5th PROF. N.R.

MADHAVAN MENON SAARC MOOTING COMETITION 2019-20

TEAM CODE: NRMC49

“5th PROF. N.R. MADHAVAN MENON SAARC MOOTING COMPETITION 2019-20”

(INDIA ROUNDS)

__________________________________________________________
BEFORE THE HON’BLE SUPREME COURT OF INDICA
__________________________________________________________

S.L.P. (C) No. ____ of 2019

_______________________________________________

In the matters of
MR. ‘Z’ V. STATE OF MALABAR
MR. SOYUZ V. STATE OF MALABAR
_______________________________________________________________

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

1
WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT
 5th PROF. N.R. MADHAVAN MENON SAARC MOOTING COMETITION 2019-20

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF
ABBREVIATIONS……………………………………………………………………………3
INDEX OF AUTHORITIES………………………………………………………………...4-5
STATEMENT OF
JURISDICTION…………………………………………………………………………….....6
STATEMENT OF
FACTS………………………………………………………………………………………7-8
ISSUES
RAISED………………………………………………………………………………………9
SUMMARY OF
ARGUMENTS………………………………………………………………………………10
ARGUEMENTS
ADVANCED……………………………………………………………………………11-23
CONTENTION 1: ……………….......................................................................................11
CONTENTION 2:………………….................................................................................11-16
CONTENTION 3:…………………….............................................................................17-19
CONTENTION 4: .............................................................................................................20
CONTENTION 5:..........................................................................................................21-23

PRAYER………………………………………………………………………………....24

2
WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT
 5th PROF. N.R. MADHAVAN MENON SAARC MOOTING COMETITION 2019-20

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

& And
A.I.R All India Reporter
Anr. Another
Cri. Criminal
Hon’ble Honourable
LR Law Reporter
No. Number
Ors. Others
SC Supreme Court
SCC Supreme Court Cases
V. Versus
Vol. Volume
Edt. EDITION

3
WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT
 5th PROF. N.R. MADHAVAN MENON SAARC MOOTING COMETITION 2019-20

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

STATUTORY COMPILATIONS
 THE CONSTITUTION OF INDICA, 1950
 THE NARCOTICS DRUGS AND PSYCHOTROPIC SUBSTANCES ACT, 1985
 THE CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE
 THE INDICA EVIDENCE ACT
 THE POLICE MANUAL OF STATE OF MALABAR

BOOKS AND DIGESTS

 V.N. SHUKLA
 M.P JAIN INDIAN CONSTITUTIONAL LAW
 LAW OF EVIDENCE

TABLE OF CASES
Terry v Ohio 392 U.S. 1(1968)
Horton V. goose Creek Independent School District693 F2d 524
In Narayanaswamy Ravishankar v Assistant Director, Directorate of Revenue
Intelligence(2002) 8SCC
Ramu v. State 2000CriLJ3412
Mana singh V. State of Rajasthan RLW 2003 (1) Raj 308
State of Punjab V. Balbir Singh 1994 AIR 1872
State of Punjab v Baldev Singh(1999) 6 Scc 172
GURBAX SINGH V. STATE OF HARYANA (2001) 3 Scc 28
State of Punjab v. Makhan chand 2004 (1) ALD Cri 773
United States v. Place, 462 U.S. 696 (1983)
United States v. Jacobsen, 466 U.S. 109 (1984)
Illinois v. Caballes, 543 U.S. 405 (2005).
Ramnaresh & Ors v. State of Chhattisgarh 2012 4 SCC 257
Balasaheb V. State of Maharashtra
SUNIL KUMAR V. RAKESH KUMAR(2003) 8SCC 673, PARA 47

4
WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT
 5th PROF. N.R. MADHAVAN MENON SAARC MOOTING COMETITION 2019-20

Ram singh and Ors. V. Col. Ram Singh 1986 AIR,3 1985 SCR Supl. (2) 399
State of Gujrat V. Gandha bhai Govind bhai2000 ACJ 1305,AIR 1999 GUJ 316

WEB PAGES
 https://m.economictimes.com/news/politics-and-nation/courts-can-rely-on-electronic-
records-without-certificate-supreme-court/articleshow/62777759.cms
 http://www.legalserviceindia.com/legal/article-187-quashing-of-fir-criminal-
proceedings-under-section-482-of-crpc.html
 https://www.indiatoday.in/technology/news/story/robot-releases-bear-repellant-inside-
amazon-warehouse-24-workers-end-up-in-hospital-1404425-2018-12-07
 https://scc-csc.lexum.com/scc-csc/scc-csc/en/item/4628/index.do

5
WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT
 5th PROF. N.R. MADHAVAN MENON SAARC MOOTING COMETITION 2019-20

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

The Hon’ble Supreme Court of Indica has the jurisdiction in this matter under Article 32 of
The Constitution of Indica.
The Supreme Court has a jurisdiction to entertain and hear appeals by granting Writ petition
against any kind of judgement or order made by any Court or Tribunal in any proceedings
and the exercise of this power is left entirely to the discretion of the Supreme Court.

6
WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT
 5th PROF. N.R. MADHAVAN MENON SAARC MOOTING COMETITION 2019-20

STATEMENT OF FACTS

 A recent report by police authorities reported increased instances of Drug abuse. It further
recommends proactive measures like search & seizure of a drug-free environment
increased awareness of ill-effects of drugs launch of special advocacy program and
formulation of a zero-tolerance policy for drugs in the school.

 ‘Choice school’ is a century old residential school having illustrious alumni fraternity is
situated in the old city of Kochi. Mr. 'X' who assumed the charge of the Principal of the
'Choice School' on 01.08.2019 issued a 'standing invitation' to the police to visit the
school with sniffer-dogs, if dogs are available. The police authorities did not visit the
school premises immediately, but later on, police officers asked for permission to look for
drugs in the school premises with the help of the dogs. Mr. 'X' immediately granted them
permission but with the certain limitations.

 The dogs were trained to find humans & detect certain variety of narcotics. The police
searched five classrooms in a random manner on different floors, several lockers were put
in the corridors, etc. The police with the help of trained dogs moved towards the old car
parkingof the school, when the dogs started sniffing and behaving differently. The
'recreation room' which also housed a 'badminton court' was adjacent to the old car
parking & had a boundary fencing wall as one of its walls. The dogs sniffed the bags
lined up against a wall and indicated the presence of drugs in one of them. That bag was
then searched by a police officer who found it to contain more than one packet of
marijuana (weighing about 200 gms.), ten bags of imported magic mushrooms weighing
about 100 gms.), cocaine, heroin & other narcotic substances in minor amount.
Subsequently, it was found that the bag belonged to a student 'Z' aged 17 years who was
apprehended under the law.

 The matter was then reported to the SP who immediately constituted an SIT led by Mr. P
to eliminate drug abuse in the entire vicinity.

 Robocop developed by Honda Inc. is promoted as a Super Cop and it is programmed in a

manner for detecting narcotics substances & can work in adverse situation (fire-resistant,
waterproof ) and it’s equipped with four high-resolution cameras to collect evidence and
crime scene more appropriately.

 Mr. P who was identifying possible search places to have control over illegal drug
menace. They received a tip of information that unauthorized & illegal materials are lying
in the godown owned by one of the trustees of the 'Choice School' i.e., Mr. Soyuz. The
godown which is under suspicion is in the backside of the badminton court, however,

7
WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT
 5th PROF. N.R. MADHAVAN MENON SAARC MOOTING COMETITION 2019-20

across the boundary of the school. As the team led by Mr. 'P' is about to raid and carry out
the 'search', the fire emergency department of Kochi Police receives information of balls
of smoke coming out of the three storied godown owned by Mr. Soyuz. Mr. 'P' took the
necessary permission from the Police Commissioner of Kochi Zone to use 'RoboCop',
considering its characteristics to collect the evidence from the building under fire, before
all evidences gets destroyed in fire. The Police Commissioner through an executive order
authorized the use of 'Robocop' considering the emergent situation and exigencies in the
facts and circumstances.

 Mr. P reached the place of incident and made Robo-Cop enter the terrace of the building
and as per its programming Robo-Cop reported about the presence of cocaine, heroin,
magic mushrooms, photographed two gallons and collected sufficient evidence within 10
minutes later on Mr. P also tried to collect the evidences & other material sample from
the building but it was completely burnt.

 A FIR was registered upon the evidence collected by Ropo-Cop under the various
provisions of law & on the very next day the print media highlighted the importance of
Robo-Cop and its impact in justice administration.

 Mr. 'Z' approached the Supreme Court of Indica by way of a writ petition under Article 32
of the Constitution of Indica challenging the entire process of 'search & seizure' being
violative of the fundamental right to privacy, in breach of standards of privacy and
reasonable expectation along with other laws, unauthorized and illegal. Mr. 'Z'
approached the Supreme Court of Indica by way of a writ petition under Article 32 of the
Constitution of Indica challenging the entire process of 'search & seizure' being violative
of the fundamental right to privacy and seeking quash of his FIR. The state of Malabar
represented by Superintendent of Police replied that all the due process was followed and
the search was an aid to search not done under the provision of Cr.P.C and it also justified
the use of Robocop contended that 'absence of policy/legislative framework for use of AI
based machines/ robotics' does not bar them from adopting new technologies as 'tools of
investigation'.

 The petitions have been slated for hearing by a constitution bench of the Supreme Court
of Indica on 19th – 20th October 2019.

8
WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT
 5th PROF. N.R. MADHAVAN MENON SAARC MOOTING COMETITION 2019-20

ISSUES RAISED

ISSUE 1: Whether the writ petition is maintainable before the Honourable court.

ISSUE 2: Whether search and seizure was unauthorised and illegal

ISSUE 3: Whether fundamental right to privacy of Z has been violated as the result of
which evidences collected by The Police Authority is inadmissible before the court of
Law.

ISSUE 4: Whether right to silence in present case can be claimed as facet of

fundamental right or not.

ISSUE 5: Whether evidences collected by Robo Cop is admissible before the court of
law

9
WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT
 5th PROF. N.R. MADHAVAN MENON SAARC MOOTING COMETITION 2019-20

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS

CONTENTION 1: It is humbly submitted before the Honourable court that the writ petition
filed by the petitioners is Non-Maintainable as no fundamental right of the petitioners have
been violated by the police authorities.

CONTENTION 2: It is humbly submitted that the search conducted in the school was mere
an aid to search. The state of Malabar prepare a report of increased instance of drug abuse
among school children and some Pro-active measures were laid down. Police authorities got
an standing invitation from principal of choice schools and they were acting on furtherance of
the invitation only moreover they took one hour prior permission before conducting the
search and school falling under Public place attracts section 43 of NDPS Act which
authorises the authorities to detain the person and seize the contrabands. So the entire process
of search and seizure is deemed to be Lawful and authorised.

CONTENTION 3: It is contended that the police authorities searched the school in a

random manner and then they came to the recreational room where Z's backpack was lined up
against a Wall. The Dog sniffed about the presence of drug and it was then searched by a
competent police officer who found that bag contains the Contraband articles. Z particularly
did not have a subjective expectation of privacy students were aware of drug problem and
proactive measures recommended the search with the help of sniffer dogs. Hence no privacy
of Mr Z has not been infringed.

CONTENTION 4: It is humbly submitted that article 20(3) empowers the person not to be a
witness against himself but that doesn't mean that there is an absolute privileges given to
persons. Accused cannot remain silent throughout the trial and proceedings of the court and
must have to cooperate with the investigation. If the accuse remains silent the court is
permitted to draw negative inferences from such silence against the accuse.

CONTENTION 5: It is contended that evidences cannot be held liable to be inadmissible

before the court just because it does not have any statutory backing Commissioner of police
passed an executive order for using Robocop according to the police manual of State of
Kerala and he is empowered to pass search orders. Even the Niti Aayog report on police
reforms focuses on technological scaling up of police authorities and adopting new
technology is the need of the hour for the effective discharging of the functions of police
authorities.

10
WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT
 5th PROF. N.R. MADHAVAN MENON SAARC MOOTING COMETITION 2019-20

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED

CONTENTION 1: THE WRIT PETITION FILED BY THE PETITIONERS IS NON-

MAINTAINABLE

The writ petition filed by Mr Z and Mr Soyuz should be dismissed as there has been no
infringement of fundamental rights of the petitioners by the police authorities while
discharging their duties.

CONTENTION 2: THAT THE SEARCH, SEIZURE AND APPREHENSION WAS

AUTHORIZED, LEGAL AND IT DID NOT LEAD TO THE INFRINGEMENT TO
THE FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT OF MR. Z

The alleged search conducted by the police was as per the due process of law and the entire
process of search and seizure was authorised and legal.
AID TO SEARCH NOT SEARCH UNDER CrPC
There is no case of search which is held to be applicable in the present case as The police
authorities didn’t conduct search as per provision of section 100 of CrPC but was merely an
aid to search because the police of state of Malabar reported increased instance of drug abuse
because of flaws in policing system & Zero tolerance policy of drugs in school and the report
further recommended some Pro-Active Measures also so the step taken by the police was in
the furtherance of the report and not as per CrPC.
Secondly after going through such reports Mr. X, Principal of Choice School issued a
Standing invitation to the police to visit the school and conduct the search with sniffer dogs if
available
The police authorities received a standing invitation from the school itself and the and the
police were discharging the function of Securing a drug free environment in Choice school, it
was not like that they had specific instruction to conduct search particularly in the CHOICE
SCHOOL only.
When the police conducted search in the choice school, they didn’t have any reason to
believe that they are going to discover drugs in the Choice School and the process of seizure
will take place. They were acting as per the invitation that was given to them by principal of
choice School, and hence acting for aiding their larger objective that is to secure drug free
environment the step taken by them was in furtherance thereof and there comes no question
of applicability of Sec. 100 of CrPC.
PRIOR PERMISSION OF ONE HOUR WAS TAKEN:

11
WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT
 5th PROF. N.R. MADHAVAN MENON SAARC MOOTING COMETITION 2019-20

Before conducting the search, prior permission was taken by the police authorities from the
school administration itself. It reflects that they were just taking the precautionary measures
for curbing the drug issues, if they were doing the alleged search under the provisions of
CrPC , They wouldn’t have asked for the permission and had given one hour time also and
also the police authorities didn’t visited the school campus immediately as soon as they got
the standing invitation from the principal of the school.
Immediate actions would have been taken if it was a proper search and not mere an aid to
search, it clearly shows that whatever steps taken by the police authorities were just for
checking the vicinity of the school premises and make it drug free.
USE OF SNIFFER DOG IS NOT A SEARCH:
In Terry v Ohio1 Rationale of the decision as to sniff itself was very different. The court
stated that:
A canine sniff by a well-trained narcotics detection dog does not require opening the luggage.
It does not expose contraband items that otherwise would remain from hidden from public
view, as does for example, an officer rummaging the contents of the luggage. Thus, the
manner in which the information is obtained through this investigation techniqueis much less
intrusive than a typical search. Moreover, the sniff discloses only presence or absence of
narcotics, a contraband item. Thus, despite the fact that the sniff tells the authorisation
something about the contents of the luggage, the information obtained is limited. This limited
disclosure also ensures that the owner of this property is not subjected to the embarrassment
and inconvenience entailed in less discriminate and more intrusive investigative methods.
So in the present case , the sniffer dogs were used by the police authorities is totally justified
as whatever information is obtained is very limited and dogs just sniffed about the presence
of drugs but it was properly checked by the police authorities only which shows that mere
sniffing doesn’t make you held liable for such offences as they are duly examined by the
proper authorities and when they have a Reason to Believe , nothing prohibits them from
taking further steps which are pre requisite for the complete administration of justice and
giving reference to the cases cited above , it doesn’t come under the ambit of Search , it was
mere an aid to search by the help of Sniffer dogs and while doing so the police authorities got
hold of the contraband articles prohibited under the law and in furtherance of that they seized
the narcotics item and detained Mr. Z for further Investigation.
INANIMATE OBJECTS DOESN’T AMOUNT TO SEARCH:
The court of appeals for the fifth circuit in Horton V. goose Creek Independent School
District2 provided a more consistent analysis than the district court advanced in Renfrow.
Like Renfrow, Horton involved the use of drug-detecting dogs in public school. As in
Renfrow, the dogs were taken through the classrooms and allowed to sniff students' cars and
lockers. The court applied a separate analysis to the examination of the inanimate objects
than to examination of the students themselves.

1
392 U.S. 1(1968)
2
693 F2d 524

12
WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT
 5th PROF. N.R. MADHAVAN MENON SAARC MOOTING COMETITION 2019-20

As a general rule, an activity is a search where it intrudes on an individual’s “reasonable

expectation of privacy”. The exposure of an inanimate object, such as a car or a locker, to a
drug-detecting dog, is not a search because there is no reasonable expectation of privacy
against such minimal examinations. The court based this conclusion on the cases involving
luggage.
1(1) THE SEARCH WAS AUTHORISED AND LEGAL:
The provisions of Sec. 43 were complied and Sec. 50 of the NDPS Act holds no
applicability
Section 43 says:
[43. Power of seizure and arrest in public place. Any officer of any of the departments
mentioned in section 42 may—
(a) seize in any public place or in transit, any narcotic drug or psychotropic substance or
controlled substance in respect of which he has reason to believe an offence punishable under
this Act has been committed, and, along with such drug or substance, any animal or
conveyance or article liable to confiscation under this Act, any document or other article
which he has reason to believe may furnish evidence of the commission of an offence
punishable under this Act or any document or other article which may furnish evidence of
holding any illegally acquired property which is liable for seizure or freezing or forfeiture
under Chapter VA of this Act;
(b) detain and search any person whom he has reason to believe to have committed an
offence punishable under this Act, and if such person has any narcotic drug or psychotropic
substance or controlled substance in his possession and such possession appears to him to be
unlawful, arrest him and any other person in his company. Explanation. For the purposes of
this section, the expression "public place" includes any public conveyance, hotel, shop, or
other place intended for use by, or accessible to, the public.]

The choice School falls under the ambit of public place as per the statute placed below
Cigarettes and other Tobacco Products Act
Sec. 4 – No person shall smoke in public place.
Section (4) of the COPTA 2003 prohibits smoking in all public place. Public place is
defined as any place to which the public has access whether as of right or not and includes all
places visited by general public namely auditorium, hospital building, railway waiting room,
amusement centres, public offices, court buildings, EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTION,
libraries, coffee houses, canteens, banks, clubs and also open spaces surrounding
hotels/restaurants etc.

In this case before us, the bag was left to the exposure to public at large, So it has to be dealt
with in accordance with the Sec. 43 of N.D.P.S Act, 1985 and the Investigation officer is duty
bound to follow the provisions mentioned in Sec43 of NDPS while conducting the search and
Seizure.

13
WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT
 5th PROF. N.R. MADHAVAN MENON SAARC MOOTING COMETITION 2019-20

In the cases mentioned below the police while searching the articles found in public place
resorted to complying with section43 of NDPS ACT.

In Narayanaswamy Ravishankar v Assistant Director, Directorate of Revenue

Intelligence3, A three judge Bench of this court considered whether the empowered officer
was bound to comply with mandatory provisions of section 42 before recovering heroin from
the suitcase of the appellant at the airport and subsequently arresting him. Answering the
above question in the negative, the court held: “In the instant case, according to the
documents on record and the witnesses, the search and seizure took place at the airport which
is a public place. This being so, it is the provisions of section 43 of the NDPS Act which
would be applicable. Further, as section 42 of the NDPS Act was not applicable in the present
case, the seizure having been affected in a public place, the question of non-compliance, if
any, of the provisions of section 42 of the NDPS Act is wholly irrelevant.”

Now , In this case the search of suitcase was considered to be in a public place and hence
it would attract Sec. 43 of the act because the suitcase was searched and contraband was
discovered from a public place that is Airport just like the case before us where bag is
found in a public place that is School .

Even in the case of Ramu v. State4t was admitted in this case that while the van was
proceeding in the public road, the same was intercepted by PW 4. Therefore, it has to be held
that the search was conducted in transit in a public place. As the contraband was searched and
seized in a public road in the van, which was proceeding on the road, it has to be held that
Sec. 42 will not apply to case. On the other hand, the searched and seizure conducted by PW
4 would fall under Section 43 of the Act.

As held in this case though a private vehicle is in a transit but if it’s in a public place
Sec. 43 will prevail over all other Sections.

In case of Mana singh V. State of Rajasthan5,it was held that The recovery was made from
the public place provisions contained in section 42 is not applicable - It may be stated that
this recovery for not made from any building conveyance or enclosed place the recovery was
made from the public place and therefore section 42 of the Act was not applicable. The
seizure was in exercise of the power under section 43. The requirement of sending a report to
the immediate superior is not there in section 43 of the act even the SHO recorded the
information of the mukhbir yet provision of section 42(2) were not applicable.

This legal position is clear by the observation of their lordship of the apex court in the case of
State of Punjab V. Balbir Singh6 at para 10 of the report which are reproduce hereunder.

We may mention here that section 43 which deals with the power of seizing and arrest in
public places is slightly different from section 42 in certain respect. Under this provision any

3
(2002) 8SCC 7.
4
2000CriLJ3412
5
RLW 2003 (1) Raj 308
6
1994 AIR 1872

14
WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT
 5th PROF. N.R. MADHAVAN MENON SAARC MOOTING COMETITION 2019-20

empowered officer under section 42 has the power to seize, detain, search or arrest in public
place or in transit if he has reason to believe that an Offence punishable under the chapter 4
relating to such drugs for substance has been committed and seize any document or other
article which may furnish evidence of the commission of such offence and can seize any
animal or conveyance or article liable to confiscation and can detain and search any person
similarly. The empowered officer while acting under section 43 need not record any reason
of his belief. This action also does not mention anything about the empowered officer having
prior information given by any person or about recording the same as compared to Section
42. Thus, without any hesitation, it can be safely concluded that in the case of search and
seizure in public places the provisions of section 43 of the Act are applicable and the
provisions of section 42 of the Act are not applicable. Section 43 of the NDPS Act do not
require the authorized officer exercising the power under section 43 to record the
reasons of his belief or the information received by him or any person about the
commission of an offense under chapter IV of the NDPS Act.

IN State of Punjab v Baldev Singh7, Chief justice Dr. A S Anand speaking for a constitution
bench of this court, held that : The material difference between the provisions of sec 42 and
43 is that section 42 requires recording of reasons for belief and for taking down of
information received in writing with regard to the commission of an offense before
conducting search and seizure, section 43 does not contain such provision and as such while
acting under section 43 of the Act, the empowered officer has the power of seizure of the
article, etc. and arrest of a person who is found to be in possession of any narcotic drug or
psychotropic substance in a public place where such possession appears to him to be
unlawful.

As Sec. 43 of the Act is applicable on the present case, there comes no question upon the
police officer to record reasons of his belief in writing received to him or any person about
the commission of offence under the chapter IV of the Act.

Sec. 50 of the NDPS only comes into play where search of Person is conducted and not
of his property and when the police officer has knowledge and prior information which
is non existent in the present case.

In the case of GURBAX SINGH V. STATE OF HARYANA8, it was held by the court that
police officer neither had information, nor knowledge nor reason to believe that the offence
under the NDPS ACT had been committed and therefore section50 OF NDPS was not
applicable.

The Divison bench of Hon’ble Supreme court in the case of State of Punjab v. Makhan
chand9 observed that:

Section 50 of NDPS ACT wouldn’t apply to a situation where the search undertaken is
not of the person of the accused itself but of something carried in his hand.

7
(1999) 6 Scc 172.
8
(2001) 3 Scc 28
9
2004 (1) ALD Cri 773

15
WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT
 5th PROF. N.R. MADHAVAN MENON SAARC MOOTING COMETITION 2019-20

The empowered police offer while conducting the search and seizure has duly complied
with the provisions of NDPS ACT so therefore there arises no question on the fact that
police while discharging their duty has not followed the provisions of law.

So the entire process of search and seizure is deemed to be lawful and authorised.

16
WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT
 5th PROF. N.R. MADHAVAN MENON SAARC MOOTING COMETITION 2019-20

CONTENTION 3: THAT THE FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT TO PRIVACY OF MR. Z

HAS NOT BEEN VIOLATED AND THE EVIDENCES COLLECTED BY THE
POLICE AUTHORITY IS ADMISSIBLE BEFORE THE COURT OF LAW.
Z’s backpack was closed and was in a pile with others in recreational room of choice school,
when the police officers entered the room with their sniffer dog. It is significant that the
odour emanating from the bag pack could not be detected by the police necessarily relied on
the use of the dog to identify, among the several backpacks in the recreational room, which if
any contained psychotropic substance. The dog’s positive indication on sniffing Z’s backpack
enabled the police to ascertain what was inside the backpack with a reasonably high degree of
accuracy. The use of dogs in this case amounted to a search from an emperitical perspective
and in the furtherance of search all the due process of law laid down specifically under NDPS
act have complied with.
The question in this appeal is whether Z had a reasonable expectation of privacy in respect of
odours imperceptible to humans that emanated from his unattended backpack in a school
recreational room. Z did not have a subjective expectation of privacy in this case. Students
were aware of drug problem and the zero tolerance drug policy and of the fact that sniffer
dogs might be used.
A second factor that supports a finding that Z’s expectation of privacy was not objectively
reasonable is the fact that he was not present at the time of the search. Since there were no
students in the school recreational room at the time of the search, there was no risk that the
dog, on sniffing a backpack worn by a student, might make a false positive indication leading
to a — more intrusive — personal search of the student.
A third factor is the fact that Z’s backpack was left not only unattended, but also in plain
view. While there is no indication that the backpack was abandoned, the use of a sniffer dog
to check an unattended bag left in plain view is less intrusive than the use of one to check a
bag that is either worn or carried by an individual, or is placed in a locked compartment out
of plain view.
A fourth factor is the fact that the investigative technique was relatively non-intrusive. While
it is true that the dog was able to detect the presence of drugs in Z’s backpack, it was able to
do so without the backpack being opened. Moreover, the dog was trained only to detect drugs
and find humans. It could not therefore convey any information other than that there were
drugs present. Thus, the use of a sniffer dog in these circumstances was a less intrusive
investigative technique than simply opening Z’s backpack without a prior positive indication
by the dog.
The use of sniffer dog as an investigation technique did not intrude unreasonable on Z’s
privacy interest, Since his informational privacy interest was extremely limited in the school
environment. Therefore in light of totality of the circumstances. Z did not have a reasonable
expectation of privacy under article 21.
In Kang-Brown that a search of luggage using sniffer dogs would be deemed reasonable
where it was based on a reasonable suspicion. This lowered standard for instigating a search
is, appropriate, given the important preventative potential of sniffer dogs and the minimal

17
WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT
 5th PROF. N.R. MADHAVAN MENON SAARC MOOTING COMETITION 2019-20

intrusion caused by searches of this nature. I further found that in some situations, it would
be appropriate for police to base this search not on individualized suspicion related to a
particular individual, but rather on a generalized suspicion attaching to a particular activity or
location. Although it was not necessary for the outcome of the appeal in Kang-Brown, it was
my conclusion that a public bus terminal was one example of an environment where it was
reasonable for police to use sniffer dogs to perform random searches where they had a
generalized suspicion about the presence of drugs, providing that a reasonably informed
member of the travelling public would have been aware of the possibility of random searches
involving the use of dogs.

That what was done here was perfectly reasonable. The police inquiry began with a
relatively unobtrusive examination by dogs of odours emanating from three classrooms and
some lockers and eventually the recreational room where a pile of backpacks were kept.
There is no evidence of any body searches. The school is a regulated environment and the
students know it. Drug-free schools are important to assure safety and promote learning.
Sniffer dogs smell only the surrounding air; neither their snouts nor their handlers physically
enter the students’ backpacks. The dog communicates nothing about the contents except the
presence of an illegal drug, which the student has been told time and time again, is prohibited
under a zero-tolerance policy. The student has no reasonable expectation of privacy in
contraband, argues the Crown. As stated, these arguments have found favor in the United
States10.
In Place, writing for the majority, commented in obiter that a canine sniff is sui
generis because it “discloses only the presence or absence of narcotics, a contraband item” .In
her view, the sniff did not constitute a “search” within the meaning of the Fourth
Amendment. It suggested that a canine sniff might be a “minimally intrusive” search
justifiable upon reasonable suspicion.
In Jacobsen, federal agents seized a white powder leaking from a freight package in transit
and identified it as cocaine. Writing for the majority, found that the search and seizure of the
cocaine was reasonable and did not violate the Fourth Amendment because “governmental
conduct that can reveal whether a substance is cocaine, and no other arguably ‘private’ fact,
compromises no legitimate privacy interest” 11
In Caballes, an Illinois state trooper stopped a driver, Caballes, for speeding on a highway.
When the trooper radioed the police dispatcher to report the stop, a second trooper headed for
this scene with a sniffer dog. While the first trooper was writing a warning ticket, the second
trooper walked the dog around the car, and the dog alerted at the trunk. On the basis of the
alert, the troopers searched the trunk, found marijuana and arrested Caballes. The majority of
the U.S. Supreme Court held that the dog sniff did not violate the Fourth Amendment. The
traffic stop was based on probable cause and was lawful. Its duration was not excessive.
from public view, did not implicate legitimate privacy interests, in the view of the majority12.

10
United States v. Place, 462 U.S. 696 (1983)
11
United States v. Jacobsen, 466 U.S. 109 (1984)
12
Illinois v. Caballes, 543 U.S. 405 (2005).

18
WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT
 5th PROF. N.R. MADHAVAN MENON SAARC MOOTING COMETITION 2019-20

Hence, the privacy of Mr. Z is not reasonably expected and the right of privacy has not been
infringed in the instant case, The search by using sniffer dogs is valid in the instant case so,
the fundamental right to privacy is protected under the use of canines and sniffer dogs.

19
WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT
 5th PROF. N.R. MADHAVAN MENON SAARC MOOTING COMETITION 2019-20

CONTENTION 4: THAT THE RIGHT TO SILENCE IS NOT FACET OF

FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT IN THE PRESENT CASE

Right to silence is a facet of fundamental rights, but that doesn't mean that accused can access
absolute privileges. The court held that, a witness in a Police case, who is also and accused in
complaint case about the same incident, cannot claim absolute immunity from testifying in
the police case on Grounds of article 20(3)13.
Even Section 161(2) in The Code Of Criminal Procedure, 1973 states that:
Every person shall be bound to answer truly all questions relating to such case put to him by
such officer, other than questions the answers to which would have a tendency to expose him
to a criminal charge or to a penalty or forfeiture.
So by applying sec161(2) it can be said that though right to silence can be claimed by Z but
however its application is limited to giving or stating anything which might impose charge
upon him but however the accused cannot remain silent throughout the trail and interrogation
by police by claiming right to silence as a fundamental right.
The jurisprudence on drawing adverse influences against the accused from is silent while
being questioned under section 313 of CrPC has been dealt with by the court on several
occasions. The courts have vacillated on this issue and there have been judgments allowing
the same.
In Ramnaresh & Ors v. State of Chhattisgarh14 it was held that the court would be entitled
to draw an inference including adverse inference as may be acceptable to it in accordance
with law. It was observed that even though the accused under section 313 was permitted to
maintain silence at the time of trial it did not preclude the court from drawing such an
inference.
In Munish Mubarak v. State of Haryana15 it was held that it is obligated for the accused to
furnish and explanation with respect to implicating circumstances associated with him the
failure of which could lead to adverse influences been drawn from the silence of the accused.

So even though right to silence has been guaranteed to the accuse but however it doesn’t
give absolute immunity to him he is still bound to answer the questions which are put
forward to him by the police and the court and if he doesn’t do so the court can draw
negative inferences from his act of remaining silent.

13
Balasaheb V. State of Maharashtra
14
2012 4 SCC 257
15
(2012) 10 SCC 464

20
WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT
 5th PROF. N.R. MADHAVAN MENON SAARC MOOTING COMETITION 2019-20

CONTENTION 5: THAT THE EVIDENCES COLLECTED BY ROBO COP IS

ADMISSIBLE BEFORE THE COURT THE COURT OF LAW

The evidences collected can’t be held liable to be inadmissible merely on the fact that there is
no sought law or legislation backing it because the even the Court, Niti Ayog and Police
manual of Kerala has backed this opinion of empowering the police with new scientific tools
of investigation in order to investigate crime more effectively.

NITI AYOG REPORT ON POLICE REFORM:

REFORM FOR SMART POLICE:

Broadly, reforms are needed on three fronts:

1) improvement in capacity and infrastructure of police force,

2) revising the constitution of police forces in the country legislative/administrative actions.

3) Technological scaling up

CHAPTER 7(d) of Niti Ayog report states that:The police force needs to keep pace with
changing times.Modernization of police force has become inevitable specially in cyber
security,counter terrorism, and relying on technology for policing.

So even the Niti Ayog report has emphasised upon adoption of new technology so how
can a bar be placed upon the evidences collected through Robo cop.

Admissibility of document having no statutory backing16-In the case of SUNIL KUMAR

V. RAKESH KUMAR17 it was held by the supreme court that the report produced by the
chief electoral officer was admissible even if it had no statutory backing.
So therefore, though the collecting of evidences by ROBOCOP and artificial intelligence
has no statutory backing but still the evidences collected by the Robocop are deemed to
be admissible in the court of law.

The society is ever changing so the law should also adapt itself to the ever-changing nature of
society and the crime no bar should be placed upon the police for adopting new technologies
and tools.
In the case of Ram singh and Ors. V. Col. Ram Singh18, where it was approved to the effect
that ‘’it will be wrong to deny to the law of evidence advantages to be gained by new
techniques and new devices, provided the accuracy of recording can be approved. The only
16
RATANLAL AND DHIRAJLAL THE LAW OF EVIDENCE 23RD edition
17
(2003) 8SCC 673, PARA 47
18
1986 AIR,3 1985 SCR Supl. (2) 399

21
WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT
 5th PROF. N.R. MADHAVAN MENON SAARC MOOTING COMETITION 2019-20

difference between the evidence spoken in the above judgement and evidence obtained from
the IOT is that it is already present unlike the evidence created using the videography during
the process of investigation.
If modern technology serves as a medium which ultimately leads in such a manner that
investigation is far effective and efficient rather than ordinary or usual way of investigation, it
must always be appreciated and taken into consideration.
We can take the example of how simple algorithms of traffic management saves our valuable
time and also serves as a way of justice administration , the traffic management which runs
parallelly in our lives has never been subjected to various questions ,Now we need to accept
these modern technologies for the purpose of criminal investigation so that the truth prevails .
The use of Robo-cop was allowed through an executive order by the Commissioner of Police
and he is empowered to pass such order from time to time under the:
Police Manual. (Rule No. 20) Of Kerala Police Act states that: The State Police Chief
may, from time to time, issue and compile, subject to the power of the Government to
modify or annul, standing orders and guidelines, not inconsistent with this Act and the rules
made there under, generally for the efficient discharge of all Police duties and functions and
specially for the supervision of the Police, administration of the police force, the special
duties of the members or of each rank or of each category of the police force, internal system
of inspection, records to be maintained, arms, equipment’s, objects necessary for the
execution of duties, collection and communication of intelligence and information, the
manner of performance of duties and the manner of prevention of abuse of power and the
failure in the performance of duties.
(2) The compilation of such orders and guidelines issued by the State Police Chief, and of
any orders and directions issued by the Government in respect of the same shall be known as
the Police Manual.
(3) The State Police Chief may, subject to the approval of the Government, amend any
provision in the Manual, if circumstances so warrant.
It was such an exigency that the use of New technology can’t be delayed else important
evidences have been lost in the massive fire , So Commissioner Of Police gave the
permission for using Robo-cop considering its characteristics for collecting the evidence
and absence of legislative framework for use of AI based machines/robots does not bar
them for adopting new technologies as tools of investigation and the use of such Robo-
cop is not in contravention to the Rule of Law .
In the case State of Gujrat V. Gandha bhai Govind bhai19, It was held that it’s the duty of
the court to scrutinize the evidences carefully and see that acceptable evidences is accepted
Artificial Intelligence is new to the Policing System, but that does not forbid as a tool of
investigation if there is no such sought law under which we can use robot, then also there is

19
2000 ACJ 1305,AIR 1999 GUJ 316

22
WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT
 5th PROF. N.R. MADHAVAN MENON SAARC MOOTING COMETITION 2019-20

also no such sought law that bar us from using artificial intelligence for the collection of
evidences.
It is upon the court to scrutinize the evidences carefully and what evidences are admissible.
All the evidences which are produced by Robo-cop have relevancy for the purpose of justice
deliverance and they cannot be overlooked just for the sake because evidences are collected
by a machine which is alien to the policing system and it does not have any sought law
behind them.

So, adopting the new technologies for investigating the crime is the need of the hour and
police while adopting the use of Robocop for collection of evidence hasn’t breached any
norm it has empowered the police to effectively collect the evidences in a situation of
exigency where the godown was surrounded by fire.

23
WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT
 5th PROF. N.R. MADHAVAN MENON SAARC MOOTING COMETITION 2019-20

PRAYER

Wherefore in the light of the issues raised, arguments advanced, and authorities cited,
it is humbly requested that the Honourable Supreme Court may be pleased to adjudge
and declare that:

1. The writ petition filed by Mr. Z should be quashed in entirety as there has been no
infringement of fundamental right of Mr. Z as the procedure established by law & due
process of law was duly followed by police authorities.

2. The writ petition filed by Mr. Soyuz claiming inadmissibility of evidences collected by
Robo cop should be dismissed and the FIR lodged against him shouldn’t be quashed.

And pass any such order, judgement or direction that the Honourable Court deems fit and
proper in the interest of justice.

For this act of kindness, the Counsel for Respondent as is duty bound shall forever pray.

ALL OF WHICH IS RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED

.................................................................................

Sd/-

THE COUNEL FOR THE RESPONDENT

24
WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT