P a g e |1

TEAM CODE: NRMC18

BEFORE

THE HON’BLE SUPREME COURT OF INDICA

(2019-20)
CONSTITUTIONAL WRIT JURISDICTION UNDER ARTICLE 32 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDICA.

MR.SOYUZ……………………………………………………………………PETITIONER

v.

STATE OF MALABAR…………………………………………………….RESPONDENT

CLUBBED WITH

MR.Z………………………………………………………………………….PETITIONER

v.

STATE OF MALABAR…………………………………………………….RESPONDENT

MEMORANDUM FOR THE RESPONDENTS

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENTS

 P a g e |2

TABLE OF CONTENTS

CONTENT

1. LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS………………………………………………………...3

2. INDEX OF AUTHORITIES………………………………………………………….4

3. STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION…………………………………………………5

4. STATEMENT OF FACTS…………………………………………………………...6

5. ISSUES RAISED…………………………………………………………………....11

6. SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS…………………………………………………....12

7. ARGUMENTS ADVANCED……………………………………………………....14

8. PRAYER…………………………………………………………………………….27

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENTS

 P a g e |3

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

ABBREVIATION EXPANSION

& And

AIR All India Reporter

Ind SC Indica Supreme Court

Anr. Another

AI Artificial Intelligence

Art. Article

Arts. Articles

IPC, 1860 Indian Penal Code, 1860

The Constitution The Constitution of India, 1950

Cr.P.C., 1973 The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973

ed. Edition

e.g. exemplis gratia (Latin)

etc. Etcetera

SC Supreme Court

Hon’ble Honorable

i.e. id est(Latin)

Ltd. Limited

No. Number

Ors. Others

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENTS

 P a g e |4

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

BOOKS REFERRED

B.M Gandhi, Indian Penal Code, Third Edition, 2014

K.A Pandey, Indian Penal Code, Fourth Edition, 2013

Ratanlal and Dhirajlal, The Law Of Evidence, 28th Edition, 2013

R V Kelkar, Criminal Procedure, Sixth Edition, 2015

Vepa P Sarathi’s, Law Of Evidence, Seventh Edition, 2016

STATUTE

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985

ONLINE SOURCES

www.google.co.in

www.manupatra.com

www.indiankanoon.org

www.legalserviceindia.com

www.thelawdictionary.org

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENTS

 P a g e |5

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

THE RESPONDENT HUMBLY SUBMITS THIS MEMORANDUM IN RESPONSE TO THE

PETITION FILED BEFORE THIS HON’BLE SUPREME COURT.THE PETITION INVOKES

ITS WRIT JURISDICTION UNDER ARTICLE 32 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDICA. IT

SETS FORTH THE FACTS AND ON WHICH THE CLAIMS ARE BASED.

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENTS

 P a g e |6

STATEMENT OF FACTS

The Constitution of Indica envisages a federal form of governance and establishes the Supreme

Court of Indica as the final interpreter of the Constitution of Indica. The constitutional, legal and

policy framework of Republic of Indica are in parimateria to the Constitution of India . 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, however, in the last week of August

2019, police officers asked for permission to look for drugs in the school premises with the help

of their dogs. Mr. ‘X’ immediately granted them permission. However, he strictly advised the

police officers not to conduct any ‘search’ in the residential premises of teachers and staff of the

school.The dogs were trained to find humans and detect certain variety of narcotics including

heroin, cocaine, hashish, magic mushrooms.The police with the help of trained dogs moved

towards the old car parking of 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 and 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

and 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 quantity recovered from

the bag of student ‘Z’, was sent to the police department and the school administration went in

fright.

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENTS

 P a g e |7

The police officer reported to the Superintendent of Police, Kochi about the entire incident and

the manner in which the recovery was made from the student’s bag.The Superintendent of

Police, Kochi constituted a Special Investigation Team (SIT) lead by Mr. ‘P’ to unearth the

syndicate of distribution of drugs and narcotics among school children in the city of Kochi. He

also ordered for sanitization of entire vicinity of ‘Choice School’. After constituting the SIT, the

Superintendent of Police, who is authorized by the appropriate government under the Narcotics

Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 of Indica leaves for a week conference, i.e.,

‘Indica Police Conclave’ in New Delhi.The ‘Robo Cop’ –an artificial intelligence based robotics

developed by Honda Inc. is being promoted by the company as a super cop with all intelligence

programmed for detecting narcotics substances and collecting evidences. The ‘Robo Cop’ is

water-proof, fire-resistant and can continue working in adverse situations. The benefit with

‘Robo Cop’ is that it is fitted with four high resolution cameras (i.e., two eyes in front and two

eyes in the back) to have a vision and collect evidences and it also maps the crime scene more

appropriately in a digital manner.

As the SIT led by Mr. ‘P’ starts preparing and identifying the possible search places/ buildings

and possible raids to have control and check over the illegal drug menace in the State of Malabar,

the police agencies have received all the tip of information that the unauthorized and illegal

narcotics, drugs, other controlled substances are lying in the godown owned by one 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, 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 receive

an information of balls of smoke coming out of the three storied godown owned by Mr.Soyuz.

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENTS

 P a g e |8

Mr. ‘P’ took the necessary permission from the Police Commissioner of Kochi Zone to use

‘Robo Cop’, 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 ‘Robo Cop’ considering the emergent situation and exigencies in the facts

and circumstances. Mr. ‘P’ reached the incident swiftly and got the ‘Robo Cop’ entered through

the terrace of the building to collect evidences, incriminating material and as per the

programming of ‘Robo Cop’. ”Robo Cop’ also gave a report about presence of cocaine, heroin,

magic mushrooms as well as photographed two gallons presumably containing ‘Ethyl Ether’ and

‘Methyl Ethyl Ketone’. The ‘Robo Cop’ conducted this entire operation and collected sufficient

evidences, screened the entire third floor within ten minutes of time before the fire fighters could

reach the place of incident.The police team led by Mr. ‘P’ further tried to collect the sample of

evidences and other material sample after the fire got controlled and extinguished in two hours.

However, nothing was left except ashes and a 100% burnt building. Based upon the evidences as

collected by ‘Robo Cop’ and SIT led by Mr. ‘P’, the police registered an FIR under the penal

provisions including Indica Penal Code (IPC) and The Narcotics Drugs and Psychotropic

Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act). Next morning, it was highlighted in the print media, local

news channel and other forms of media about the ‘Robo Cop’ and the transformation it could

bring in the criminal 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 alongwith other laws, unauthorized and illegal.

The petition also claimed inadmissibility of evidence collected thereto in order to have a fair trial

following ‘due process of law’ and also claimed ‘right to silence’ as a facet of fundamental right.

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENTS

 P a g e |9

Mr. Soyuz could not be arrested immediately, however, he approached the Hon’ble Supreme

Court of Indica seeking quash of FIR, destruction of evidences (if any collected by ‘Robo Cop’)

as the same was unauthorized and alien to the policing system in Indica. Mr. Soyuz also raised

the issue of exclusion and inadmissibility of evidences and sought formulation of suitable

guidelines to use such artificial intelligence based intelligent machines/ robotics in the criminal

justice administration. Mr. Soyuz also contended that he does not have any criminal background

and sought protection of his liberty from illegal arrest under the IPC and NDPS Act. The

Supreme Court of Indica having already issued notice in the writ petition filed by Mr. ‘Z’,

referred the matter to a constitution bench for interpreting the rights claimed by Mr. ‘Z’ in the

backdrop of its enriching fundamental rights’ jurisprudence. It also tagged the writ petition filed

by Mr. Soyuz along with the petition of Mr. ‘Z’. The school management of ‘Choice School’

also intervened in the writ petition of Mr. ‘Z’ terming the entire exercise of ‘search and seizure’

by the police authorities as illegal and unconstitutional. It also contended that the fundamental

rights of citizens cannot be left at the mercy of canines and such sniffer dogs.The State of

Malabar as represented through Superintendent. Of Police, Kochi contended that the search

operation as conducted, was not a ‘search’ for the purposes of Criminal Procedure Code, rather it

was merely an aid to search and all the due process was followed while conducting the alleged

search in Choice School. It also justified the use of ‘Robo Cop’ in the alleged fire incident in

exceptional circumstances and also 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’ and using the evidences collected by the ‘Robo Cop’ which are admissible

under the law. The petitions have been slated for hearing by a constitution bench of the Supreme

Court of Indica on 19 – 20 October 2019.

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENTS

 P a g e | 11

ISSUES RAISED

1. WHETHER THE WRIT PETITION FILED UNDER ARTICLE 32 OF THE

CONSTITUTION OF INDICA BY BOTH MR.SOYUZ AND IS MAINTAINABLE

BEFORE THE SUPREME COURT OF INDICA

2. WHETHER THE EXERCISE OF SEARCH AND SEIZURE BY POLICE IS VALID

UNDER SECTION 100 OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE?

3.WHETHER MR.SOYUZ SEEKING PROTECTION AGAINST ILLEGAL

DETENTION AND ARREST IS JUSTIFIABLE?

4.WHETHER INVESTIGATION THROUGH ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE

IS CONSTITUTIONAL AND VALID?

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENTS

 P a g e | 12

SUMMARY OF PLEADINGS

ISSUE A:

WHETHER THE WRIT PETITION FILED UNDER ARTICLE 32 OF THE

CONSTITUTION OF INDICA BY BOTH MR.SOYUZ AND IS MAINTAINABLE
BEFORE THE SUPREME COURT OF INDICA

It is humbly submitted that the writ petition filed by both Mr. Z and Mr. Soyuz is not
maintainable under article 32 of the constitution. The exercise of the writ jurisdiction of
the High Court under Article 32 is largely discretionary in nature1; it is argued that the
present case is not maintainable. Article 32 of the Constitution confers power on all
Supreme Court of India to issue to any person or authority, including in appropriate cases
any government, orders or writs, including writs in the nature of Habeous corpus,
Mandamus, Prohibition, Quo-warranto and Certiorari, for enforcement of any of the
rights conferred by part III and “for any other purpose” that is even for the enforcement
of legal rights.

ISSUE B:

WHETHER THE EXERCISE OF SEARCH AND SEIZURE BY POLICE

IS VALID UNDER SECTION 100 OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE?

It is humbly submitted that the excise of search and seizure by police authorities has not
violated the section under Narcotics Drugs Psychotropic Substances Act 1985 and is
valid under Criminal Procedure Code, 1973.

1
Veluswami v. Raja, AIR 1959 SC 422; Ashok v. Collector, A.I.R. 1980 S.C. 112.

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENTS

 P a g e | 13

ISSUE C:

WHETHER MR.SOYUZ SEEKING PROTECTION FROM

ILLEGAL DETENTION AND ARREST IS JUSTIFIABLE?

It is humbly submitted that illegal detention and arrest has no connection with

article 21 of the constitution and is not justifiable. Mr.Soyuz seeking protection against

illegal detention and arrest is not justifiable . A police officer can arrest mr.soyus because

there is a reasonable complaint that has been made, or credible information that has been

received, or a reasonable suspicion exists, of his having been so concerned.robocop gave

a report about presence of cocaine,heroin,magic mushrooms as well as photographed two

gallon presumably containing ‘ethyl ether’ and ‘methyl ethyl ketone’

ISSUE D:

WHETHER INVESTIGATION THROUGH ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE

IS CONSTITUTIONAL AND VALID?

It is humbly submitted that artificial intelligence can be used as an aid and is valid.

and is not against constitution. The investigation through artificial intelligence is

constitutional and valid.

Artificial intelligence is having a significant positive impact on the ability of law

enforcement to identify criminals and to detect and invest igate crime. In the process,

it is changing the face of policing .

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENTS

 P a g e | 14

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED

. 1) Whether the writ petitions filed by both Mr Z and Mr Soyuz under Article 32 of the

Indica constitution is maintainable before the Supreme Court of Indica?

The writ filed by both Mr. Z and Mr. Soyuz is not maintainable under Article 32 of the Indian

constitution. The petitioners is not having any sufficient interest as there is no violation of any

fundamental or legal rights. The exercise of the writ jurisdiction of the Supreme Court under

Article 32 is largely discretionary in nature; it is argued that the present case is not maintainable.

Article 32 of the Constitution confers power on all Supreme Courts of India to issue to any

person or authority, including in appropriate cases any government, orders or writs, including

writs in the nature of Habeous corpus, Mandamus, Prohibition, Quo-warranto and Certiorari, for

enforcement of any of the rights conferred by part III and “for any other purpose” that is even for

the enforcement of legal rights

Articles 32 of the Indian constitution read as follows:

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.

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENTS

 P a g e | 15

3) Without prejudice to the powers conferred on the supreme court by clauses (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.3

Provision in s. 32A of NDPS Act 1985 depriving executive of the power is not violative of art 14

or 21.4 Here there is no violation of fundamental right. The principal of the school had issued an

invitation to the police to visit the school with sniffer dogs. The dog sniffed at the bag and

indicated the presence of drug in it.5

2) Whether the excise of search and seizure by police authorities is valid under Section 100

Of Cr.PC ?

The excise of search and seizure by police authorities is valid under Cr.PC and NDPS Act.

Any police officer may seize any property which may be alleged or suspected to have been

stolen or which may be found under circumstances which create suspicion of the commission of

any offence.6 S 42(1) of the NDPS Act empowers every officer superior to the rank to peon ,

sepoy and constable to take action necessary for enforcement of the NDPS.

A power of search and seizure is in any system of jurisprudence an overriding power of the state

for the protection of social security and that power is necessarily regulated by law. When the

3
Article 32 OF the Indian Constitution.
4
Dadu v. State of Maharashtra,(2000) 8 S.C.C. 437.
5
Moot Proposition, Page no:2, Para 10.
6
Section 102(1) Cr.PC.

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENTS

 P a g e | 16

constitution makers have thought fit not to subject such regulation to constitutional limitations by

recognition of a fundamental right to privacy7

Power under section 42 NDPS Act to make search and seizure as also to arrest an accused is

founded upon and subject to satisfaction of the officer as the term ‘reason to believe “has been

used.8 Procedure of Search under the NDPS Act A search by itself is not a restriction on the

rights to hold and enjoy property, though seizure is a temporary restriction to the right to

possession and enjoyment of the property seized.9The police authorities followed the same for

the investigation.

Section 42 empowers the officer to search without warrant. Section 42 is reproduced as under:

Power of entry, seizure and arrest without warrant or authorization:

i) Any such officer (being an officer superior in rank to a peon, sepoy or constable) or the

departments of Central Excise, Narcotics, Customs, Revenue Intelligence or any other

department of the Central Government including para-military forces or armed forces as is

empowered in this behalf by general or special order by the Central Government, or any such

office (being an officer superior in rank to a peon, sepoy or constable) of the revenue, drugs

control, excise, police or any other department of a State Government as is empowered in this

behalf by general or special order of the State Government, if he has reason to believe from

personal knowledge or information given by any person and taken down in writing that any

narcotic drug, or psychotropic substance, or controlled substance in respect of which an offence

7
MP Sharma v. Satish Chandra A.I.R. 1954 S.C.300.
8
Directorate of revenue v. Mohd. Nisar Holia (2008) 2 S.C.C. 370.
9
Vinod Kumar v. State of Punjab (2024) 5 S.C.C .243.

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENTS

 P a g e | 17

punishable under this act has been committed or any document or other article which may

furnish evidence of the commission of such offence or any illegally acquired property 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 is kept or

concealed in any building, conveyance or enclosed place, may between sunrise and sunset:

(a) Enter into and search any building, conveyance or place;

(b) In case of resistance, break open any door and remove any obstacle to such entry; 103

(c) Seize such drug or substance and all materials used in the manufacture thereof and any other

article and any animal or conveyance which he has reason to believe to be liable to confiscation

under this Act and any document or other article which he has reason to believe may furnish

evidence of the commission of any offence punishable under this act or furnish evidence of

holding any illegally acquired property which is liable* for seizure or freezing or forfeiture under

Chapter VA of this Act; and

(d) Detain and search, and if he thinks proper, arrest any person whom he has reason to believe

to have committed any offence punishable under this Act.10

. i) Whether sniffer dogs can be used an aid for investigation?

Sniffer dogs can be used as an aid for investigation.

The services of a sniffer dog may be taken for the purpose of investigation.11 Here, the sniffer

dogs were only used for the purpose of investigation. The dogs sniffed at the bags which was

10
NDPS Act, 1985.

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENTS

 P a g e | 18

lined up against a wall and only indicated the presence of drugs in one of them. That particular

bag was then searched by a police officer and found that it contained more than one packet of

marijuana, ten bags of imported mushrooms, cocaine, heroin and other narcotic substances in

minor amount.12

Utility of sniffer dogs are admissible for the purpose of investigation..13Criminal courts need not

bother much about such evidence based on sniffer dogs, although the investigating agency can

employ such sniffer dogs for helping the investigation to track down criminals. 14The police

commonly train canines to detect the presence of illicit substances to the extent that they are

capable of locating even the tiniest trace of a drug. Such dogs are frequently trailed through train

stations, airports, country borders, workplaces, and even schools to allow police to locate

individuals who are carrying these illegal substances.15 The dog may be moved near pieces of

luggage, near groups of people, or generally kept in the vicinity to react if he or she picks up on

an odor of interest. An average stop and search conducted by officers may yield nothing,

especially if the subject has hidden the drugs somewhere on his person. However properly

trained canines are usually able to detect the scent of illegal narcotics, regardless of where the

suspect has concealed them.16

11
Dinesh Borthakur v. State of Assam , (2000) 5 S.C.C. 697.
12
Moot Proposition, Page no: 2,Para 10.
13
Abdul Rajak Murtaja Dafedar v. state of Maharashtra (1969) 2 S.C.C. 234.
14
Gade Lakshmi Mangaraju v. State of A.P (2001) 6 S.C.C. 205.
15
NCT of Delhi v. Navjot Sandhu (2005) 11 S.C.C .600.
16.
Union of India v. W N Chadha , 1993 S.C.C .260.

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENTS

 P a g e | 19

Obviously the air is full of a vast variety of different odors, many of which will be powerfully

clear to the dog. Fortunately they are able to distinguish between different odors, even if one

smell overpowers another, and trace a specific scent to its source.

ii) Whether the search and seizure violate the privacy of Mr. Z?

The search and seizure do not violate the right to privacy of Mr. Z

Article 21 states that “No person shall be deprived of his right to life and personal liberty except

according to the procedure established by law”. Justice Subba Rao in Kharak Singh v. State

of U.P 17 held that right to privacy is an essential ingredient of personal liberty and that the right

to personal liberty. Recently the nine-judge bench of the Supreme Court has unanimously

delivered its judgement in Justice K.S Puttswami v. Union of India 18 holding that privacy is

a Constitutionally protected right which not only emerges from the life and personal liberty in

Article 21 of the Constitution but also arises in varying contests from the other facets of freedom

and dignity recognised and guaranteed by the Fundamental Rights contained in Part III of the

Constitution of Indica.

All matters pertaining to an individual do not qualify as being an inherent part of right to privacy.

Only those matters over which there would be a reasonable expectation of privacy are protected

by article 21.19The right to conduct a search and seizure of persons or places is an essential part

of investigation and the criminal justice system. The societal interest in maintaining security is

17
Kharak singh v. State of U.P, A.I.R.1963 S.C.1295.
18
Puttuswamy v. Union of India (2017) 10 S.C.C. 1.

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENTS

 P a g e | 20

an overwhelming consideration which gives the state a restricted mandate to do all things

necessary to keep law and order, which includes acquiring all possible information for

investigation of criminal activities, a restriction which is based on recognizing the perils of state-

endorsed coercion and its implication on individual liberty. Digitally stored information, which is

increasingly becoming a major site of investigative information, is thus essential in modern day

investigation techniques. Further, specific crimes which have emerged out of the changing

scenario, namely, crimes related to the internet, require investigation almost exclusively at the

level of digital evidence. The role of courts and policy makers, then, is to balance the state’s

mandate to procure information with the citizens’ right to protect it.

The chapter VII, containing of sections 91-100 of the Code of Criminal Procedure,1973, deal

with the provisions related to summons to produce things, provisions related to search-warrants

and other general laws relating to searches. The provisions of this chapter relate to summons and

warrants, their issue, the way they are served and executed and summons and warrants of arrests.

3.Whether Mr.Soyus seeking protection against illegal detention and arrest is justifiable?

Mr.Soyuz seeking protection against illegal detention and arrest is not justifiable.

When any officer duly authorized under section 42 is about to search any person under the

provisions of section 41, section 42 or section 43, he shall, if such person so requires, take such

person without unnecessary delay to the nearest Gazetted Officer of any of the departments

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENTS

 P a g e | 21

mentioned in section 42 or to the nearest Magistrate. If such requisition is made, the officer may

detain the person until he can bring him before the Gazetted Officer or the Magistrate.20

The situations under which a police may arrest without warrant are:

(1) Any police officer may without an order from a Magistrate and without a warrant, arrest any

person-

(a) who has been concerned in any cognizable offence, or against whom a reasonable complaint

has been made, or credible information has been received, or a reasonable suspicion exists, of his

having been so concerned; or

(b) who has in his possession without lawful excuse, the burden of proving which excuse shall

lie on such person, any implement of house- breaking; or

(c) who has been proclaimed as an offender either under this Code or by order of the State

Government; or

(d) in whose possession anything is found which may reasonably be suspected to be stolen

property and who may reasonably be suspected of having committed an offence with reference

to such thing; or

(e) who obstructs a police officer while in the execution of his duty, or who has escaped, or

attempts to escape, from lawful custody; or

(f) who is reasonably suspected of being a deserter from any of the Armed Forces of the Union;

or

20
Section 50 in The Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985.

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENTS

 P a g e | 22

(g) who has been concerned in, or against whom a reasonable complaint has been made, or

credible information has been received, or a reasonable suspicion exists, of his having been

concerned in, any act committed at any place out of India which, if committed in India, would

have been punishable as an offence, and for which he is, under any law relating to extradition, or

otherwise, liable to be apprehended or detained in custody in India; or

(h) who, being a released convict, commits a breach of any rule made under sub- section (5) of

section 356; or

(i) for whose arrest any requisition, whether written or oral, has been received from another

police officer, provided that the requisition specifies the person to be arrested and the offence or

other cause for which the arrest is to be made and it appears there from that the person might

lawfully be arrested without a warrant by the officer who issued the requisition.21

According to this a police officer can arrest Mr.Soyus because there is a reasonable complaint

that has been made, or credible information that has been received, or a reasonable suspicion

exists, of his having been so concerned. Robocop gave a report about presence of cocaine,

heroin, magic mushrooms as well as photographed two gallon presumably containing ‘ethyl

ether’ and ‘methyl ethyl ketone’22

i) Whether the procedure for quashing FIR is met in this instant case?

21
Section 41 in The Code Of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
22
Moot proposition para no.17 .

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENTS

 P a g e | 23

Section 482 of CrPC says,

"Saving of inherent powers of High Court Nothing in this Code shall be deemed to limit or affect

the inherent powers of the High Court to make such orders as may be necessary to give effect to

any order under this Code, or to prevent abuse of the process of any Court or otherwise to secure

the ends of justice."23

Black's law dictionary defines quash as to. “Overthrow / to abate / to vacate / to annul / to make

void. In simplest terms, quashing of criminal proceedings would mean ceasing the legal

machinery which had been set in motion. This is usually done after a First Information Report

(hereinafter referred to as FIR) is filed, before the charge sheet-filing stage. Still, proceedings

can be revoked even after the charge sheet has been filed but that is usually discouraged by the

Supreme Court.”24

In this instant case petitioners have filed their case in Supreme Court directly but under section

482 of Cr.PC it is the inherent power of High Court to quash the FIR.

The Hon'ble Supreme Court after discussing various precedents on the subject summarized the

following broad principles in relation to Section 482 for quashing FIRs.

 The State of Madhya Pradesh v. Manish25, the Court observed that when it comes to the

question of compounding an offence under Sections 307, 294 and 34 IPC along with

Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act by no stretch of imagination, can it be held to be an

offence as between the private party’s simpliciter.

23 Ratanlal & Dhirajlal, The Code of Criminal Procedure 1047(21 ST edition 2013).
24 Black’s law dictionary.
25 The State of Madhyapradesh v. Manish, (2014) 4 S.C.C.149.

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENTS

 P a g e | 24

 Those offences will have a serious impact on the society at large. It is further observed

that where the accused are facing trial under Sections 307, 294 read with Section 34 IPC

as well as Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act, as the offences are definitely against the

society, accused will have to necessarily face trial and come out unscathed by

demonstrating their innocence.26

 An FIR can be quashed in High court under section 482 Cr.PC. Usually the grounds for

quashing the fir are as follows:

1. Charge sheet is not produced even after 1–2 years of the fir being registered, but here

charge sheet is produced immediately after the search and seizure.

2. There is clear proof that the FIR was registered as a counter fir, meaning that the accused

in the present fir has already filed a previous fir as complainant against the same person

who has filed the present fir, but here no such allegations arise.

3. There is crystal clear evidence that accused was not present at time of crime in that area

or that the accused has the same name as that of the original perpetrator, here during the

search accused was present in the crime scene.

26
S.S. Rana & Co. Advocates , India: Supreme Court Elucidate 10 Points For Quashing Of F.I.R Under Section 482
Of CRPC(october17, 2017) .

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENTS

 P a g e | 25

4. Other core evidence, here the bag seized during the search which contained drugs were of

the petitioner.

5. Accused and complainant want to compromise but offences are non compoundable and

police refuses to do the same, here no such negotiations are known.

4.Whether the investigation through artificial intelligence is constitutional and valid

The investigation through artificial intelligence is constitutional and valid

Artificial intelligence is having a significant positive impact on the ability of law

enforcement to identify criminals and to detect and investigate crime. In the process,

it is changing the face of policing.

Technology pervades and infiltrates all aspects of our daily lives. ‘Intelligent Machines’ are no

longer fictional characters; rather we live in an era of artificial intelligence (AI), robotics and

internet of things enabled devices. Their impact on human lives across the globe is real and deep.

Their application can be found in myriad forms in our lives.27

Section 45A .opinion of examiner of electronic evidence states that when in a proceeding, the

court has to form an opinion on any matter relating to any information transmitted or stored in

any computer resource or any other electronic or digital form, the opinion of the examiner of

27
Moot proposition para no.1.

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENTS

 P a g e | 26

electronic evidence referred to in sec 79A of the information technology act, 2000, (21 of 2000)

is a relevant fact.28Robocop is considered as an electronic device.

Section 65 B(1) of Indian evidence act 1872 states that any information contained in an

electronic record which is printed on a paper, stored, recorded or copied in optical or magnetic

media produced by a computer (hereinafter referred to as the computer output) shall be deemed

to be also a document, if the conditions mentioned in this section are satisfied in relation to the

information and computer in question and shall be admissible in any proceedings, without

further proof or production of the original, as evidence of any contents of the original or of any

fact stated therein of which direct evidence would be admissible.29 With regard to the present

case Robocop gave a report about presence of cocaine, heroin, magic mushrooms as well as

photographed two gallons presumably containing ‘ethyl ether’ and ‘methyl ethyl ketone’.

28
Section 45 A of evidence act.
29
Section 65B in The Indian Evidence Act, 1872.

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENTS

 P a g e | 27

PRAYER

In the lights of issues raised arguments advanced authorities cited the court may please to

adjudge and declare that:

I) The writ petitions filed by both Mr Z and Mr Soyuz under Article 32 of the Indica constitution

is Not maintainable before the Supreme Court of Indica?

II) The exercise of search and seizure by police not valid under Section 100 of Criminal

Procedure Code.

III) Mr. Soyuz seeking protection against illegal detention and arrest is not justifiable.

IV) Investigation through Artificial Intelligence is unconstitutional and not valid.

And court may pass any other order that deems fit in the interest

Of equity, justice and good faith.

Respectfully submitted

Sd/-

Counsel for the Respondents.

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENTS