
4.1.THAT THE OFFENCES UNDER THE UNLAWFUL ACTIVITIES (PREVENTION)
ACT, 1967 ARE ATTRACTED.
4.1.1. Essentials under section 13 (Punishment for unlawful activities) are
attracted in said case.
4.1.2. Essentials under Section 16 (Punishment for terrorist activities) of UAPA
are attracted in said case.

MEMORANDUM FOR RESPONDENTS II | P a g e

 9TH JAMIA NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2022
4.1.3. Essentials under Section 17 (Punishment for raising funds for the terrorist
act) of UAPA are attracted in said case.
4.1.4. Essentials under Section 18 (Punishment for conspiracy) of UAPA are
attracted in said case.
4.2. THAT THE OFFENCES UNDER SECTION 4 OF PMLA,2022 ALONG WITH S.
120B IPC,1860 ATTRACTED.
4.2.1. Steps of Money Laundering are deployed
4.2.2. The present case qualifies the requirement of mens rea as an ingredient u/s
4 of PMLA.
4.2.3. Andy and Shelly attract offence u/s 120 B of IPC.
4.3.That the offences under the Section 124A IPC, 1860 along with S. 120B
IPC,1860 are attracted.
4.3.1. Intention and Knowledge of the accused behind the words provoking the
minds of people.
4.3.2. The manner in which the words were addressed to the public.

8. PRAYER XXIII

MEMORANDUM FOR RESPONDENTS III | P a g e

 9TH JAMIA NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2022
TABLE OF ABBREVIATIONS

S. NO. ABBREVIATIONS EXPANSION

1. & And

2. §/S. Section

3. AIR All India Reporter

4. Anr. Another

5. AP Andhra Pradesh

6. Art. Article

7. Assn. Association

8. Bom. Bombay

9. Cl. Clause

10. Cl. Clause

11. Co. Company

12. Corp. Corporation

13. Cr.P.C. Code of Criminal Procedure

14. Cri. Criminal

15. Cri.L.J. Criminal Law Journal

16. Del. Delhi

17. DPSP Directive Principles of State Policy

18. Dr. Doctor

19. ED Enforcement Directorate

20. Ed. Edition

MEMORANDUM FOR RESPONDENTS IV | P a g e

 9TH JAMIA NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2022
21. Etc. Etcetera

22. FIR First Information Report

23. FR Fundamental Right

24. Govt. Government

25. HC High Court

26. Hon'ble Honourable

27. i.e., Id est (That is)

28. I.P.C. Indian Penal Code

29. Ltd. Limited

30. M.P. Madhya Pradesh

31. M/s Master

32. Mad. Madras

33. MhLJ Maharashtra Law Journal

34. Mohd. Mohammed

35. NCT National Capital Territory

36. NIA National Investigative Agency

37. No. Number

38. Ors. Others

39. Para Paragraph

40. Pat. Patna

41. Pun. Punjab

42. Pvt. Private

MEMORANDUM FOR RESPONDENTS V|Page

 9TH JAMIA NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2022
43. r/w Read with

44. Raj. Rajasthan

45. Re Reference

46. SC Supreme Court

47. SCC Supreme Court Cases

48. SCC (Cri) Supreme Court Cases (sCriminal)

49. SCR Supreme Court Reports

50. SLP Special Leave Petition

51. T.N. Tamil Nadu

52. U.O.I. Union of India

53. U.P. Uttar Pradesh

54. u/s Under Section

55. v. Versus

56. Vol. Volume

57. W.B. West Bengal

58. w.e.f. With Effect From

MEMORANDUM FOR RESPONDENTS VI | P a g e

 9TH JAMIA NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2022
INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

A. BOOKS

S. No. NAME OF THE BOOKS PAGE

No.

1. 1 BATUK LAL, COMMENTARY ON THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973 (5th 10

Ed. Orient Publishing Company 2017)

2. 1 D.D. BASU, CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE, 1973 (6th Ed. Lexis Nexis 2017) 14

3. 1 D.D. BASU, SHORTER CONSTITUTION OF INDIA (14TH Ed. Lexis Nexis 2014) 3

4. 1 MULLA, COMMENTARY ON THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973 (20th Ed. 14

Delhi Law House 2018)

5. 1 RATANLAL & DHIRAJLAL, THE INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1860 (27th Ed. Lexis Nexis 20
2013)

6. 2 C.D. FIELD, COMMENTARY ON LAW OF EVIDENCE (13TH Ed. Delhi Law House 10
2014)

7. CA RAJKUMAR S. ADUKIA ET AL., PREVENTION OF MONEY LAUNDERING ACT, 2002 18

(Bharat Law House Pvt. Ltd. 2014)

8. DR. M C MEHANATHAN, LAW ON PREVENTION OF MONEY LAUNDERING IN INDIA 8

(1ST Ed. Lexis Nexis 2014)

9. DR. SHAMSUDDIN, COMMENTARY ON THE PREVENTION OF MONEY LAUNDERING 9

ACT, 2022 (2ND Ed. Commercial Law Publishers (India) Pvt. Ltd. 2021)

10. K.D. GAUR, INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1860 (7th Ed. Lexis Nexis 2020) 19

11. M.P. JAIN, INDIAN CONSTITUTIONAL LAW (7TH Ed. Lexis Nexis 2016) 4

12. MADHAVI GORADIA DIVAN, FACETS OF MEDIA LAW 183 (2nd Ed. Eastern Book 11
Company 2013).

13. MAHENDRA PAL SINGH, V.N. SHUKLA’S CONSTITUTION OF INDIA (13th Ed. Lexis 3
Nexis 2019).

MEMORANDUM FOR RESPONDENTS VII | P a g e

 9TH JAMIA NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2022
14. R K NAROOLA & UDAYAN MUKERJI, THE LAW OF PREVENTION OF MONEY 8
LAUNDERING (Oak Bridge 2020)

15. RATANLAL AND DHIRAJLAL, THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE (21st Ed. Lexis 15
Nexis 2019)

16. S. ABDUL KHADER KUNJU, COMMENTARIES ON THE UNLAWFUL ACTIVITIES 15

(PREVENTION) ACT, 1967, 102 (2nd Ed. Asia Law House, 2021).

B. LEXICONS

S. NO. TITLE EDITION

11th ed.
1. CONCISE OXFORD ENGLISH DICTIONARY
2004

2. MERRIAM - WEBSTER’S ONLINE DICTIONARY -

C. LEGISLATIONS / CODES / STATUTES

S. No. LEGISLATION/ CODES/ STATUTES

1. Criminal Procedure (Identification) Act, 2022.
2. India Constitution, 1950
3. Indian Penal Code, 1860, No. 45 of 1860, 1860 (India).
4. The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, No. 2, Acts of Parliament, 1974 (India).

5. The Identification of Prisoners Act, 1920, No. 33 of 1920 (India).

6. The Indian Evidence Act, 1872, No. 1 of 1872 (India).
7. The Indian Telegraph Act, 1885, No. 13 of 1885, 1885 (India).

8. The National Investigation Agency Act, 2008, No. 34, Acts of Parliament, 2008.

9. The Police Act, 1861, No. 5 of 1861, 1861 (India).

10. The Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, No. 15, Acts of Parliament, 2003
(India).
11. The Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967, Acts of Parliament, 1967 (India).

MEMORANDUM FOR RESPONDENTS VIII | P a g e

 9TH JAMIA NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2022

D. LEGAL DATABASE

S. No. LEGAL DATABASE

1. www.scconline.com

2. www.lexisnexis.com

3. www.manupatra.com

4. www.heinonline.com

E. LIST OF CASES

S.NO. CASE NAME CITATION PAGE NO.

SUPREME COURT CASES

1. Air India Statutory Corp. v. United AIR 1997 SC 645 5

Labour Union
2. Anand Chitamani Dighe v. State of 2001 2 BMLR 612 11
Maharashtra

3. Ankul Chandra Pradhan v. Union of India (1997) 6 SCC 1 4

4. Anuradha Bhasin v. Union of India (2020) 3 SCC 637 12

5. Anvar P.V. v. P.K. Basheer (2014) 10 SCC 473 13, 14

6. Arjun Panditrao Khotkar v. Kailas (2020) 7 SCC 1 13, 14

Khusanrao Gorantyal

7. Aruna Ramchandra Shaunbag v. Union of (2011) 4 SCC 454 5

India
8. Aslam Mohammad Merchant v. (2008) 14 SCC 186 7
Competent Authority

9. B. Rama Raju v. Union of India 2011 SCC OnLine AP 11, 18

152
10. Balkishan A Devidayal v. State of AIR 1981 SC 379 10
Maharashtra

11. Balkishan v. State of Maharashtra AIR 1981 (SC) 379 9

12. Balkrishna v. State of WB AIR 1974 SC 120 10

13. Bihar Public Service Commission v. (2012) 13 SCC 61 1

Saiyed Hussain Abbas Rizwi
MEMORANDUM FOR RESPONDENTS IX | P a g e
 9TH JAMIA NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2022
14. Budhan Choudhary v. State of Bihar AIR 1955 SC 191 4,8

15. Chandra Bhavan Boarding and Lodging, AIR 1970 SC 2042 5

Bangalore v. State of Mysore

16. Charu Kishore Mehta v. State of WP No. 2961/2015 6

Maharashtra

17. Chhagan Chandrakant Bhujbal Vs. 2016 SCC Online 8

Union of India
Bom 9938

18. Delhi Development Authority v Joint (2008) 2 SCC ¶¶672- 4

Action Committee 692

19. Delhi Judicial Service Assn. v. State of AIR 1991 SC 2176 7

Gujarat

20. Delhi Police Non- Gazetted Karmachari MANU/SC/0068/1986 11

Sangh v. UOI

21. Devender Kumar Singla v. Baldev (2005) 9 SCC 15 13

Krishan Singla

22. Dilawar Singh v Parvinder Singh @ Iqbal 2005 (7) SCC 524 8
Singh

23. Directorate of Enforcement v. Deepak (1994) 3 SCC 440 10

Mahajan

24. Doypack Systems Private Limited v. 1988 2 SCC 299 8

Union of India

25. Esher Singh v. State of Andhra Pradesh 2004 (3) SC 391 15

26. Extra-Judicial Execution Victim Families (2016) 14 SCC 536 16

Assn. v. Union of India
27. Fatehgarh v. Dr. Ram Manohar Lohia AIR 1960 SC 633 20

28. Gobind v. State of Madhya Pradesh (1975) 2 SCC 148 1, 11

29. Golla Devavaram v. Karanam Balarama (2007) 15 SCC 665 14

Krishna Murthy
30. Harbansingh Sardar Lenasingh v. State of AIR 1972 SC 1224 10
Maharashtra

31. Illias v. Collector of Customs Madras AIR 1970 SC 1065 10

MEMORANDUM FOR RESPONDENTS X|Page

 9TH JAMIA NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2022
32. In Re Special Reference No 1 of 2012 (2012) 10 SCC 1. 4

33. Jagjit Singh v. State of Haryana (2006) 11 SCC 1 13

34. Joginder Singh v. State of Punjab (1979) 2 SCR 306 14

35. John Vallamattom v UOI 2003 AIR SC 2902 4

36. Justice KS Puttaswamy v. UOI AIR 2015 SC 3081 11

37. Justice KS Puttaswamy v. UOI (2017) 10 SCC 1 11

38. Kanhaiyala v. Union of India (2013) 16 SCC 31 10

39. Kartar Singh v. State of Punjab (1994) 3 SCC 569 1, 11

40. Kedar Nath Singh v. State of Bihar AIR 1962 SC 955. 19

41. Kedarnath Bajoria v. State of West Bengal AIR 1953 SC 404 4

42. Kehar Singh v. State (Delhi AIR 1988 SC 1883 17

Administration)
43. Keshavananda Bharti v. State of Kerala AIR 1973 SC 1461 5

44. KS Puttaswamy v. Union of India (2019) 1 SCC 267 1, 2, Passim

45. Kuldip Singh v. State of Punjab AIR 1997 SC 79 12

46. Lal Singh v. State of Gujarat AIR 2001 SC 746 16

47. M P v. Ramesh (2011) 4 SCC 786 14

48. M.P. Sharma v. Satish Chandra AIR 1954 SC 300 12

49. Madhu v. State of Karnataka (2014) 12 SCC 419 14

50. Mahrashtra State Board of Secondary AIR 1984 SC 1543: 8

Education v. Paritosh Bhupesh Kumar (1984) 4 SCC 27
Sheth
51. Malak Singh v. State of P&H (1981) 1 SCC 420 12

52. Mihir Alias Bhikari Chauhan Sahu v. 1992 Cri LJ 488 4

State

53. Mihir Alias Bhikari Chauhan Sahu v. 1992 Cri LJ 488 4

State

54. Mir Md. Asifa v. Mir Md. Ismail & others 2013 CrLJ 1646 14

55. Mohammad Usman Mohammad Hussain (1981) 2 SCC 443: 19

Maniyar v. State of Maharasthra 1981 SCC (Cri 477):
(1981) 3 SCR 68

MEMORANDUM FOR RESPONDENTS XI | P a g e

 9TH JAMIA NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2022
56. Mohd. Khalid v. State of West Bengal (2002) 7 SCC 334 18

57. N K Bajpai v. UOI AIR 2012 SC 1310 11

58. Nazir Khan v. State of Delhi AIR 2003 SC 4427 15, 16

59. Noor khan v. State of Rajasthan AIR 1964 SC 286 14

60. Noor Mohammad Mohd. Yusuf Momin v. AIR 1971 SC 885 17, 19
State of Maharashtra
61. P K Narayanan v. State of Kerala (1995) 1 SCC 142 17

62. P S Barkathail v. Director of Enforcement, AIR 1981 Ker. 81 at 10

New Delhi pp. 83-84

63. P. Gopalkrishnan v. State of Kerala (2020) 9 SCC 161 13

64. P. Hemlatha v. Govt of Andhra Pradesh (1976) 2 Andh. WR. 19

190 (FB)
65. P. Rustomji v. State of Maharastra AIR 1971 SC 1087 10

66. Papanasam Labour Union v. Madura (1995) SCC 1501 5

Coats Ltd.

67. Paschim Band Khet Mazdoor Society v. (1996) 4 SCC 37 5

State of West Bengal

68. Pathumma v. State of Kerala (1978) 2 SCC 1 5

69. People’s Union for Civil Liberties v. AIR 1997 SC 568 11

Union of India
70. Poorna Mal v. Director of Inspection of (1974) 1 SCC 345 12
Income Tax

71. Popatlal Shah v. The State of Madras AIR 1953 SC 274 8

72. Prithipal Singh v. State of Punjab (2012) 1 SCC 10 12

73. Queen Empress v. Jogendra Chunder Bose 19 ILR Cal. 35 19

74. R. M. Malkani v. State of Maharashtra AIR 1973 SC 157. 12

75. R.K. Dalmia v. Delhi Administration AIR 1962 SC 1821 6, 7, Passim

76. Raj Kishore Prasad v. State of Bihar AIR 1996 SC 1931 14, 15

77. Raj Kumar Singh v. State of Rajasthan AIR 2013 SC 3150 13

78. Ram Jethmalani v. Union of India 2011(10) SCALE 691 18

MEMORANDUM FOR RESPONDENTS XII | P a g e

 9TH JAMIA NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2022
79. Ram Narain Popli v. Central Bureau of AIR 2003 SC 2748 18
Investigation
80. Ram Singh v. Central Bureau of Narcotics (2011) 11 SCC 347 9, 10

81. Ram Singh v. Col. Ram Singh 1985 Supp SCC 611 12, 13

82. Ramesh Chandra v. State of WB AIR 1970 SC 940 10

83. Ramlila Maidan Incident v. Home (2012) 5 SCC 1 1

Secretary, Union of India

84. Ravinder Singh @ Kaku v. State of 2022 SCC OnLine SC 13, 14

Punjab 541

85. Ritesh Sinha v. State of UP AIR 2019 SC 3592 4

86. Rohatsh Kumar v. State of Haryana (2013) 14 SCC 434 14

87. Rohit Tandon v. Directorate of (2018) 11 SCC 46 11, 15

Enforcement

88. Romeshchandra Mehta v. State of West AIR 1970 (SC) 940 9, 10

Bengal

89. S. Gopal v. State of Karnataka 2007 CrLJ 484 at p. 14

485
90. Sakshi v. Union of India (2004) 5 SCC 518 13

91. Santokh Singh v. Delhi Administration AIR 1973 SC 1091 11

92. Sasi Thomas v. State (2006) 12 SCC 421 12

93. Shalika Abdul Gafar Khan v. Vasant (2003) 7 SCC 749 14

Raghunath Dhoble

94. Sharda v. Dharam Pal (2003) 4 SCC 493 1

95. Smt. J. Yashoda v. Smt. K. Shobha Rani (2007) 5 SCC 730 at 13

Para 7 and 9

96. State (NCT of Delhi) v. Navjot Sandhu (2005) 11 SCC 600 12

97. State of Bihar v. Bihar Distillery Ltd. JT 1996(10) SC 854 8

98. State of Bombay v. Balsara 1951 AIR 318, 1951 4

SCR 682 (708-09)

99. State of M.P. v. Paltan Mallah (2005) 3 SCC 169 12

MEMORANDUM FOR RESPONDENTS XIII | P a g e

 9TH JAMIA NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2022
100. State of Maharashtra v. Bharat Shanti Lal (2008) 13 SCC 5 11
Shah

101. State of MP through CBI v. Paltan Mallah AIR 2005 SC 733 13

102. State of Punjab v. Amritsar Beverages (2006) 7 SCC 607 13

Ltd.

103. State of Punjab v. Barkatram AIR 1962 (SC) 276 9, 10

104. State of Rajasthan v. Ajit Singh 2008 CrLJ 364 17

105. State of West Bengal v. Union of India AIR 1963 SC 8

1241
106. State v. Mohd Afzal 107 (2003) DLT 385 13

107. Sukhchain Singh v. State of Rajasthan (2000) 2 SCC 183 16

108. Sukhdev Singh v. Union Territory 1986 CrLJ 1757 15

109. Sunil Clifford Daniel v. State of Punjab (2012) 11 SCC 205 14

110. Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record (2016) 5 SCC 1 13

Assn. v. Union of India

111. Suresh Kumar Koushal v. Naz Foundation (2014) 1 SCC 1 4

112. Tukaram S. Dighole v. Manikrao Shivaji (2010) 4 SCC 329 13

Kokate

113. Union Carbide Corporation v. Union of AIR 1992 SC 248 12

India

114. Venkateshwar Rao v. Govt. of Andhra AIR 1966 SC882 8

Pradesh

115. Yakub Abdul Razak Memon v. State of (2013) 13 SCC 1 17

Maharashtra
116. Yash Pal Mittal v. State of Punjab (1997) 4 SCC 540 19

117. Yusuf Alli Esmail Nagree v. State of AIR 1968 SC 147 11

Maharashtra

118. Ziyauddin Burhanuddin Bukhari v. AIR 1975 SC 1788 13

Brijmohan Ramdass Mehra

HIGH COURT CASES

MEMORANDUM FOR RESPONDENTS XIV | P a g e

 9TH JAMIA NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2022
119. Anas Abdul Rashid Machiswala v. State MANU/ GJ/009/2011 17
of Gujarat
120. Anil Vasantrao Deshmukh v. Directorate 2021 SCC OnLine 6, 7
of Enforcement Bom 3641
121. Bharat v. State 2012, 10.5 20

122. Chief Enforcement Officer v. D. Crl.A.(MD). No.912 9

Uttamchand Jain OF 2003
123. Directorate of Enforcement v. State of 2021 SCC OnLine 18
W.B. Del 5603

124. E.G. Barsay v. State of Bombay (1962) 2 SCR 195: 19

AIR 1961 SC 1762
125. Hindustan Safety Glass Works Ltd. v. 1985(21) ELT 38 6
ACCE
126. J.K. Industries Ltd. V. Chief Inspector of JT 1996(7) SCALE 18
247 : 1996 (6) SCC
Factories and Boilers
665
127. Javed Habib v. State 2007 SCC OnLine 16
Del 891

128. K.L.D. Nagasree v. Govt. of India 2006 SCC OnLine AP 12

1085
129. Kalpanth Rai v. State through CBI AIR 1997 SCC 9 18

130. Kamal Krishna v. State 1977 CrLJ 1492 14

131. Kamal vs State of Punjab Cr. Appeal 19905 of 11

2020
132. Kishori Singh v. State of Bihar (2006) 1 SCC (Cri) 14
275 at p. 277
133. Madan v. State of Maharashtra 2009 SCC OnLine 12
Bom 483
134. Md. Muzaffar Hussain Khan v. State of 1955 (1) Crimes 459 14
Orissa at pp. 460,461
135. Mohan Singh v. State of U.P. 2004 CrLJ 2684 at p. 14
2686
136. Mukesh Kumar Jai Kishan Sharma Vs. Manu/GJ/1828/2016 8
State of Gujarat and Ors.
137. Rahmani Primary Teachers Training 1991 (39) BLJR 1374 11
College v. Najib Akhtar
138. Ripen Kumar v. Department of Customs 2000 (55) DRJ DB 9 10

139. Rup Chand v. Mahabir Parshad AIR 1956 P &H 173 13

140. Shyni Varghese v. State (Govt. of NCT of (2008) 147 DLT 691 12
Delhi) (Del)
141. Societe Des Producrs Nestle v. Essar 2006 (33) PTC 469 8, 13
(Del) at 15
Industries

MEMORANDUM FOR RESPONDENTS XV | P a g e

 9TH JAMIA NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2022
142. State of M.P. v. Ramesh C. Sharma (2005) 12 SCC 628 12

143. Tek Narayan Prasad Yadav v. State of 1999 SCC (Cri) 356 14
Bihar
144. Vakamulla Chandrashekhar v. 2017 SCC OnLine 10
Enforcement Directorate Del 12810
145. Vikraman v. State of Kerala 2015 (2) KLJ 113 16

INTERNATIONAL CASES

146. Gilbert v. California (1967) 388 U.S. 263 6

147. Gilbert v. California (1967) 388 U.S. 263, 6

265-267
148. R v. Director of Serious Fraud Office, Ex (1993) AC 1 11
Parte Smith
149. R.v. Sullivan (1868) 11 Cox C.C. 20
44 at p. 45
150. Schmerber v. California (1966) 384 U.S. 757, 1
764
151. Schmerber v. California (1966) 384 U.S. 757 6

152. United States v. Carolene Products 304 U.S. 144 (1938). 21

153. United States v. Dionisio (1973) 410 U.S. 1 6

154. United States v. Doe 405 F. 32nd 436 (2nd 6

Cir. 1968)
155. United States v. Kelly (CA 2) 55 F. 2nd 67 6

156. United States v. rel. O Halloran, v. Rundle 266, 384 6

157. United States v. Wade (1967) 388 U.S. 218 6

F. OTHER AUTHORITIES

S. No. OTHER AUTHORITIES

1. Askand Kumar Pandey, “Appreciation of Electronic Evidence: A Critique of Judicial

Approach”, 6 RMLNLUJ (2014) 24.

2. Bharat Chugh & Taahaa Khan, Rethinking the 'Fruits of the Poisonous Tree' Doctrine:
Should the 'Ends' Justify the 'Means'?, 2020 SCC OnLine Blog OpEd 76.

3. Law Commission of India, Evidence Obtained Illegally or Improperly: Proposed Section

166A, Indian Evidence Act, 1872, Report No. 94, (1983), available at
https://lawcommissionofindia.nic.in/51-100/Report94.pdf (last visited on May 21,
2022).

MEMORANDUM FOR RESPONDENTS XVI | P a g e

 9TH JAMIA NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2022
4. Law Commission of India, Identification of Prisoners Act, 1920, Report No. 87, (1980).

5. Statement of Objects and Reasons, Criminal (Procedure) Identification Bill, 2022.

6. V S Chauhan, Reasoned Decision: A Principle of Natural Justice, 37 JILI (1995) 92.

MEMORANDUM FOR RESPONDENTS XVII | P a g e

 9TH JAMIA NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2022
STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

[Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No. 198 of 2020]

Andy and Shelly filed a SLP under Article 136 against the impugned order of the High Court which upheld
conviction by the Special Trial Court.

[Writ Petition (Criminal) no. 488 of 2022]

Andy moved a writ petition under Article 32 challenging the Criminal Procedure (Identification) Act, 2022
and Section 50 of Prevention of money Laundering Act, 2022.
The SLP and the Writ Petition is listed before the Supreme Court as Item No. 1 and 2, respectively before the
same bench.

ARTICLE 136 IN THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, 1950

Special leave to appeal by the Supreme Court

1. Notwithstanding anything in this Chapter, the Supreme Court 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 India,
2. Nothing in clause (1) shall apply to any judgment, determination, sentence or order passed or made by any
court or tribunal constituted by or under any law relating to the Armed Forces.

ARTICLE 32 IN THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, 1950

Remedies for enforcement of rights conferred by this Part

1. The right to move the Supreme Court by appropriate proceedings for the enforcement of the rights conferred
by this Part is guaranteed,
2. The Supreme Court shall have power to issue directions or orders or writs, including writs in the nature of
habeas corpus, mandamus, prohibition, quo warranto and certiorari, whichever may be appropriate, for the
enforcement of any of the rights conferred by this Part,
3. Without prejudice to the powers conferred on the Supreme Court by clause (1) and (2), Parliament may by
law empower any other court to exercise within the local limits of its jurisdiction all or any of the powers
exercisable by the Supreme Court under clause (2),
4. The right guaranteed by this article shall not be suspended except as otherwise provided for by this
Constitution.

MEMORANDUM FOR RESPONDENTS XVIII | P a g e

 9TH JAMIA NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2022
STATEMENT OF FACTS

BACKGROUND
Union of Kymlicka is a country in which there are special laws to deal with terrorist activities. Andy White is
a journalist student studying in NCT of Nimbus, who is also a staunch proponent of the protection of
fundamental rights of citizens. Andy’s expenses were sponsored by his Aunt Shelly. On the pretext of some
rumours, police officers started intercepting calls of Andy.
THE PROTEST
On 21. 04.2017, Andy posted on his social media accounts for a protest in the NCT of Nimbus along with his
activist friends in the capital city and requested others to join. The protest continued for a few days but a video
clip of the protest went viral. After that viral video, there were few reports of violence in the adjoining district,
and Andy was arrested from the protest and was charged u/s 13,16,17,18 of UAPA; u/s 4 of PMLA and u/s
124A, 120B of IPC. The Central Government suo motu directed the NIA to carry out the investigation.
INVESTIGATION
During the investigation, approximately six lakh cash was found in his apartment due to which ED charged
Andy u/s 4 of PMLA. During the investigation, Andy was kept in police custody of ED for 5 days and later
in judicial custody wherein few statements were given by Andy. Special Court allowed NIA to collect voice
samples for investigational purpose.
TRIAL
The Special Court took cognizance against Andy. While the trial was in the prosecution evidence stage an
application u/s 319 CrPC was moved to make Shelly co-accused, which was accepted by Court. Evidence
filed by the prosecution were given to Andy after the commencement of the trial. In the defence evidence
stage, Andy and Shelly gave their defence with evidence such as a bank statement. Special Court convicted
Andy and Shelly based on the evidence presented by the prosecution stating that they failed to provide a proper
explanation. An appeal was made to High Court and High Court also confirmed the conviction.
SLP U/A 136 AND WRIT U/A 32
Andy and Shelly filed a special leave petition in 2020 stating the various grounds on which Special Court
erred while convicting them. Due to the pandemic, the case was left unheard and during their time in jail Andy
faced custodial torture and was forced to give measurements under new law. Later in 2022, Andy moved a
writ petition against the constitutionality of Identification law and S. 50 of PMLA. Now, both the petitions are
listed in the Honourable Supreme Court of Kymlicka.

MEMORANDUM FOR RESPONDENTS XIX | P a g e

 9TH JAMIA NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2022
ISSUES RAISED

~ ISSUE-1 ~

WHETHER THE CRIMINAL PROCEDURE (IDENTIFICATION) ACT, 2022 CONSTITUTIONALLY VALID, AND
WHETHER ANDY CAN BE COMPELLED TO GIVE MEASUREMENTS AND BIOLOGICAL SAMPLES TO THE JAIL
AUTHORITIES?

~ ISSUE-2~

WHETHER S. 50 OF THE PREVENTION OF MONEY LAUNDERING ACT, 2002 UNCONSTITUTIONAL?

~ ISSUE-3~

WHETHER THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN APPLYING THE PROCEDURAL LAWS CORRECTLY?

~ ISSUE-4~

WHETHER THE SPECIAL COURT ERRED IN CONVICTING ANDY FOR THE OFFENCES U/S 13, 16, 17, 18 OF
UAPA; U/S 4 OF PMLA AND U/S 124A, 120B OF IPC; AND SHELLY U/S 4 OF PMLA AND U/S 120B OF
IPC?

MEMORANDUM FOR RESPONDENTS XX | P a g e

 9TH JAMIA NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2022
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS

ISSUE-1: WHETHER THE CRIMINAL PROCEDURE (IDENTIFICATION) ACT, 2022 CONSTITUTIONALLY

VALID, AND WHETHER ANDY CAN BE COMPELLED TO GIVE MEASUREMENTS AND BIOLOGICAL SAMPLES
TO THE JAIL AUTHORITIES?

It is It is humbly submitted by the Counsel on behalf of the Respondent that the Criminal Procedure
(Identification) Act, 2022 is constitutionally valid as it fulfils the criteria of intelligible differentia and rationale
nexus. Secondly, the right to privacy is not an absolute right and can be exempted if the test of proportionality
is proved. The Identification Act stands the test of proportionality. The impugned Act has been made in
accordance with directive principles of state policy and must be upheld by considering similar statutory
provisions internationally.

ISSUE-2: WHETHER S. 50 OF THE PREVENTION OF MONEY LAUNDERING ACT, 2002 UNCONSTITUTIONAL?

It is most reverently submitted before the Hon’ble Supreme Court of Kymlicka that the investigation
conducted between Andy and ED under S.50 does not violate the right against self-incrimination enshrined in
Article 20(3) or any other right of the Constitution of Kymlicka. The objections raised upon the constitutional
validity of S. 50 of PMLA are invalid. The counsel also asserts that PMLA is special criminal legislation and
the objective of the code shall be viewed in totality.

ISSUE-3: WHETHER THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN APPLYING THE PROCEDURAL LAWS CORRECTLY?

It is duly submitted before the Hon’ble Court that the Special Court has applied the procedural laws
judiciously with any procedural flaws or arbitrariness. It is established that statements before ED officers are
acceptable. In emergent situations, authorities are allowed to intercept calls and take voice samples. In the legal
regime, electronic evidence is acceptable evidence based on which conviction can be granted. Andy was given
the full chance of defence during prosecution stage and it was not arbitrary on the part of the Special Court to
uphold shreds of evidence. Lastly, a prima facie case was found against Shelly Cobb and the court has used its
power well within the scope.

ISSUE-4: WHETHER THE SPECIAL COURT ERRED IN CONVICTING ANDY FOR THE OFFENCES U/S 13, 16, 17,
18 OF UAPA; U/S 4 OF PMLA AND U/S 124A, 120B OF IPC; AND SHELLY U/S 4 OF PMLA AND U/S 120B
OF IPC?

It is humbly submitted before the Hon’ble Court that the offences constituted u/s 13, 16, 17, 18 of UAPA,
1967 are attracted in the present case. The sine qua non-ingredient for the offence of unlawful activity is malafide
intention and involvement in the activities which cause terror or are likely to cause terror and the same are
present in the case. For the offence of money laundering, it is essential that there should be either placement or
MEMORANDUM FOR RESPONDENTS XXI | P a g e
 9TH JAMIA NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2022
layering of money laundering which was present in this case. Accused also attracts the offence of sedition u/s
124A, IPC, 1860 as he has the intention to incite the people and create disaffection towards the government of
Kymlicka. Petitioners were also liable under the offence of criminal conspiracy as they had an agreement to do
an illegal act and supported each other. The Special Court was justified in convicting Andy and Shelly under
the aforesaid sections.

MEMORANDUM FOR RESPONDENTS XXII | P a g e

 9TH JAMIA NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2022
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED
1. WHETHER THE CRIMINAL PROCEDURE (IDENTIFICATION) ACT, 2022 CONSTITUTIONALLY VALID, AND

WHETHER ANDY CAN BE COMPELLED TO GIVE MEASUREMENTS AND BIOLOGICAL SAMPLES TO THE JAIL

AUTHORITIES?

It is humbly submitted before the Hon’ble Supreme Court of Kymlicka that the restrictions imposed by
enactment of the Criminal Procedure (Identification) Act, 2022 1 herein referred as Identification Act, are
constitutional as [1.1] right to privacy is not absolute and is not violated, [1.2] the impugned act does not
violate Article 14, [1.3] it has been brought about to give effect to directive principles of state policy and [1.4]
Status quo of similar statutory provisions internationally.
1.1 THERE IS NO VIOLATION OF RIGHT TO PRIVACY.
The exercise of the right to privacy guaranteed by the Constitution of India is not absolute2, and the
government can impose reasonable restrictions.3 The options canvassed for restricting such rights include the
highest standard of scrutiny4 that needs to be adopted to limit the right by the court.5 It is essential for the
Government of Kymlicka to impose reasonable restrictions on the exercise of Right to Privacy of its people,
in view of larger public interest6 of strengthening the security of the state and its people, amidst rising crime
rate every year.7
In the present matter, the restrictions on right to privacy are proportionate and are thus constitutional. If an
Act passes the four-fold test of proportionality laid down in KS Puttaswamy v. Union of India that it is deemed
to be constitutional.8
1.1.1 RESTRICTION ON A RIGHT MUST BE WITH A REASONABLE OBJECTIVE.
The measure restricting a right must have a legitimate goal.9 The objective of the Identification Act as per
the Statement of Objects and Reasons under the Bill is to legally allow the measurements to be taken by
investigating agencies. to ‘legally allow using latest measurement techniques to aid the investigation agencies
to gather sufficient legally admissible evidence and establish the crime of the accused person’. It also expands
the "ambit of persons" whose measurements can be taken to make the investigation of crime more efficient
and effective. and also help in increasing the conviction rate.10
The Identification Act, Clause 2(1)(b)11 allows police to take measurements including ‘finger prints, pal
prints, foot prints, photographs, iris and retina scan, physical and biological samples and behavioural

1
Criminal Procedure (Identification) Act, 2022 | Moot Prop PARA 3.
2
Sharda v. Dharam Pal, (2003) 4 SCC 493; See also, Ramlila Maidan Incident v. Home Secretary, UOI, (2012) 5 SCC 1.
3
Gobind v. State of Madhya Prades , (1975) 2 SCC 148; See also, Kartar Singh v. State of Punjab, (1994) 3 SCC 569.
4
United States v. Carolene Products, 304 U.S. 144 (1938).
5
K. S. Puttaswamy and Anr. v. Union of India, AIR 2015 SC 3081.
6
Bihar Public Service Commission v. Saiyed Hussain Abbas Rizwi, (2012) 13 SCC 61.
7
Moot Prop PARA 3.
8
KS Puttaswamy v. Union of India (2019) 1 SCC 267.
9
Ibid.
10
See Statement of Objects and Reasons, Criminal (Procedure) Identification Bill, 2022.
11
Criminal (Procedure) Identification Act, 2022, Cl. 2(1)(b),(Act of 2022).
MEMORANDUM FOR RESPONDENTS 1|P age
 9TH JAMIA NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2022
attributes’ of all convicts and detained persons. Cl. 3 of the Act, also works on similar lines.12 Thus, the
measures adopted impairs freedom as little as possible and serve the legitimate aim.
1.1.2 RATIONAL CONNECTION BETWEEN MEANS AND ENDS OF THE ACT.
The legislation must adopt suitable means of furthering the legitimate State goal.13 In casu, there lies a
rational nexus b/w the increased crime rate and category of people in proviso of Cl. 314 (persons charges for
the offences against women, children and those offences punishable with imprisonment above seven years).
In the Union of Kymlicka, there was constant surge in the crime rate every year, which includes offences
against women, children, & terrorist activities.15 The Identification Act especially aids in the expedient
investigation of offences against this class of people. It also authorises Magistrate to direct any person to give
measurements.16 The Act assists in collection and databasing the “unique identification of a person involved
in any crime and assisting the investigating agencies in solving the criminal case”.17 Even the work of NCRB
is same i.e., to collect data for implementation of better policies. Therefore, the measures enumerated and been
taken as per the provisions are rationally connected with the fulfilment of the objectives contained in the
Identification Act.
1.1.3 ABSENCE OF ANY LESS INTRUSIVE BUT EQUALLY EFFECTIVE AND PREFERABLE ALTERNATIVE .
There must not be any less restrictive but equally effective alternative for achieving the legitimate goal.18
Law Commission of India while examining the Identification of Prisoners Act 192019, has suggested to revise
it by bring it in line with modern trends in criminal investigation.20 Some of its recommendations in the
preliminary matters included addition of measurements of palm-impression,21 signature or writing22 and voice
sample,23 empowering magistrates24 and police officers25 to collect and allow measurements to be taken and
collection of identification data from certain other persons mentioned in the report. 26 New measurement
techniques being used in advanced countries are giving credible and reliable results and are recognised world
over.27
In March 2003, the Expert Committee on Reforms of the Criminal Justice System also recommended
amending the 1920 Act to empower the Magistrate to authorise the collection of data such as blood samples

12
Criminal (Procedure) Identification Act, 2022, Cl. 3, (Act of 2022).
13
KS Puttaswamy v. Union of India, (2019) 1 SCC 267.
14
Criminal (Procedure) Identification Act, 2022, Cl. 3, (Act of 2022).
15
Moot Prop PARA 3.
16
Moot Prop PARA 5.
17
AN ANALYSIS OF THE CRIMINAL PROCEDURE (IDENTIFICATION) BILL, 2022, 66, Project 39A, NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITY,
Delhi 2022, www.project39a.com/identification-bill.
18
KS Puttaswamy v. Union of India, (2019) 1 SCC 267.
19
The Identification of Prisoners Act, 1920, No. 33 of 1920 (India).
20
Law Commission of India, Identification of Prisoners Act, 1920, Report No. 87, PARA 4.10 (1980).
21
Ibid at PARA 4.10.
22
Ibid at PARA 5.21 to 5.25 and 5.32.
23
Ibid at PARA 5.26 to 5.28 and 5.32.
24
Ibid at PARA 5.30, 5.31 and 5.32.
25
Ibid at PARA 5.17 to 5.19.
26
Ibid at PARA 5.17 to 9.19.
27
See Statement of Objects and Reasons, Criminal (Procedure) Identification Bill, 2022.
MEMORANDUM FOR RESPONDENTS 2|Page
 9TH JAMIA NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2022
for finger prints, foot prints, photographs, blood sample for DNA, hair, saliva or semen etc.28 The Committee
also suggested the formation of an apex Criminal intelligence bureau at the national, district, and police station
levels for collection, collation and dissemination of criminal intelligence.
Furthermore, as per the National Criminal Records Bureau (NCRB), the offences against women, children,
and terrorist activities grew unabatedly by 550% between the year 2010 and 2017.29 Thus, in the light of these
circumstances there is no alternative measure with lesser degree of limitation which can achieve the same
purpose.
1.1.4 NO DISPROPORTIONATE IMPACT ON THE RIGHT HOLDER.
The measures must not have a disproportionate impact on the right holder.30 The measurements can be used
to help the investigation agencies to gather sufficient legally admissible evidence and establish the crime of
the accused person. Cl. 431 of the Identification Act also provides for a method of destruction of data retained.
As regards core biometric information, it is minimal information required aiding an investigation and has been
considered to be the most accurate and non-invasive mode of identifying an individual.32 Thus, the
Identification Act is balanced between importance of achieving the proper purpose and the social importance
of preventing the limitation on the constitutional right.
The Counsel humbly submits that the Identification Act stands the test of proportionality in the instant case.
The Act has been enacted with the aim to identify the prisoners and facilitate the investigation agencies in
conducting the speedy and efficient trial.33 Thus, it is a suitable means for crime prevention and investigation.
In casu, Andy’s measurements were taken as per the instructions laid down in Cl. 3 of the Identification Act34.
He is deemed to fall under the exceptions laid down in the proviso of Cl. 3, wherein he was bound to give his
biological samples as a part of investigation.
1.2 THE IMPUGNED ACT DO NOT VIOLATE ARTICLE 14 OF THE CONSTITUTION.
The principle of equality under Art. 14 does not mean every law must have universal application often
requires separate treatment.35 The principle does not take away State’s power to classify persons for legitimate
purposes36 and exercise its discretion37. Differential treatment with reasonable basis does not per se constitute

28
1 Committee on Reforms of Criminal Justice System, 2003, MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS available at
https://www.mha.gov.in/sites/default/files/criminal_justice_system.pdf (last visited on May 21, 2022).
29
Moot Prop PARA 3.
30
KS Puttaswamy v. Union of India, (2019) 1 SCC 267.
31
Criminal (Procedure) Identification Act, 2022, Cl. 4, (Act of 2022).
32
KS Puttaswamy v. Union of India, (2019) 1 SCC 295 and 296; See also, MAHENDRA PAL SINGH, V.N. SHUKLA’S CONSTITUTION
OF INDIA 345 (13th Ed. Lexis Nexis 2019).
33
Moot Prop PARA 3.
34
Moot Prop PARA 16.
35
1 D.D. BASU, SHORTER CONSTITUTION OF INDIA 81 (14TH Ed. Lexis Nexis 2014).
36
State of Bombay v. Balsara, AIR 1951 SC 318 (708-09).
37
Ankul Chandra Pradhan v. Union of India, (1997) 6 SCC 1 PARA 5.
MEMORANDUM FOR RESPONDENTS 3|Page
 9TH JAMIA NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2022
violation of Art.14.38 Moreover, Art. 1539 prohibits discrimination but allows state to make special provisions
for special classes.40
The Identification Act brought by the State, enables the government to collect, store, preserve, disseminate
and destruct the data collected for investigation by class of people for expedient criminal investigation. The
impugned Act thereby, makes a reasonable classification of people based on intelligible differentia as per
Article 14 for successful implementation of the new Act.
1.2.1 IDENTIFICATION ACT SATISFIES THE TEST OF REASONABLE CLASSIFICATION.
Reasonableness and fairness are the heart and soul of the Art. 14.4142 Right to equality not only lies on
treating equally, but also lies on grating privileges.43 Art. 14 forbids class legislation, it does not forbid
reasonable classification for legislation.44 The test of reasonable classification as laid down by SC in Budhan
Chaudhary v. State of Bihar45, and the Counsel is asserting the same.
a. PRINCIPLE OF INTELLIGIBLE DIFFERENTIA.
The expression intelligible differentia means difference capable of being understood and should be
reasonable and not arbitrary. The Identification Act, 2022 classifies the convicts based on the gender/age of
the victims and on the severity of punishment which facilitate the investigation agencies in the efficient
investigation. It is based on the NCRB data on increase in the crimes against women, children and terrorist
activities.46
b. THERE IS RATIONAL NEXUS BETWEEN CLASSIFICATION AND OBJECTIVE SOUGHT.
It is contended that the law can make and set apart the classes according to the needs and exigencies of
the society.47 A definite legislative policy with an effective method with selective application of law to certain
classes or groups of persons, cannot deem the statute itself a discriminatory legislation.48 The Identification
Act, objective to conduct quick and expedient investigation of crimes will be achieved by readily accessible
identification data of convicts and regular offenders.
1.3.IDENTIFICATION ACT HAS BEEN BROUGHT ABOUT TO GIVE EFFECT TO DIRECTIVE PRINCIPLES OF STATE
POLICY.

The Counsel from the side of Respondent humbly submits before the Court, that reasonable restrictions
can be imposed on fundamental rights to give effect to directive principles of state policy. Part III and Part IV
of the Constitution of India are complementary and supplementary to each other;49 the former provides for

38
INDIAN CONST. art. 14.
39
INDIAN CONST. art. 15.
40
1 D.D. BASU, SHORTER CONSTITUTION OF INDIA 168 (14TH Ed. Lexis Nexis 2014).
41
Delhi Development Authority v. Joint Action Committee, (2008) 2 SCC ¶¶672-692.
42
In Re Special Reference No 1 of 2012, (2012) 10 SCC 1.
43
John Vallamattom v. UOI, AIR 2003 SC 2902.
44
Budhan Chaudhary v. State of Bihar, AIR 1955 SC 191; See also, Kedarnath Bajoria v. State of WB, AIR 1953 SC 404.
45
John Vallamattom v. UOI, AIR 2003 SC 2902.
46
Moot prop PARA 3.
47
Suresh Kumar Koushal v. Naz Foundation (2014) 1 SCC 1; See also, Mihir Alias Bhikari Sahu v. State, 1992 CrLJ 488.
48
M.P. JAIN, INDIAN CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 917(7TH Ed. Lexis Nexis 2016).
49
Chandra Bhavan Boarding and Lodging, Bangalore v. State of Mysore, AIR 1970 SC 2042.
MEMORANDUM FOR RESPONDENTS 4|Pag e
 9TH JAMIA NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2022
civil and political rights while the latter provides for social and economic rights and one cannot have primacy
over the other.50 Government can impose reasonable restrictions on fundamental rights, for promoting or
effectuating a directive principle in the public interest.51
It is submitted that the Directive Principles52 of the State under Art. 3853 of the Constitution to imbibe the
duty of the State to establish a Socialist Welfare State. A state must constantly strive to promote the welfare
of the people.54 A welfare State seeks to promote prosperity and well-being of the people.55 Union of Kymlicka
is a welfare state which believes in promoting and achieving fraternity.56
The DPSP supplement the Preamble.57 Many rights have been compromised and diluted from time to
time to enforce these principles.58 Union of Kymlicka brought the Identification Act for the social welfare of
the entire state experiencing an unabated increase in the crime rate every year since 2010.59 It is abiding by
the ideals of socialism, secularism, equality, and justice imbibed in its Constitution.60
1.4. STATUS QUO OF SIMILAR STATUTORY PROVISIONS INTERNATIONALLY.
The Court has accepted the comparative law in shaping the law of privacy in Kymlickan context,
notwithstanding the fact that it has persuasive value.61
In English common law, present statutory provisions give power to Magistrates to order fingerprints62 and
palm prints63 of the accused to be taken by police officers. For the purpose of taking these measurements, such
reasonable force and techniques may be used as is necessary64 and the destruction process has been laid down
after the acquittal of the accused.65 It also allows the State to make regulations for measuring and
photographing prisoners.66 Civil law countries like Sweden, have several provisions laid down in regard to
the employment of coercive measures by the police for identification of the accused during the investigation.67
In Schmerber v. California,68 the Supreme Court distinguished and held that providing handwriting

50
Pathumma v. State of Kerala, (1978) 2 SCC 1.
51
Papanasam Labour Union v. Madura Coats Ltd., (1995) SCC 1501.
52
INDIAN CONST. PART IV.
53
INDIAN CONST. art. 38.
54
State of Bihar v. Kameshwar Singh, AIR 1952 SC 252; See also, Air India Statutory Corp. v. United Labour Union, AIR 1997
SC 645.
55
Paschim Band Khet Mazdoor Society v. State of West Bengal, (1996) 4 SCC 37.
56
Moot prop PARA 1.
57
Keshavananda Bharti v. State of Kerala, AIR 1973 SC 1461, See also, Atam Prakash v. State of Haryana, AIR 1986 SC 859.
58
3 D. D. BASU COMMENTARY ON THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, 3138 (8th Ed. Lexis Nexis Butterworth Wadhwa Publications,
Nagpur, 2008).
59
Moot prop PARA 3.
60
Moot prop PARA 1.
61
Aruna Ramchandra Shaunbag v. Union of India, (2011) 4 SCC 454.
62
Magistrates Courts Act, 1952, § 40 (1) (United Kingdom).
63
Criminal Justice Act, 1967, § 33 (United Kingdom).
64
Magistrates Courts Act, 1952, § 40 (1) (United Kingdom).
65
Magistrates Courts Act, 1952, § 40 (4) (United Kingdom).
66
Prisons Act, 1952, § 16 & 43 (3) (United Kingdom).
67
Law Commission of India, Identification of Prisoners Act, 1920, Report No. 87, 28 (1980)
68
Schmerber v. California, (1966) 384 U.S. 757, 764; See also, Gilbert v. California, (1967) 388 U.S. 263; United States v. Wade,
(1967) 388 U.S. 218.
MEMORANDUM FOR RESPONDENTS 5|Page
 9TH JAMIA NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2022
samples,69 voice exemplars,70 blood samples,71 and fingerprints72 does not violate the privilege against self-
incrimination. There is no violation of the right to privacy and self-incrimination of the accused in taking
measurements such as fingerprints or photographs.73
2. WHETHER S. 50 OF PMLA, 2002 IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL?
It is humbly submitted before the Hon’ble Supreme Court of Kymlicka that the S. 50 of PMLA, 200274 is
constitutional as: [2.1.] Objection on the constitutionality of S.50 of PMLA is misleading, [2.2.] PMLA is
special legislation that overrides general legislation, [2.3.] The severity of the offence duly demands the
issuance of summons, [2.4] ED Officers are police officers thus admissibility of the statements given during
the investigation in the Special Court is unassailable.
2.1. OBJECTION ON THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF S.50 OF THE PMLA IS MISLEADING.
The scope of investigation75 of the ED is restricted to the probe regarding the proceeds of crime and the
subsequent crime of money laundering and it does not deal with the predicate offence.76 The offence of money
laundering is independent of the predicate offence and the objective and function of PMLA specifically target
crimes related to money laundering.
Summons issued to Andy makes it clear to the Petitioner that he was called in respect of that evidence.77
Moreover, under S. 24 of PMLA, a presumption arises that the money in question is proceeds of crime that
are being laundered and it is for the notice to rebut such presumption.78 This further infers that the person is
already out of the purview of innocence and is then called upon to complete the investigation without any
unnecessary hurdle.
Summons issued under section 50(2) of the Act have nothing to do with the regulations as defined under
the Regulatory Rules. The rules are referable only to proceedings for adjudication and not to pre-adjudication
proceedings, thus putting no constitutional hindrance otherwise.
In casu, Andy has been summoned u/s 50 of the PMLA as the complaint registered against him prima facie
indicated offence of money laundering.79 The police found an amount of INR 6,00,000/- cash at Andy’s
apartment to which Andy kept silent when interrogated about the source of the money and failed to give any
evidence or explanation to defy the same80 which, therefore, proves the offence on the face of it. Furthermore,
the interrogation conducted with Andy’s friends revealed that he gets foreign transfers as well.81 This provides

69
United States v. Doe, 405 F. 32nd 436 (2nd Cir. 1968); See also, Gilbert v. California, (1967) 388 U.S. 263, 265-267.
70
United States v. Dionisio, (1973) 410 U.S. 1.
71
Schmerber v. California (1966) 384 U.S. 757.
72
United States v. rel. O Halloran, v. Rundle, 266, 384.
73
American Jurisprudence, 21 CRIMINAL LAW 2ND Ed. 393-394.
74
The Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, § 50, No. 15, Acts of Parliament, 2003 (India).
75
The Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, § 2(1)(ns), No. 15, Acts of Parliament, 2003 (India).
76
Dalmia Cement (Bharat) Limited v. Assistant Director of Enforcement Directorate, 2016 SCC OnLine Hyd 64.
77
Charu Kishore Mehta v State of Maharashtra, WP No. 2961/2015.
78
Anil Vasantrao Deshmukh v. Directorate of Enforcement, 2021 SCC OnLine Bom 3641.
79
Moot Prop PARA 8.
80
Ibid.
81
Ibid.
MEMORANDUM FOR RESPONDENTS 6 |Page
 9TH JAMIA NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2022
sufficient reason to believe82 for the ED that money laundering has been committed and summon him for the
further discovery of the source and proceeds of crime.
2.1.1. MERE ISSUANCE OF SUMMONS U/S 50 OF PMLA DOES NOT INFRINGE ART 20(3) AS PMLA IS A STAND-
ALONE OFFENCE.

The summon is only to collect evidence and explanation with regard to proceeds of crime in the hands of
the persons suspected and their involvement, if any, in the offence under Section 3 of PMLA.83 The summons
issued u/s 50 are for the production of the document, which is not relatable to the subject of enquiry.84
In the present case, the failure of Andy to explain the source of cash recovered from his apartment and the
foreign funds received by him marks his involvement in the offence and makes him a suspect. Thus, attracting
S. 3 of the PMLA resulted in the filing of ECIR followed by the issuance of the summon by the ED u/s 50.85
The summon does not include the predicate offences filed against him in the FIR and is specifically in
regard to the process. Therefore, Andy at the point where the summon u/s 50 was issued against him, at most,
is called for an enquiry and thus does not invite the protection guaranteed under Art. 20(3). Art. 20(3) is a
right pertaining to a person accused of an offence.86
Therefore, we cannot equate ECIR registered by the ED to an FIR u/s 154 CrPC87 , and consequently, under
PMLA the petitioners are not accused at present. Hence, the submission on behalf of the petitioners on the
assumption that petitioners are accused under PMLA is liable to be rejected.88
2.2. PMLA IS SPECIAL LEGISLATION THAT OVERRIDES GENERAL LEGISLATION.
PMLA is a complete code and its provisions would override the general law.89 The PMLA is a special
criminal enactment providing for a separate investigative procedure and power. It is imperative that due
meaning and regard are given to the provisions of the PMLA in its totality and that the said provisions are
allowed to operate in their full force on their own.90 Even S. 71of PMLA also provides the same.91
The principle expressed in the maxim Generalia specialibus non derogant means that if a special provision
has been made on a certain matter, that matter is excluded from the general provisions.92 In the present case,
the provisions particularly S.50 and S.63 are rightfully executed in order to approach the target i.e. locate and
trace the source of proceeds of crime. Arguendo, the provisions of the Act are not in accordance with the

82
Aslam Mohammad Merchant v. Competent Authority, (2008) 14 SCC 186.
83
Hindustan Safety Glass Works Ltd. v. ACCE, 1985(21) ELT 38.
84
Ibid.
85
Moot Prop PARA 9.
86
Delhi Judicial Service Assn. v. State of Gujarat, (1991) 4 SCC 406,431: AIR 1991 SC 2176.
87
The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, § 154, No. 2, Acts of Parliament, 1974 (India).
88
Dalmia Cement (Bharat) Limited v. Assistant Director of Enforcement Directorate, 2016 SCC OnLine Hyd 64.
89
Mukesh Kumar Jai Kishan Sharma v. State of Gujarat, Manu/GJ/1828/2016; See also, Chhagan Chandrakant Bhujbal v. Union
of India, 2016 SCC Online Bom 9938.
90
Directorate of Enforcement v. State of W.B., 2021 SCC OnLine Del 5603.
91
The Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, § 50, No. 71, Acts of Parliament, 2003 (India).
92
Dilawar Singh v Parvinder Singh @ Iqbal Singh 2005 (7) SCC 524; See also, Venkateshwar Rao v. Govt. of Andhra Pradesh,
AIR 1966 SC882; Mahrashtra State Board of Secondary Education v. Paritosh Bhupesh Kumar Sheth, AIR 1984 SC 1543.
MEMORANDUM FOR RESPONDENTS 7|Page
 9TH JAMIA NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2022
general laws, it has to be understood that by the virtue of the nature and agenda of enactment of this Act it
overrides other general legislations.
2.3. SEVERITY OF THE OFFENCE DULY DEMANDS THE ISSUANCE OF SUMMONS.
When in the scheme of a regulation (an Act or a Rule), a clear policy relating to the situations in which the
power is to be exercised is perceptible, the conferment of power must be regarded as made in accordance with
the scheme and it is not open to attack as infringing the right, merely on account of a possibility of abuse.93
Objects and reasons of the Act should be taken into consideration in interpreting the provisions of the statute.94
It is a settled rule of construction that to ascertain the legislative intent the constituent parts of the statute are
to be taken together.95 It is essential to consider each word, phrase, or sentence in light of the general purpose
and object of the Act itself.96
In casu, the summon u/s 50 is observed to fulfill and aid the investigation by retracting quintessential
statements from Andy in the course of the investigation with respect to the case.97 For this reason, the said
provision is lawfully established and serves the objective of the Act98 , and must be abided by for the intricate
and advanced nature of the offence.
2.3.1 S. 63 OF PMLA IS AN ESSENTIAL COMPONENT OF THE SCHEME OF THE ACT.
The PMLA, 2002 contains provisions for preventive as well as punitive measures to combat money-
laundering.99 S. 63, essentially provides the punishment in case of false evidence produced or refusal to
produce the evidence. It is essential as providing false evidence to the authority under PMLA would lead to
an arrest.100 The section is meant to deter the settling of private scores amongst the individuals called upon.101
Such a pursuit of vendetta between the individuals would cause one to tender false information to authorities
against the other.102 Moreover, S. 63 provides a safeguard against the imposition of a penalty by ensuring that
the authority proposing to levy the penalty shall do so only after the person penalised is heard and given an
opportunity to be heard.103
In the present case, since Andy was prima facie a suspect of money laundering104, it became crucial to put
the obligation to produce genuine and relevant records to prove his innocence and also for the ED to find the
direction to head the investigation on the basis of the records produced. Any malicious act can significantly
interfere with the due process of investigation. Nonetheless, it is provided the opportunity to Andy to be heard

93
Budhan Choudhary v. State of Bihar, AIR 1955 SC 191; See also, State of Bihar v. Bihar Distillery Ltd., JT 1996(10)SC 854.
94
Doypack Systems Private Limited v. Union of India, 1988 2 SCC 299.
95
State of West Bengal v. Union of India, AIR 1963 SC 1241.
96
Popatlal Shah v. The State of Madras, AIR 1953 SC 274.
97
Moot Prop PARA 9.
98
The Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, § 50, No. 71, Acts of Parliament, 2003 (India); See also DR. M C
MEHANATHAN, LAW ON PREVENTION OF MONEY LAUNDERING IN INDIA 201(1 ST Ed. Lexis Nexis 2014).
99
The Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, Chapter IV, No. 71, Acts of Parliament, 2003 (India).
100
Directorate Of Enforcement v. Shri Kancharla Srihari Babu, Crl.A. No. 9825 of 2021.
101
R K NAROOLA & UDAYAN MUKERJI, THE LAW OF PREVENTION OF MONEY LAUNDERING 187 (Oak Bridge 2020).
102
Ibid.
103
Ibid at 188.
104
Moot Prop PARA 8 & 9.
MEMORANDUM FOR RESPONDENTS 8|Page
 9TH JAMIA NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2022
with respect to the proceeds of crime.105 The counsel, therefore, asserts that S. 63 of PMLA is a vital
component of the PMLA and its function cannot be side-lined.
2.4. ED OFFICERS ARE NOT POLICE OFFICERS THUS ADMISSIBILITY OF THE STATEMENTS GIVEN DURING

INVESTIGATION IN THE SPECIAL COURT IS UNASSAILABLE.

The powers which police officers enjoy are meant for the prevention and detection of crime for efficient
maintenance of law and order.106 Whereas, the ED officer is entrusted with powers specifically related to the
collection and prevention of money laundering.107 In order to bring ED officers under the purview of a “police
officer” for the purpose of S.25 of Indian Evidence Act, it is not enough to show that he exercises some or
even many of the powers of the police officer conducting an investigation under the Code.108 The statement
given before the Enforcement Director is a piece of admissible evidence during the investigation.109
In the case at hand, during interrogation, Andy admitted that he has been receiving foreign transfers from
his aunt110 and later it was found that transactions from numerous other sources were made to his bank
account.111 Thus, the statements obtained through the investigation are proven.112 Therefore, the counsel
asserts that the statements recorded u/s 50 are duly admissible in the court as the officers before whom the
statements are made are not police officers; thus Section 25 of the Evidence Act would not be attracted to
make the statement inadmissible.
2.4.1 ED HAS NOT BEEN INVESTED WITH ALL THE POWERS EXERCISABLE BY AN OFFICER-IN CHARGE OF

POLICE STATION.

The primary test for determining whether the officer concerned under Special Act has been invested with
all the powers exercisable by an officer-in-charge of a police station under Chapter XIV of the CrPC, qua
investigation of offences under that Act, thereby including the power to file a report u/s 173(2) of CrPC.113 In
view of the fact that the ED does not have all the powers to be exercised by the officer-in-charge of a police
station under the Act cannot be termed as “Police Officers”. Therefore, the Counsel on the behalf of
Respondents submits that Section 50 O PMLA is constitutionally valid.
3. WHETHER THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN APPLYING THE PROCEDURAL LAWS APPROPRIATELY?
The Counsel for the Respondent respectfully submits that the conviction by Special Court and the High
Court confirming the conviction is justifiable. The Counsel submits that the Special Court has applied the
procedures rightly and it was not arbitrary in any sense. [3.1.] ED is not considered as ‘police officers’ u/s
meaning 25 of the IEA, [3.2.] The intercepted call is admissible evidence and voice sample collection is not a

105
Moot Prop PARA 9.
106
State of Punjab v. Barkatram, AIR 1962 (SC) 276.
107
DR. SHAMSUDDIN, COMMENTARY ON THE PREVENTION OF MONEY LAUNDERING ACT, 2002, 72 (2ND Ed. Commercial Law
Publishers (India) Pvt. Ltd. 2021)
108
Romeshchandra Mehta v. State of West Bengal AIR 1970 (SC) 940.
109
Chief Enforcement Officer v D. Uttamchand Jain CRL.A.(MD).No.912 OF 2003.
110
Moot Prop PARA 9.
111
Moot Prop PARA 12.
112
Moot Prop PARA 13.
113
Balkishan v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1981 (SC) 379.
MEMORANDUM FOR RESPONDENTS 9|Page
 9TH JAMIA NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2022
violation of the right to privacy, [3.3.] Electronic evidence should be treated as primary evidence, [3.4.] Right
to defence given properly to accused during trial, [3.5.] Shelly can be made co-accused as prima facie evidence
was available against her.
3.1. ED IS NOT CONSIDERED AS ‘POLICE OFFICERS’ U/S MEANING 25 OF THE INDIAN EVIDENCE ACT.
To determine whether a person is a police officer or not, the functional test is applicable, wherein a person
who is given the same function as a police officer under CrPC, particularly in the course of investigation of
an offence under the Act must be regarded as a police officer.114
3.1.2 ED OFFICERS DO NOT STAND ON THE FUNCTIONAL TEST.
In the case of Chief Enforcement v. D. Uttamchand Jain115 and various other cases116, it has been held ED
officers are not police officer under the meaning of Section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act.
Enforcement Directorate officers do not confer the power to lodge a report before a competent Magistrate
u/s 173 of CrPC.117 Filing of charge sheet is sine qua non to establish someone as a police officer.118 ED under
PMLA can only file ECIR and in the instant case also ECIR is only filed.119 Even the power of investigation
especially to the police officer in PMLA is given u/s 45(1A).120
Arguendo, power of arrest, search, and custody of documents seized were undoubtedly given to the
Enforcement Officer but such powers are more akin to those conferred on the Customs Officers by the
Customs Act.121 Supreme Court has made it clear that an officer discharging duties under the Customs Act is
not a Police Officer122 coming within the purview of S. 25 of the Evidence Act.123 On the same analogy, it has
to be held that an officer recording a statement of a person under the provision of the PMLA is not a police
officer for the purpose of S. 25 of IEA,124 any statement to them is admissible in court.125 Thus, ED officers
are not police officers. Therefore, any evidence or statement given to the ED officer can be made admissible
in court.126 Thus, the Special Court while relying on the statement given by Andy to ED127 was justified as
ED officers are not police officers under the meaning of S. 25 of IEA.
3.2.INTERCEPTED CALL IS ADMISSIBLE EVIDENCE & VOICE SAMPLE IS NOT VIOLATION OF PRIVACY.

114
Romesh Chandra Mehta v. State of West Bengal (1969) 2 SCR 461; See also, Balkishan A. Devidayal v. State of Maharashtra
(1980) 4 SCC 600.
115
The Indian Evidence Act, 1872, § 25, No. 1 of 1872 (India).
116
Vakamulla Chandrashekar v. Enforcement Directorate; Directorate of Enforcement v. Deepak Mahajan, (1994) 3 SCC 440.
117
The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, § 173, No. 2, Acts of Parliament, 1974 (India).
118
2 C.D. FIELD, COMMENTARY ON LAW OF EVIDENCE 250 (13 TH Ed. Delhi Law House 2014); Ram Singh v. Central
Bureau of Narcotics, (2011) 11 SCC 347.
119
Moot Prop PARA 9.
120
The Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, § 45(1A), No. 15, Acts of Parliament, 2003 (India).
121
State of Punjab v. Barkat Ram, AIR 1962 SC 276; See also, 1 BATUK LAL, COMMENTARY ON THE CODE OF CRIMINAL
PROCEDURE, 1973 453 (5th Ed. Orient Publishing Company 2017).
122
Illias v. Collector of Customs, Madras AIR 1970 SC 1065; See also, P. Rustomji v. State of Maharastra, AIR 1971 SC 1087;
Kanhaiyala v. Union Of India, (2013) 16 SCC 31; Ripen Kumar v. Department of Customs, 2000 (55) DRJ DB 9.
123
Ramesh Chandra v. State of WB AIR 1970 SC 940; Balkrishna v. State of WB, AIR 1974 SC 120.
124
P S Barkathail v. Director of Enforcement, New Delhi, AIR 1981 Ker. 81 at pp. 83-84.
125
Harbansingh Sardar Lenasingh v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1972 SC 1224.
126
Ram Singh v. Central Bureau of Narcotics, (2011) 11 SCC 347.
127
Moot Prop PARA 13.
MEMORANDUM FOR RESPONDENTS 10 | P a g e
 9TH JAMIA NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2022
3.2.1. RIGHT TO PRIVACY IS NOT AN ABSOLUTE RIGHT.
No right is absolute in nature, and it is always subjected to certain restrictions.128 Authorities shall curtail
the rights of a person and impose a reasonable restriction.129 The right to privacy is also a fundamental right130
but it is not an absolute right,131 it is subservient to the security of the state.132 Right to privacy’s curtailment
can be necessary for the stability of the society.133 In Ritesh Sinha v. State of Uttar Pradesh,134 the apex court
observed that “we unhesitatingly take the view that until explicit provisions are engrafted in the Code of
Criminal Procedure by Parliament, a Judicial Magistrate must be conceded the power to order a person to
give a sample of his voice for the purpose of investigation of a crime.” Furthermore, High Courts have also
held that the accused who is judicially directed to give the voice sample for the purpose of inquiry or
comparison purposes does not infringe the right to privacy.135
In casu, the calls were intercepted on the basis of the information police officers received regarding the
organisation of unlawful assembly.136 Therefore, this breach of privacy was essential for the security of the
state,137 as NCRB data clearly shows the steep rise in crimes.138 During the investigation, the Special Court
ordered the NIA to collect voice samples of the accused for matching them with the call recordings for the
furtherance of the trial.139 It is well-established that an individual’s privacy can be entrenched by legislative
provisions.140 Therefore, the collection of a voice sample of Andy for the purpose of the investigation was not
in violation of the right to privacy.
3.2.2. INTERCEPTION IS VALID AND THERE WAS AN EMERGENT SITUATION.
The court cases have established when special laws require the interception of calls in the interest of the
public or for the security of the country, it can be done to prevent organized crimes.141 A law infringing a
fundamental privacy right must satisfy the compelling state interest test i.e., whether the state interest is of
such paramount interest as would justify an infringement of the right. 142 In such a situation, the state
interference must be justified and proportional.143 Such interception is done to obtain evidence of the

128
N K Bajpai v. UOI, AIR 2012 SC 1310; See also, Anand Chitamani Dighe v. State of Maharashtra, 2001 2 BMLR 612; Rahmani
Primary Teachers Training College v. Najib Akhtar, 1991 (39) BLJR 1374.
129
Gobind v. State of Madhya Pradesh, (1975) 2 SCC 148; See also, Kartar Singh v. State of Punjab, (1994) 3 SCC 569; Delhi
Police Non- Gazetted Karmachari Sangh v. UOI, MANU/SC/0068/1986.
130
Justice KS Puttaswamy v. UOI, AIR 2015 SC 3081; See also, People’s Union for Civil Liberties v. UOI, AIR 1997 SC 568.
131
Justice KS Puttaswamy v. UOI, (2019) 1 SCC 267.
132
People’s Union for Civil Liberties v. Union of India, (2004) 9 SCC 580.
133
R v. Director of Serious Fraud Office, Ex Parte Smith, (1993) AC 1.
134
AIR 2019 SC 3592.
135
Kamal v. State of Punjab, Cr. Appeal 19905 of 2020.
136
Moot Prop PARA 5.
137
Santokh Singh v. Delhi Administration, AIR 1973 SC 1091.
138
Moot Prop PARA 3.
139
Moot Prop PARA 9.
140
MADHAVI GORADIA DIVAN, FACETS OF MEDIA LAW 183 (2nd Ed. Eastern Book Company 2013).
141
State of Maharashtra v. Bharat Shanti Lal Shah, (2008) 13 SCC 5.; See also, Yusuf Alli Esmail Nagree v. State of Maharashtra,
AIR 1968 SC 147.
142
Gobind v. State of MP, AIR 1975 SC 1378.
143
Ibid.
MEMORANDUM FOR RESPONDENTS 11 | P a g e
 9TH JAMIA NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2022
commission of a crime or to prevent its commission.144 In casu, the same was done to prevent the crime that
Andy was doing and to prevent future harm as well.
Secondly, Section 5 (2) of the Telegraph Act145 provides power to the Government to intercept calls.146 The
first requirement of application of S.5 of the Telegraph Act147 is that it can be done in any public emergency
or in the interest of the public.148
In casu, the interception of the calls was required to ensure the security in the state where the crime rate
has increased at a large rate within a few years.149 The effect of the protest on the Union of Kymlicka was
disheartening as it led to violence in the protest site as well as in the nearby states. 150 Being a welfare state151
it is the duty of the state to have a positive obligation.152
3.2.3. DOCTRINE OF THE FRUIT OF THE POISONOUS TREE IS NOT APPLICABLE IN UNION OF KYMLICKA.
Firstly, the evidence is not illegally obtained as authorities had the power to intercept calls u/s 5(2) of the
Telegraph Act.153 Arguendo, we assume that it has been obtained through the wrong means, Kymlickan laws
have taken the view that there is no bar to its admissibility.154 The apex court has discussed the 94thLaw
Commission Report,155 distinguished therefrom, and has categorically held that the evidence collected
illegally or in violation of the procedural law will not become inadmissible unless serious prejudice is caused
to the accused.156 If any evidence is admissible, and the Court is not concerned with how it is obtained.157 In
fact, specifically in the context of telephone recordings, the Supreme Court of India has held 158 that even if a
document or tape recording is illegally obtained, it would still be admissible as evidence, provided it fulfills
certain criteria of genuineness and relevance.159 The said criteria are fulfilled while considering call recordings
as it was submitted along with the S. 65B certificate.160 Thus, the Doctrine of Fruit of poisonous tress does
not apply in this case.

144
Madan v. State of Maharashtra, 2009 SCC OnLine Bom 483; See also, Malak Singh v. State of P&H (1981) 1 SCC 420.
145
The Indian Telegraph Act, 1885, § 5 (2) No. 13 of 1885, 1885 (India).
146
Anuradha Bhasin v. Union of India, (2020) 3 SCC 637.
147
The Indian Telegraph Act, 1885, § 5, No. 13 of 1885, 1885 (India).
148
K.L.D. Nagasree v. Govt. of India, 2006 SCC OnLine AP 1085.
149
Moot Prop PARA 3.
150
Moot Prop PARA 7.
151
Union Carbide Corporation v. Union of India, AIR 1992 SC 248.
152
Sasi Thomas v. State, (2006) 12 SCC 421; See also, Prithipal Singh v. State of Punjab, (2012) 1 SCC 10.
153
The Indian Telegraph Act, 1885, § 5, No. 13 of 1885, 1885 (India).
154
Bharat Chugh & Taahaa Khan, Rethinking the 'Fruits of the Poisonous Tree' Doctrine: Should the 'Ends' Justify the 'Means'?,
2020 SCC OnLine Blog OpEd 76 ; See also, Shyni Varghese v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi), (2008) 147 DLT 691 (Del); M.P.
Sharma v. Satish Chandra, AIR 1954 SC 300; State of M.P. v. Ramesh C. Sharma, (2005) 12 SCC 628; State (NCT of Delhi) v.
Navjot Sandhu, (2005) 11 SCC 600.
155
Law Commission of India, Evidence Obtained Illegally or Improperly: Proposed Section 166A, Indian Evidence Act, 1872,
Report No. 94, (1983), available at https://lawcommissionofindia.nic.in/51-100/Report94.pdf (last visited on May 21, 2022).
156
State of M.P. v. Paltan Mallah, (2005) 3 SCC 169 PARA 32.
157
Kuldip Singh v. State of Punjab, AIR 1997 SC 79 at pp. 82 and 83.
158
R. M. Malkaniv. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1973 SC 157.
159
Ram Singh v. Col. Ram Singh, 1985 Supp SCC 611 PARA 32; Poorna Mal v. Director of Inspection of Income Tax (1974) 1
SCC 345.
160
The Indian Evidence Act, 1872, § 65B, No. 1 of 1872 (India).
MEMORANDUM FOR RESPONDENTS 12 | P a g e
 9TH JAMIA NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2022
Therefore, for the reasons aforementioned, call interception by the police does not violate the right to
privacy of Andy and it was taken in the emergent situation in Union of Kymlicka. Arguendo, petitioners claim
that they were collected illegally then too it is admissible in court.
3.3. ELECTRONIC EVIDENCE SHOULD BE TREATED AS PRIMARY EVIDENCE.
The electronic documents are recognized as evidence and made admissible as such subject to conditions of
admissibility of evidence.161 Rules relating to the admissibility of electronic evidence and its proof have been
incorporated into Kymlickan laws.162 The courts have admitted that tape recordings as a relevant item of
evidence.163
The purpose of the provision u/s 65B is to sanctify secondary evidence in electronic form, generated by a
computer.164 Recently, it is established that certificate u/s 65B (4) is a mandatory requirement for the
production of any electronic evidence,165 in the present case, the certification has been done.166 The evidence
at hand is admissible and its sanctity is not under question as there is the compliance of S. 65B. Secondary
evidence are evidence that includes copies made from the originals by mechanical processes which in
themselves ensure the accuracy of the copy and copies compared with such copies.167
In casu, while treating electronic evidence as primary evidence Special court has not erred in applying laws.
The principle of stare decisis is followed as lower court applied decisions applied by higher courts.168
Electronic evidence in the present case was a core element as it was related to the ‘fact in issue’ of the case
and such evidence cannot be excluded or Such exclusion of electronic evidence might lead to violation of
natural justice.169 Arguendo, electronic devices can be easily tempered170 but if they are accompanied by the
certification that it enhances the validity and credibility of the evidence.171 In present case the certification
along with evidence was given by prosecution,172 therefore Special court while treating secondary evidence as
primary evidence are justified. There was no contradiction in the evidence and authenticity was also there.
3.4. RIGHT TO DEFENCE GIVEN PROPERLY TO ACCUSED DURING TRIAL.
In a criminal trial, the purpose of examining the accused person under S. 313 CrPC 173 is to meet the
requirement of the natural justice i.e., audi alterum partem.174 Accused of being given a complete chance to

161
Jagjit Singh v. State of Haryana, (2006) 11 SCC 1; See also, State of Punjab v. Amritsar Beverages Ltd., (2006) 7 SCC 607.
162
P. Gopalkrishnan v. State of Kerala, (2020) 9 SCC 161; See also, State v. Mohd Afzal, 107 (2003) DLT 385 at (278).
163
Rup Chand v. Mahabir Parshad, AIR 1956 P &H 173; See also, Ram Singh v. Col. Ram Singh AIR 1986 SC 3; Ziyauddin
Burhanuddin Bukhari v. Brijmohan Ramdass Mehra AIR 1975 SC 1788.
164
Arjun Panditrao Khotkar v. Kailas Khusanrao Gorantyal, (2020) 7 SCC 1; Anvar P.V. v. P.K. Basheer, (2014) 10 SCC 473.
165
Ravinder Singh v. State of Punjab, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 541.
166
Moot Prop PARA 11.
167
Societe Des Producrs Nestle v. Essar Industries, 2006 (33) PTC 469 (Del) at 15; See also, Smt. J. Yashoda v. Smt. K. Shobha
Rani, (2007) 5 SCC 730 PARA 7 & 9.
168
Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Assn. v. Union of India, (2016) 5 SCC 1; Sakshi v. Union of India, (2004) 5 SCC 518.
169
Arjun Panditrao Khotkar v. Kailas Khusanrao Gorantyal and ors., (2020) 7 SCC 1.
170
Askand Kumar Pandey, “Appreciation of Electronic Evidence: A Critique of Judicial Approach”, 6 RMLNLUJ (2014) 24.
171
Ziyauddin Burhanuddin Bukhari v. Brijmohan Ramdass Mehra, (1976) 2 SCC 17; See also, Tukaram S. Dighole v. Manikrao
Shivaji Kokate, (2010) 4 SCC 329.
172
Moot Prop PARA 11.
173
The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, § 313, No. 2, Acts of Parliament, 1974 (India).
174
Raj Kumar Singh v. State of Rajasthan, AIR 2013 SC 3150; Devender Kr. Singla v. Baldev Krishan Singla, (2005) 9 SCC 15
MEMORANDUM FOR RESPONDENTS 13 | P a g e
 9TH JAMIA NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2022
defy and present new evidence or explanation in his favour.175 The statement made by the accused under the
said section is taken into consideration to appreciate the truthfulness or otherwise of the prosecution case.176
It is the procedural safeguard given to the accused to grant if an opportunity to explain the facts and
circumstances appearing against him in the prosecution’s evidence.177
Non-supply of documents or evidence is not necessarily prejudicial to the accused. 178 The bare language
of S. 207179 has the word “shall” and it has been held that “shall” appearing in section is only directory.180 In
the present case the court has not acted arbitrarily. Arguendo, the documents were given after the
commencement of trial, the chance was given to Andy to rebut it during prosecution evidence stage181 and
also during defence evidence stage u/s 313.182 So, the principle of natural justice i.e., audi alteram partem is
evidently followed in the case. Even after chance was given to the accused, accused was not able to give any
proper explanation whatsoever as regards incriminating circumstances put to him.
3.5. SHELLY CAN BE MADE CO- ACCUSED AS PRIMA FACIE EVIDENCE WAS AVAILABLE AGAINST HER.
The power under the S. 319 CrPC183 may be used suo motu or on an application by the prosecution or the
accused. 184 In casu, the Special Public Prosecutor filed the application under S. 319 which accepted by the
court.185 Power u/s 319 is an extraordinary power which is conferred on the Court to do complete justice so
that no accused is let free in the society.186 It does not create any prejudice either to the accused already on
trial or to the person summoned u/s 319.187 Two conditions are required to proceed against a person u/s 319
CrPC (i) that from the evidence it appears to the court that such a person “has committed any offence”, and
(ii) that such a person “could be tried together with the accused” already facing trial.188
A person can be made accused u/s 319 by examining the materials submitted by police.189 When evidences
and documents are analysed properly then after that if prima facie case is made out against a person, then that
person can be summoned under section 319 to face court as an accused or co-accused.190 The court is to see

175
Sunil Clifford Daniel v. State of Punjab, (2012) 11 SCC 205.
176
M P v. Ramesh, (2011) 4 SCC 786; See also, Rohatsh Kumar v. State of Haryana, (2013) 14 SCC 434 at p. 448; Madhu v. State
of Karnataka, (2014) 12 SCC 419.
177
V S Chauhan, Reasoned Decision: A Principle of Natural Justice, 37 JILI (1995) 92.
178
Noor khan v. State of Rajasthan, AIR 1964 SC 286; Shalika Abdul Gafar Khan v. Vasant Raghunath Dhoble, (2003) 7 SCC 749.
179
The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, § 207, No. 2, Acts of Parliament, 1974 (India).
180
Kamal Krishna v. State, 1977 CrLJ 1492.
181
Moot Prop PARA 12.
182
Ibid.
183
The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, § 319, No. 2, Acts of Parliament, 1974 (India).
184
Md. Muzaffar Hussain Khan v. State of Orissa, 1955 (1) Crimes 459 at pp. 460,461; See also, 1 D.D. BASU, CRIMINAL
PROCEDURE CODE, 1973 567 (6th Ed. Lexis Nexis 2017).
185
Moot Prop PARA 10.
186
1 MULLA, COMMENTARY ON THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973, 456 (20th Ed. Delhi Law House 2018).
187
Raj Kishore Prasad v. State of Bihar, AIR 1996 SC 1931 at p. 1935; See also, Joginder Singh v. State of Punjab, (1979) 2 SCR
306; Mir Md. Asifa v. Mir Md. Ismail, 2013 CrLJ 1646.
188
Tek Narayan Prasad Yadav v. State of Bihar, 1999 SCC (Cri) 356.
189
Kishori Singh v. State of Bihar, (2006) 1 SCC (Cri) 275 at PARA 277.
190
Mohan Singh v. State of UP, 2004 CrLJ 2684 at PARA 2686.
MEMORANDUM FOR RESPONDENTS 14 | P a g e
 9TH JAMIA NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2022
and examine whether a prima facie case is made out or not before initiating action u/s 319 CrPC.191
In casu, Shelly Cobb can be made co-accused as prima facie the offence of money laundering attracted to
her. She was helping Andy financially to complete his criminal endeavours.192 During the investigation it was
found that the call recordings between Andy and Shelly had incriminating conversations.193 Even Andy
himself gave the statement that he receives foreign funds194 before the ED officers and it is established that
statements to ED officers are admissible.195 All these made circumstantial evidence to prove that Shelly played
a seminal role in the completion of Andy’s offences.
Therefore, the Counsel asserts that with help of evidences and circumstances prima facie offence was made
out against Shelly and Special Court was right in making her co-accused u/s 319 CrPC.
4. WHETHER THE SPECIAL COURT ERRED IN CONVICTING ANDY FOR THE OFFENCES U/3 13,16,17,18 OF

UAPA; U/S 4 OF PMLA AND U/S 124A, 120B OF IPC; AND SHELLY U/S 4 OF PMLA AND U/S 120B OF IPC?
The Counsel for the Respondent reverently submits before this Hon’ble Supreme Court of Kymlicka that
the act by the Petitioner does attract the offences u/ss. 13,16,17,18 of the UAPA, 1967 196; u/s 4 of PMLA197;
u/ss. 124A and 120B of IPC, 1860.198
4.1. THAT THE OFFENCES UNDER THE UNLAWFUL ACTIVITIES (PREVENTION) ACT, 1967 ARE ATTRACTED.
4.1.1 ESSENTIALS UNDER SECTION 13 (PUNISHMENT FOR UNLAWFUL ACTIVITIES) ARE ATTRACTED.
U/s 13 of UAPA, the key ingredients are that there should be either participation or incitement, or assistance
of any unlawful activity.199 Whereas “unlawful activities” stands for action leading to the cession of national
territory200 or secession of territory201 or disruptive activities202 or causing disaffection.203 The meaning of
“disrupt” is to interrupt (an event, activity, or process) by causing disturbance or problem.204
In casu, due to the protest called by Andy and the viral video of the protest, there were major clashes in the
adjoining district.205 Before this, also because of his sidious blog there were both hot and cold replies.206 Even
physical altercations took place at the protest site,207 and disruption was caused in the public place by

191
Raj Kishore Prasad v. State of Bihar, AIR 1996 SC 1931 at p. 1935; See also, S. Gopal v. State of Karnataka, 2007 CrLJ 484;
Golla Devavaram v. Karanam Balarama Krishna Murthy, (2007) 15 SCC 665; RATANLAL AND DHIRAJLAL, THE CODE OF CRIMINAL
PROCEDURE 543 (21st Ed. Lexis Nexis 2019).
192
Moot Prop PARA 4.
193
Moot Prop PARA 9.
194
Moot Prop PARA 9.
195
Rohit Tandon v. Directorate of Enforcement, (2018) 11 SCC 46.
196
The Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967, § 13, 16, 17, 18, No. 37, Acts of Parliament, 1967 (India).
197
The Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, § 4, No. 15, Acts of Parliament, 2003 (India).
198
Indian Penal Code, 1860, § 124A & 120B, No. 45 of 1860, 1860 (India).
199
The Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967, § 13, No. 37, Acts of Parliament, 1967 (India).
200
Sukhdev Singh v. Union Territory, 1986 CrLJ 1757.
201
Esher Singh v. State of Andhra Pradesh, 2004 (3) SC 391.
202
Sukhchain Singh v. State of Rajasthan, (2000) 2 SCC 183.
203
Nazir Khan v. State of Delhi AIR 2003 SC 4427.
204
S. ABDUL KHADER KUNJU, COMMENTARIES ON THE UNLAWFUL ACTIVITIES (PREVENTION) ACT, 1967, 87 (2nd Ed., Asia Law
House, 2021).
205
Moot Prop PARA 7.
206
Moot Prop PARA 8.
207
Ibid.
MEMORANDUM FOR RESPONDENTS 15 | P a g e
 9TH JAMIA NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2022
protestors led by Andy.208 All this caused disruption which hampered the peace and security in the Union of
Kymlicka. For the reasons stated the ingredient of disruption is fulfilled.
Secondly, in Javed Habib v. State (NCT of Delhi)209, it was stated that criticising the functioning of the
Parliament, or the government cannot be considered as bringing hatred or attempting to excite disaffection
toward the government unless the intention is to oversaw the government. Where legitimate political criticism
of the Government in power ends and disaffection begins, cannot ascertained with precision.210
In casu, Andy White’s intention from the first stage was to oversaw the government, in his speech in the
protest he clearly stated that “We should keep fighting at all costs and must do whatever it takes”.211 For
these reasons, it is submitted that essential ingredients of S. 13 of UAPA,212 is applicable in the present case.
4.1.2. ESSENTIALS UNDER S. 16 OF UAPA ARE ATTRACTED.

S. 16213 provides punishment for the terrorist activities defined u/s 15.214 An act which threatens or is likely
to threaten, amongst others, the unity, integrity, security, or sovereignty of India or intends to strike terror or
is likely to strike terror on the people or any section of the people by any activities such as using bombs or
firearms or other lethal weapons that cause or are likely to cause death or injury then s. 16 is attracted.215
Even if any act of an accused person is likely to cause such a situation section 16 would be triggered 216
Any preparatory act devised to cause terrorism would also hit S. 16.217 A person can be convicted of terrorism
if he conspires, advocate, abet, incite or knowingly facilitate the commission of a terrorist act or any act
preparatory to a terrorist act.218
In casu, Andy always had the intention to cause terror in the society against the government, for the same
he organised the protest and incited the people and caused terror in their minds.219 Andy also intended to
provide all logistical support and for that matter, he also had an illegal collection of approximately INR
6,00,000/- cash in his apartment.220 All these activities are likely to disseminate terror in the mind of people
which can be seen eventually be seen through disturbance in peace in an adjoining district. For these reasons,
it is submitted that the sine qua non-ingredient of terrorist activity u/s 16221 i.e., likely to cause terror is
attracted in the present case.
4.1.3. ESSENTIALS UNDER S. 17 ARE ATTRACT.

208
Moot Prop PARA 11.
209
2007 SCC OnLine Del 891 PARA 4, 5.
210
Nazir Khan v. State of Delhi, AIR 2003 SC 4427.
211
Moot Prop PARA 7.
212
The Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967, § 13 Acts of Parliament, 1967 (India).
213
The Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967, § 16, Acts of Parliament, 1967 (India).
214
The Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967, § 15, No. 37, Acts of Parliament, 1967 (India).
215
Extra-Judicial Execution Victim Families Assn. v. Union of India, (2016) 14 SCC 536.
216
Vikraman v. State of Kerala, 2015 (2) KLJ 113.
217
State of Rajasthan v. Ajit Singh, 2008 CrLJ 364.
218
Lal Singh v. State of Gujarat, AIR 2001 SC 746.
219
Moot Prop PARA 7.
220
Moot Prop PARA 8.
221
The Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967, § 16, Acts of Parliament, 1967 (India).
MEMORANDUM FOR RESPONDENTS 16 | P a g e
 9TH JAMIA NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2022
The general principle is that a person so involved must be found rendering financial assistance to the
accused of terrorism/ disruptive activities, or reasonably suspected of indulging in such activities.222 In casu,
Andy has been collecting money and crowdfund to fulfil his objective of causing terror in the Union of
Kymlicka.223 He was unable to provide any specific reason when asked about the source of money found at
his apartment.224 Even in defence evidence stage, he was unable to give justification for the transactions which
were from various other sources.225 No clear reason was given for the crowdfunding. For these reasons it could
be concluded that the funds were raised for assistance in completion of his malafide intention of terrorist act.
4.1.4. ESSENTIALS UNDER S. 18 OF UAPA ARE ATTRACTED IN SAID CASE.
A conspiracy is hatched in secrecy and it may be difficult to adduce direct evidence of the same therefore
in such cases we rely on circumstantial evidence.226 Surrounding circumstances and antecedent and
subsequent conduct, among other factors, constitute relevant material.227 Inference from such proven
circumstances regarding the guilt may be drawn only through circumstances.228
In casu, Andy’s plan was clear, firstly he started curating his popularity due to his constant presence on
social media,229 then he organised a protest.230 While the protest was going on, he incited people and
encouraged them to do illegal act.231 Later on people in his protests went out and started hampering peace and
created violence in various district.232 In addition to that he also had cash in his apartment233 to financial
support his disciple for doing wrongful act. All these circumstance proof that there was hatching of conspiracy.
Secondly, In Ram Narain Popli v. Central Bureau of Investigation 234 court explained the elements of a
criminal conspiracy i.e., a plan or a scheme embodying means to accomplish that object which might be
unlawful or the plan itself be unlawful.
In casu, there is the meeting of mind between Andy and protestors for the unlawful purpose of harming the
peace and causing disruption. Andy was successful in spreading his idea as the violence in several districts
were caused by the protestors led by him.235 Therefore, the essential element of S. 18 of UAPA is met in the
present case.
4.2. THAT THE OFFENCES UNDER S. 4 OF PMLA, 2022 ALONG WITH S. 120B IPC,1860 ATTRACTED.
4.2.1. STEPS OF MONEY LAUNDERING ARE DEPLOYED.

222
Yakub Abdul Razak Memon v. State of Maharashtra, (2013) 13 SCC 1.
223
Moot Prop PARA 8.
224
Moot Prop PARA 8.
225
Moot Prop PARA 12.
226
Kehar Singh v. State (Delhi Administration), AIR 1988 SC 1883; See also, Mohd. Khalid v. State of WB (2002) 7 SCC 334.
227
Noor Mohammad Mohd. Yusuf Momin v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1971 SC 885.
228
P K Narayanan v. State of Kerala, (1995) 1 SCC 142.
229
Moot Prop PARA 5.
230
Moot Prop PARA 6.
231
Moot Prop PARA 7.
232
Moot Prop PARA 11.
233
Moot Prop PARA 8.
234
AIR 2003 SC 2748, See also, Anas Abdul Rashid Machiswala v. State of Gujarat, MANU/ GJ/009/2011.
235
Moot Prop PARA 11.
MEMORANDUM FOR RESPONDENTS 17 | P a g e
 9TH JAMIA NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2022
Money laundering is a proceed of crime236 are layered through plural transactions, the intent to camouflage
the source of the property as a derivative of criminality renders it difficult to identify the succeeding
transactions as relatable to the initial proceeds of crime.237 When laundering operations are pursued across
State boundaries, flows of funds would involve several routes.238
In casu, the concealment or disguise of the true nature, source, and location of the proceeds of crime by
Andy has been observed since he could not tell the source of several other transactions made to him and the
cash amount of INR 6,00,000/- that was found at his apartment qualifies the stage of placement.239 The above-
mentioned value of the cash amount is inconsistent with Andy’s apparent financial standing and payment
pattern.240 Further, it was found various suspicious transactions241 were made to Andy’s bank account
including the foreign funds that he received from his aunt, Shelly Cobb.242 This further directs to the possibility
of the other sources being linked with Shelly in order to camouflage the source across State boundaries.
Therefore, the counsel, for the reasons stated, submits that Andy and Shelly attract S.4 of PMLA.
4.2.2. THE PRESENT CASE QUALIFIES THE REQUIREMENT OF MENS REA AS AN INGREDIENT U/S 4 OF PMLA.
Verbatim of S.3 of the PMLA defines the offence of money laundering including the term ‘knowingly’
thereby concluding mens rea as an essential ingredient of the offence.243
U/s 24 of PMLA the burden of proof is on the accused to prove that he is not involved in the offence of
money laundering.244 In casu, the element of the mens rea is fulfilled as the steps of money laundering are
observed to be deployed to aid the unlawful activities carried out by Andy.245 Moreover, the amount of cash
recovered from Andy’s apartment raises multiple objections. Firstly, Andy clearly failed to address the source
246
or the purpose of the money. Secondly, during the prosecution evidence stage, Andy did not counter-
examine or rebut the memo seizure that was submitted as evidence. 247 Furthermore, throughout the defence
evidence stage, Andy could only submit the transaction details between him and Shelly and failed to provide
any explanation for the said cash amount.248 For these reasons, it is asserted that the element of mens rea is
proved by both the petitioners.
4.2.3. ANDY AND SHELLY ATTRACT OFFENCE U/S 120 B OF IPC.

236
The Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, § 2(u), No. 15, Acts of Parliament, 2003 (India).
237
B. Rama Raju v. Union of India, 2011 SCC OnLine AP 152.
238
Ram Jethmalani v. Union of India (2011) 8 SCC 1.
239
Moot Prop PARA 7.
240
Moot Prop PARA 4.
241
The Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, Rule 2(1)g, No. 15, Acts of Parliament, 2003 (India).
242
Moot Prop PARA 4.
243
J.K. Industries Ltd. v. Chief Inspector of Factories and Boilers JT, 1996 (6) SCC 665; See also, Kalpanth Rai v. State through
CBI, AIR 1997 SCC 9; CA RAJKUMAR S., PREVENTION OF MONEY LAUNDERING ACT, 2002, 34 (Bharat Law House Pvt. Ltd. 2014).
244
The Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, § 24, No. 15, Acts of Parliament, 2003 (India).
245
Moot Prop PARA 8.
246
Moot Prop PARA 12.
247
Moot Prop PARA 11.
248
Moot Prop PARA 12.
MEMORANDUM FOR RESPONDENTS 18 | P a g e
 9TH JAMIA NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2022
Conspiracy to commit a crime itself is punishable as a substantive offence and every individual offence
committed pursuant to the conspiracy is a separate and distinct offence to which individual offenders are liable
to punishment, independent of the conspiracy.249
In casu, Shelly has been found to be aiding Andy financially and supported his unlawful conduct.
Arguendo, Shelly dropped out at any point of time she will still be held as the other party in agreement with
Andy for the illegitimate agendas decided by them.250 The same can be derived from the transcription of call
recordings between Andy and Shelly submitted by the prosecution in the Special Court.251
Therefore, it is submitted that Andy and Shelly attract the offence of criminal conspiracy.
4.3. THAT THE OFFENCES UNDER THE SECTION 124A IPC, 1860 ALONG WITH S. 120B IPC,1860 ARE

ATTRACTED.

Any feeling of disloyalty towards the government established by law or enmity toward it signifies the
probability of public disorder by the use of actual violence or incitement to violence amounts to sedition.252
Andy’s words were of seditious nature which could have caused disruption in the ordinary course can be
established by the (4.3.1.) Intention and Knowledge of the accused behind the words provoking the minds of
people and (4.3.2) The manner in which the words were addressed to the public.
4.3.1. INTENTION AND KNOWLEDGE OF THE ACCUSED BEHIND THE WORDS PROVOKING THE MINDS OF

PEOPLE.

In the Bangobasi case,253 it was held that if a person uses words either spoken or written calculated to
create in the minds of the persons to whom they are addressed a disposition not to obey the lawful authority
of the government, or to subvert or resist that authority, and if he does so with the intention of creating such a
disposition in his readers minds, he will be guilty of the offence of attempting to excite disaffection within the
meaning of section 124A.
In casu, Andy in his blog drew a comparison between the actions of the government and colonial rulers,
accusing them for unabatedly using security legislations to stifle the voice of people.254 It was clearly intended
to incite contempt in the minds of people against the government. Furthermore, in his speeches during the
protest, he requested the mass gathering to keep raising their voices against government at any cost.255 He also
promised to provide logistical support to the protestors. Thereafter, reports of violence emerged in the
adjoining districts and physical altercations at the protest spot disrupted public places. Firstly, writing such a

249
Yash Pal v. State of Punjab, (1997) 4 SCC 540; Noor Md. Momin v. State of Mahrashtra, (1971) 1 SCR 119; E.G Barsay v. State
of Bombay, AIR 1961 SC 1762; Mohammad Usman Maniyar v. State of Maharashtra, 1981 SCC (Cri 477).
250
R.K Dalmia v. Delhi Adminsitration, (1963) 1 SCR 253: AIR 1962 SC 1821: (1962) 2 Cri LJ 805
251
Moot Prop PARA 11.
252
Kedar Nath Singh v State of Bihar, A.I.R. 1962 S.C. 955; See also, K.D. GAUR, INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1860, 227 (7th Ed. Lexis
Nexis 2020); P Hemlatha v. Govt of Andhra Pradesh, (1976) 2 Andh. WR 190 (FB).
253
Queen Empress v. JogendraChunder, Bose 19 ILR Cal. 35.
254
Moot Prop PARA 5.
255
Moot Prop PARA 7.
MEMORANDUM FOR RESPONDENTS 19 | P a g e
 9TH JAMIA NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2022
strongly opinionated and provoking article and then organizing a protest was clearly an intentional move on
the part of the appellant. Andy’s words sparked aggression among the protestors.
The Counsel asserts that the appellant had complete knowledge of the powers his words held, and had a
clear intention of provoking people against the government leading to public disorder in the country. Thus,
Andy’s action falls under the ambit of sedition as stated in section 124A, IPC. His all action was very clear
that he always intended to caused disposition towards government.
4.3.2. THE MANNER IN WHICH THE WORDS WERE ADDRESSED TO THE PUBLIC.
Freedom of speech and expression can be restricted if there is an apprehension of danger to the society
and public order.256 In V.A. Pugalenthi v. State,257 it was held that calling out public to demonstrate and
agitate against the Central and State Governments on any issue would prima facie constitute the offences of
sedition and defamation. Mr. John G. Robert, Chief Justice of United States Supreme Court in the case of
Snyder v. Phelps258 opined: “Speech is powerful. It can stir people to action, move them to tears of both joy
and sorrow, and inflict great pain. Hence, it is to be delivered rightfully.”
Moreover, in R v. Alexander Martin Sullivan,259 it was said that when the natural consequence of the
guilty person’s conduct is to promote public disorder, he shall be held liable under the section. The test is the
manner in which any word or opinion is put forward.
Andy, in his blog and speeches, strongly criticized the government and blamed it for stifling the voices
of people by enacting security legislations. His actions provoked the mass gathering and resulted in violence
and public disruptions.260 His comparison of government with colonial rulers was enough to create distrust in
the minds of the people against the government established by law. Therefore, Andy White’s action attract the
charges of Sedition u/s 124 A and Criminal Conspiracy u/s 120 B for inciting hatred against government.

256
(1989) 2 SCC 574; See also, The Superintendent, central prison, Fatehgarh v. Dr. Ram Manohar Lohia, AIR 1960 SC 633.
257
Crl. O.P. No. 21463 of 2017, decided on 9/11/2017; See also, 1 RATANLAL & DHIRAJLAL, THE INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1860, 345
(27th Ed. Lexis Nexis 2013).
258
562 U.S. 443 (2011).
259
R v. Sullivan, (1868) 11 Cox C.C. 44 at p. 45.
260
Moot Prop PARA 7.
MEMORANDUM FOR RESPONDENTS 20 | P a g e
 9TH JAMIA NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2022

PRAYER

Wherefore, may it please the Hon’ble Supreme Court, in the light of facts and circumstances of the case, issues
raised, arguments advanced and authorities cited, the Respondents pray that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased
to adjudge, rule upon, and determine the following:

1. Declare that the Criminal Procedure (Identification) Act, 2022 and Section 50 of Prevention of
Money Laundering Act, 2022 are intra vires to the Constitution of Kymlicka and does not violate
fundamental rights of a petitioner.
2. Upheld the judgement and order passed by the learned Trial Court and confirmation by the High
Court.
3. That Andy and Shelly should continue their term of imprisonment for the offences they have
been charged with.

And/or Pass any other Order, Direction, or Relief that it may deem fit in the best interests of Justice,
Equity, and Good Conscience.

Sd/-

(Counsels on behalf of the Respondents)

MEMORANDUM FOR RESPONDENTS XXIII | P a g e

 9TH JAMIA NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2022

MEMORANDUM FOR RESPONDENTS XXIV | P a g e