3rd MCI

CRIMINAL LAW MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2021

IN THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF CAPITAL CITY

AT CAPITAL CITY

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.: ____/2021

MYSA KAVI (APPELLANT)

V.

UNION OF ARYAWARTA (RESPONDENT)

BEFORE SUBMISSION TO HON’BLE JUSTICES

OF THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF CAPITAL CITY

APPEAL FILED UNDER SECTION 374 OF THE CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT

 3RD MCI MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2021
TABLE OF CONTENTS

TABLE OF CONTENTS

TABLE OF CONTENTS ...................................................................................................... i

LIST OF ABBREVAITION ................................................................................................ii

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES ............................................................................................ iii

STATEMENT OF JUSRISDICTION ................................................................................ v

STATEMENT OF FACTS .................................................................................................. 6

STATEMENT OF ISSUES ................................................................................................. 7

SUMMARY OF ISSUES ..................................................................................................... 8

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED .............................................................................................. 9

ISSUE 1: WHETHER THE ACTIONS OF THE ACCUSED CAN BE CONSIDERED

SEDITIOUS? ........................................................................................................................ 9

ISSUE 2: WHETHER THE ACCUSED WAS PART OF A CRIMINAL

CONSPIRACY? ................................................................................................................. 12

ISSUE 3: WHETHER THE REFUSAL OF BAIL BY THE TRIAL COURT WAS

RIGHT? .............................................................................................................................. 15

PRAYER ............................................................................................................................. 17

~i~
MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT
 3RD MCI MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2021
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

LIST OF ABBREVAITION

& And
AIR All India Reporter
Anr. Another
Hon’ble Honourable
Ltd. Limited
No. Number
Ors. Others
Para Paragraph
SC Supreme Court
SCC Supreme Court Cases
Sec. Section
UOI Union of India
v. Versus
w.r.t with respect to

~ii~
MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT
 3RD MCI MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2021
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

SR. NO. CASE NAME PAGE NO.

1. Babu Singh v. State of UP 16

2. Devendar Pal Singh v. State (NCT of Delhi) 12

3. G. Narasimhulu v. Public Prosecutor 15

4. Gurcharan Singh v. State 15

5. Indra Das v. State of Assam 10

6. Kedar Nath Singh v. State of Bihar 9

7. Mohan Singh v. State of Bihar 12

8. Raghubir Singh v. State of Bihar 10

9. Reg v. Aldred 10

10. Reg v. Alexander Martin Sullivan 9

11. Satish Chander Ahuja vs. Sneha Ahuja 9

12. Shivarame Gowde v. State of Karnataka. 15

13. State of Karnataka & Ors. v. Selvi J Jayalalitha & Ors 12

14. State of Tamil Nadu v. Nalini 12,13

15. State v. Captain Jagjit Singh 16

16. State v. Jaspal Singh 13

17. Yash Pal v. State of Punjab 13

18. Yogesh v. State of Maharastra 12

SR. NO WEBSITES

1. Barandbench.com

~iii~
MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT
 3RD MCI MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2021
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

2. Legalserviceindia.com

3. Livelaw.in

4. Manupatrafast.com

5. Scconline.com

SR. NO BOOKS

1. Criminal Procedure - R.V. Kelkar's

2. Criminal Law: Cases and Materials – K.D. Gaur

3. Commentary on the Indian Penal Code – K.D. Gaur

4. Criminal Law: Incorporating the Criminal Law - PSA Pillai's

5. The Indian Penal Code - Ratanlal & Dhirajlal

6. Indian Penal Code (With the Criminal Law (Amendment) Act, 2018 – S.N.
Mishra

~iv~
MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT
 3RD MCI MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2021
STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

STATEMENT OF JUSRISDICTION

The Counsel for the Respondent, most humbly and respectfully, submits that this Hon’ble High
Court of Capital City has the requisite jurisdiction to entertain the instant Appeal filed under
Section 374 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1949.

Appeals from convictions.

(1) Any person convicted on a trial held by a High Court in its extraordinary original criminal
jurisdiction may appeal to the Supreme Court.
(2) Any person convicted on a trial held by a Sessions Judge or an Additional Sessions Judge
or on a trial held by any other Court in which a sentence of imprisonment for more than seven
years [has been passed against him or against any other person convicted at the same trial],
may appeal to the High Court.
(3) Save as otherwise provided in sub- section (2), any person,-
(a) convicted on a trial held by a Metropolitan Magistrate or Assistant Sessions Judge or
Magistrate of the first class, or of the second class, or
(b) sentenced under section 325, or
(c) in respect of whom an order has been made or a sentence has been passed under section
360 by any Magistrate, may appeal to the Court of Session.

~v~
MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT
 3RD MCI MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2021
STATEMENT OF FACTS

STATEMENT OF FACTS

1. The nation of Aryawarta implemented a law which allowed big Argo Business to enter
the agricultural business .
2. Owing to dis-resentment from the farmers protests were organised in order to put
pressure on the government to take back the law.
3. The farmers decided to take out a huge march in the capital city of the nation of Aryawarta
on the Independence Day and the farmer's union got the permission to take out the march,
however it was only on the pre-selected route.
4. During the march the protest took a different route and installed a religious flag on the
"Pink Fort", which is supposed to be nation's symbol of unity.
5. During the investigation, the police found the toolkit documents circulating on social
media and they were inter alia seditious in nature showing disaffection against the
Government.
6. It was alleged that the said document was created by People’s Justice Foundation which
aimed at promoting dissatisfaction among the citizens of Nation of Aryawarta. This
toolkit had various hyperlinks which allegedly led to contents in the form of words which
malignantly, or wantonly gave provocation to any person.
7. Maya Kavi who is one of the prime accused was one of the editors of the said toolkit. She
was sympathetic towards the farmers in the protest and further created WhatsApp Groups
which circulate the plan of the peaceful protest and the digital strike to be launched
against the government.
8. Mysa Kavi was arrested in the present case on 13.02.2021 (FIR No. 420/2021 P.S Special
Cell U/s 124A/153/153A/120B IPC) and was brought to the Capital City without
obtaining any transit remand, and in Capital city she was remanded to police custody till
20.02.2021.
9. The bail application filed by Maya Kavi was rejected by the trial court on the grounds
that she played an active role in the provocation of the mob by way of the Toolkit of
which she was a editor.
10. Mysa Kavi was convicted on all counts of aforementioned charges by the trial court
except 153A. Aggrieved by the conviction, the accused is approaching the High Court of
Capital City

~6~
MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT
 3RD MCI MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2021
STATEMENT OF ISSUES

STATEMENT OF ISSUES

~ISSUE 1~
WHETHER THE ACTIONS OF THE ACCUSED CAN BE CONSIDERED SEDITIOUS?

~ISSUE 2~
WHETHER THE ACCUSED WAS PART OF A CRIMINAL CONSPIRACY?

~ISSUE 3~
WHETHER THE REFUSAL OF BAIL BY THE TRIAL COURT WAS RIGHT?

~7~
MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT
 3RD MCI MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2021
SUMMARY OF ISSUES

SUMMARY OF ISSUES

~ISSUE 1~
It is humbly submitted before this Hon’ble Court that the actions of the accused are seditious in
nature as all the necessary elements as stated under Section 124A are met. The actions of the
accused have led to infliction of violence on the Independence Day and other incidental chaotic
activities.

~ISSUE 2~
It is humbly submitted before this Hon’ble Court that the accused was a part of a larger group as
required under Section 120-A in order to cause havoc on the Independence Day. People like
Geeta Menbug who is a known environmentalist, the editors of the Toolkit i.e., Naresh and
Suresh along with organizations such as People’s Justice Foundation and Extinction Rebellion
were involved with the accused in order to conduct the illegal activities which caused disruption
in public order on Independence Day and even led to injury to various police officers.

~ISSUE 3~
It is humbly submitted before this Hon’ble Court that the Trial Court was right in rejecting the
bail of the accused as the discretion of the same is with the court. Further as the accused has been
charged of sedition as well as criminal conspiracy the trial court can use its discretion by
analyzing the merits of the case and decide upon the bail of the accused. In cases of non-bailable
offences the High Court and Sessions Court can exercise their discretion as stated under Section
437 of Criminal Procedure Code.

~8~
MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT
 3RD MCI MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2021
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED [ISSUE 1]

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED

ISSUE 1: WHETHER THE ACTIONS OF THE ACCUSED CAN BE CONSIDERED

SEDITIOUS?

It is humbly submitted before this Hon’ble Court that the actions of the accused are seditious in
nature as all the necessary elements as stated under Section 124A are met. The actions of the
accused have led to infliction of violence on the Independence Day and other incidental chaotic
activities.

Section 124-A of the India Penal code states that any act which brings or attempts to bring into
hatred or contempt or excites or attempts to excite dissatisfaction towards the Government
established by law. Such act can happen owing to the words which can be either spoken or written
or any other signs or visible representation. The Explanation 1 appended to the provisions states
that the term dissatisfactions as stated in the section 124-A includes disloyalty and all such
similar feelings of enmity.1 The word ‘includes’ indicates that it’s not an exhaustive definition
but rather is inclusive in nature. The Supreme Court in the case of Satish Chander Ahuja vs.
Sneha Ahuja2 held that the term ‘includes’ directs us towards an inclusive and wide
interpretation rather than the term ‘means’ which directs us to an exhaustive and narrower
interpretation.

It is humbly submitted before this Hon’ble Court that in the case of Kedar Nath Singh v. State
of Bihar3 the Supreme Court held that even though the charges of sedition appear to be violative
of Freedom of Speech as given under Art. 19 of the Constitution of India, the same is prevented
from the vices of unconstitutionality owing to Art 19(2) of the Constitution of India as the
activities fit well within the ambit of Public order.

Lord Fitzgerald in the Reg v. Alexander Martin Sullivan4 held that Sedition is a crime against
the society. It embraces all the practices, whether by word, deed, writing which are calculated to

1
Section 124-A, Indian Penal Code, 1860.
2
AIR 2020 SC 5397.
3
AIR 1962 SC 955.
4
(1868) 11 Cox’s Criminal Cases 44.
~9~
MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT
 3RD MCI MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2021
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED [ISSUE 1]

disturb the tranquility of the state. The essential ingredients of Sedition as laid down in the case
of Reg v. Aldred5 are:

1. Words, Signs, Visible representation or otherwise.

2. Brings or attempts to bring into hatred or contempt or Excite disaffection
3. Against Government established by law.

In the case at hand the Toolkit of which Mysa Kavi is one of the editors might not be directly
related to the violation but it did contain the necessary documents and plan of action which even
though not intended has been used by various organisation to cause havoc. There exists a relation
between the People Justice Foundation and the toolkit which had the accused as its editor. The
accused further made 2 distinct groups on WhatsApp one of which was called the International
Farmers Strike while the other one was deleted by the accused on being caught by the police.

The said facts of the case are in reliance with the first essentials of sedition i.e. there were words,
signs or atlest visible representation. In the case of Raghubir Singh v. State of Bihar6 the
Supreme Court stated that distribution of seditious material will also be an offence. Further the
Apex Court in the case of Indra Das v. State of Assam7 held that mere membership of an
organisation involved in such activities does not accuse one of sedition. As can be seen in the
present case the accused wasn’t just part of the organisation but also admin of two of the groups
with involved organisation such as People Justice Foundation which took active part in the
happening of violence and also was editor of the Toolkit which had a few seditious material.

The Toolkit or the WhatsApp groups which have been created by the accused in the name of
peaceful protest have not merely depicted the feeling of hatred and inciting violence by the
accused but also hundreds of police officials received injuries and national monuments
were vandalized in the name of peaceful protests. This fulfils the second essential as stated in the
Aldred case.

5
(1909) 22 Cox’s Criminal Cases 1.
6
AIR 1987 SC 149
7
(2011) 3 SCC 784
~10~
MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT
 3RD MCI MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2021
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED [ISSUE 1]

As in the present case the protest was against the government established by law and was in
compliance with Section 17 of IPC hence all the required essentials for sedition are fulfilled in
the present case.

From the above mentioned facts and circumstances it can be easily and sufficiently concluded
that the acts of the accused are seditious in nature and hence the charge of Section 124-A should
stand. The contentions of the Appellant that the Toolkit had nothing to do with the violence
caused on Independence Day do not hold any validity as well as logic as Mysa Kavi created and
was part of a WhatsApp group which included persons who allegedly edited the 'toolkit' and also
communicated with other persons about the documents. She was part of another WhatsApp
group, which she deleted and where she shared the document with other persons including Geeta
Menbug who is a noted environmental activist.

People’s Justice Foundation' too had declared on 09.01.2021 its agenda for sabotaging
the Independence Day ceremony through a 'Global Day of Action on Aryawarta’s Independence
Day'. It is submitted that conspirators with this kind of vicious and sinister action plan
succeeded in their objective by engaging in large scale violence on 26.01.2021.

Mysa along with other persons collaborated with each other which resulted in culmination
of Toolkit Google Doc on 20.01.2021 which was subjected to further modification by the
editors Naresh, Suresh and accused and the said Toolkit was shared with People Justice
Foundation and several other individuals as part of the sinister plan “'Global Day of Action on
Arywarta’s Independence Day, 26th Jan 2021”.

Even though the Appellant may submit that there is no direct evidence which links the violence
on Independence Day with the Toolkit or the accused one has to see at the larger picture in order
to understand the conspiracy. There cannot be a mere coincidence that out of all other
organization supporting the protest the accused was in contact with the only one which has also
been linked with the formation of the toolkit of which the accused was the editor. Even though
the accused might not directly be involved in the seditious acts her toolkit as well as planning
about the protest did act as an add on to incite the violence and plan the chaos created amid the
Independence Day.

~11~
MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT
 3RD MCI MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2021
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED [ISSUE 2]

ISSUE 2: WHETHER THE ACCUSED WAS PART OF A CRIMINAL CONSPIRACY?

It is humbly submitted before this Hon’ble Court that the accused was a part of a larger group as
required under Section 120-A in order to cause havoc on the Independence Day. People like
Geeta Menbug who is a known environmentalist, the editors of the Toolkit i.e., Naresh and
Suresh along with organizations such as People’s Justice Foundation and Extinction Rebellion
were involved with the accused in order to conduct the illegal activities which caused disruption
in public order on Independence Day and even led to injury to various police officers.

The Apex Court in the case of Devendar Pal Singh v. State (NCT of Delhi)8 held that the main
ingredients of Section 120 A of Indian Penal Code are:

1. There should be two or more persons.

2. There should be an agreement between themselves.
3. The agreement should be:
a. To do an illegal act
b. To do a legal act in an illegal manner.

The court in the said case further stated that the agreement is itself sufficient in cases of illegal
act but in cases of legal act by illegal means the overt act is important. The same has been
reiterated by the Apex Court in the case of Yogesh v. State of Maharastra9 as well as Mohan
Singh v. State of Bihar10.

The Apex Court in the case of State of Karnataka & Ors. v. Selvi J Jayalalitha & Ors.11 held
that criminal conspiracy is an offence in itself and the agreement itself is punishable without the
happening of the offence. The Apex Court in the case of State of Tamil Nadu v. Nalini12 held
that Agreement is the sine qua non of the offence of criminal conspiracy. It consists of the scheme
of understanding between the people whether it is express or implied..

8
AIR 2002 SCC 1661.
9
AIR 2008 SC 2991.
10
(2011) 9 SCC 272.
11
2017 (2) SCALE 375.
12
(1999) 5 SCC 252
~12~
MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT
 3RD MCI MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2021
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED [ISSUE 2]

In the Nalini case the Apex court stated that even if the conspirators have not actively participated
in the commission of the offence still they would be liable for the conspiracy if the act was
conducted in pursuance of a common intention. In the case of Yash Pal v. State of Punjab13 the
court stated that it isn’t necessary for all the conspirators to know each other as they might be
playing their own individual roles in the conspiracy in order to achieve that one objective which
all the conspirators know about.

The Supreme Court in the case of State v. Jaspal Singh14 held that as most of the conspiracies
are planned a plotted in secrecy it isn’t always easy to figure out the direct evidence leading to
the same. Hence the offence of conspiracy can either be proved by way of direct or circumstantial
evidence. The prosecution might not always be able to build up the objective behind the
conspiracy and might not be able to figure out who all are a part of the conspiracy hence in such
cases one needs to rely on inferences. In such a case the circumstances which prevailed before
during and after the occurrence of the conspiracy become relevant in order to convict the accused.

In order to execute this plan everyone had their own individual tasks, the accused as well as
Naresh and Suresh were responsible for editing the toolkit which played an essential role in the
chaos on the Independence Day. Further the organization such as People’s Justice Foundation
and Extinction Rebellion were actively participating in misleading people and creation of the
toolkit in order to incite violence and provoke the citizens to cause dis-resentment. The
explanation clause to Section 120-A it is immaterial whether the illegal act is the ultimate object
or incidental to the agreement. in the present case if all the requisite strings are connected it can
easily be concluded that more than two people were involved in the planning of the chaos created
on Independence Day.

Further even though the Appellant may submit that there is no direct evidence which links the
violence on Independence Day with the Toolkit or the accused one has to see at the larger picture
in order to understand the conspiracy. There cannot be a mere coincidence that out of all other
organization supporting the protest the accused was in contact with the only one which has also
been linked with the formation of the toolkit of which the accused was the editor. Even though
the accused might not directly be involved in the seditious acts her toolkit as well as planning

13
AIR 1977 SC 2433
14
(2003) 10 SCC 586
~13~
MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT
 3RD MCI MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2021
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED [ISSUE 2]

about the protest did act as an add on to incite the violence and plan the chaos created amid the
Independence Day. This directly leads one to infer that there was an underlying agreement
between the various parties who were involved in the said chaos.
Focusing upon the last essential as the act of the accused and the other people involved in the
conspiracy was seditious in nature hence it fulfills the third essential under Section 120-A which
states that the agreement should be to commit an illegal act. Notwithstanding the above argument
if the Appellant contend that there was no illegal act as there was a peaceful protest being
organized which is in compliance with the Explanation 2 & 3 provided under Section 124-A then
in the said case the accused and the other still would be responsible of doing a lawful act such as
a protest in an unlawful manner i.e., causing mass violent protest, destruction of National
Monuments as well as injuring the police officer.

In any case the accused as well as the other involved in the present chaos were part of a criminal
conspiracy as by gathering the various direct evidence as well as inferences one can easily
concluded that all the necessary essentials under Section 120-A are met.

~14~
MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT
 3RD MCI MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2021
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED [ISSUE 3]

ISSUE 3: WHETHER THE REFUSAL OF BAIL BY THE TRIAL COURT WAS RIGHT?

It is humbly submitted before this Hon’ble Court that the Trial Court was right in rejecting the
bail of the accused as the discretion of the same is with the court. Further as the accused has been
charged of sedition as well as criminal conspiracy the trial court can use its discretion by
analyzing the merits of the case and decide upon the bail of the accused. In cases of non-bailable
offences the High Court and Sessions Court can exercise their discretion as stated under Section
437 of Criminal Procedure Code.

In the case of G. Narasimhulu v. Public Prosecutor15 the Apex Court stated that discretion as
stated under Section 437 means sound discretion and it should not be arbitrary and vague, further
it should be legal and not regular. The Apex Court in the case of Gurcharan Singh v. State16
held that the law favors allowance of bail but the same shall be subjected to conditions such as:

1. Enormity of the charge

2. Nature of the accusation
3. Severity of punishment
4. Evidence in support of the accusation
5. Nature and gravity of the circumstances in which offence is committed.
6. Position and status of accused
7. Danger of witness tampering and the accused fleeing

The said discretion is being exercised in an unbiased manner and the courts restrict bail only in
conditions where it is necessary. The same has been stated in the case of Shivarame Gowde v.
State of Karnataka.17

Section 437(1) restricts such exercise of discretion in cases where the punishment is for death,
life imprisonment or more than 7 years. In such cases the court has to give enough chance to the
Public Prosecutor to contest the bail to the accused. Even though the powers as given to the High
Court and the Sessions Court under Section 437 are quite wide yet according to the view

15
(1978) 1 SCC 240
16
(1978) 1 SCC 118
17
1991 Cri LJ 1008 (Kant)
~15~
MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT
 3RD MCI MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2021
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED [ISSUE 3]

expressed by the court in the case of State v. Captain Jagjit Singh18 that various considerations
such as those mentioned above will have to be taken into account before a bail is granted by the
High Court or the Sessions Court in cases of non-bailable offences. Further as stated in the case
of Babu Singh v. State of UP19 an order refusing an application for bail does not preclude them
for filing for another bail with proper requirements and conditions.

In the present case the decision of the Trial Court of rejecting the bail is right as the court based
its decision on the basis that the accused has been charged with non-bailable offences such as
sedition and criminal conspiracy and hence bail is a discretion of the court and no more the right
of the accused. Further as the punishment for sedition is life imprisonment hence after giving the
public prosecutor enough opportunity the trial court came to the conclusion that it used its
discretion to reject the bail application filed by the accused as in its observation the accused have
been implicated of sedition and if released on bail the accused can further lead such chaos and
riots in the society which might have affected public order. Further the discretion as used by the
trial court is a reasoned one hence it fulfills all the requirements as stated under Section 437 of
the Criminal Procedure Code which makes the decision of rejection of bail, right.

18
AIR 1962 SC 253
19
(1978) 1 SCC 579
~16~
MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT
 3RD MCI MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2021
PRAYER

PRAYER
In the light of the issued raised, arguments advanced and authorities cited, the council for the
Respondent humbly prays before this Hon’ble Court to state that:

1. The actions of the accused are seditious in nature.

2. The accused was a part of the criminal conspiracy.
3. The Trial Court rightly rejected the bail of the accused.

AND/OR

Pass any other order it may deem fit, in the interest of Justice, Equity and Good Conscience.

All of which is most humbly and respectfully submitted.

Counsel on behalf of Respondent

Sd/-

~17~
MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT