Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Delhi Moot - Respondents
Delhi Moot - Respondents
BEFORE
MR.SOYUZ……………………………………………………………………PETITIONER
v.
STATE OF MALABAR…………………………………………………….RESPONDENT
CLUBBED WITH
MR.Z………………………………………………………………………….PETITIONER
v.
STATE OF MALABAR…………………………………………………….RESPONDENT
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
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
ABBREVIATION EXPANSION
& And
Anr. Another
AI Artificial Intelligence
Art. Article
Arts. Articles
ed. Edition
etc. Etcetera
SC Supreme Court
Hon’ble Honorable
i.e. id est(Latin)
Ltd. Limited
No. Number
Ors. Others
INDEX OF AUTHORITIES
BOOKS REFERRED
STATUTE
ONLINE SOURCES
www.google.co.in
www.manupatra.com
www.indiankanoon.org
www.legalserviceindia.com
www.thelawdictionary.org
STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION
SETS FORTH THE FACTS AND ON WHICH THE CLAIMS ARE BASED.
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.
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
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.
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.
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
ISSUES RAISED
SUMMARY OF PLEADINGS
ISSUE A:
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:
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.
ISSUE C:
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
ISSUE D:
It is humbly submitted that artificial intelligence can be used as an aid and is valid.
enforcement to identify criminals and to detect and invest igate crime. In the process,
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED
. 1) Whether the writ petitions filed by both Mr Z and Mr Soyuz under Article 32 of the
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
1) The right to move the Supreme Court by appropriate proceedings for the enforcement of the
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 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
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.
constitution makers have thought fit not to subject such regulation to constitutional limitations by
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:
i) Any such officer (being an officer superior in rank to a peon, sepoy or constable) or the
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
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.
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:
(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
(d) Detain and search, and if he thinks proper, arrest any person whom he has reason to believe
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.
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
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.
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
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.
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
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
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
(b) who has in his possession without lawful excuse, the burden of proving which excuse shall
(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
(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.
(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
(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
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 .
"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
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
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
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.
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
An FIR can be quashed in High court under section 482 Cr.PC. Usually the grounds for
1. Charge sheet is not produced even after 1–2 years of the fir being registered, but here
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
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) .
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
enforcement to identify criminals and to detect and investigate crime. In the process,
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.
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.
electronic evidence referred to in sec 79A of the information technology act, 2000, (21 of 2000)
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.
PRAYER
In the lights of issues raised arguments advanced authorities cited the court may please to
I) The writ petitions filed by both Mr Z and Mr Soyuz under Article 32 of the Indica constitution
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.
And court may pass any other order that deems fit in the interest
Respectfully submitted
Sd/-