MOOT COURT, DOGRA LAW COLLEGE,2022

Before the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India

In the matter of

State of NCT of Kamchatka………….. (Respondent)

V.

1. Eleven……………........... (Appellant)

2. Jim Hopper...................... (Appellant)

Memorandum on behalf of the Respondent

1
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

S.NO. List of Contents Page no.

1. The List of Abbreviations 3

2. The Index of Authorities 4

3. The Statement of Jurisdiction 5

4. The Statement of Facts 6-7

5. Cases Referred 8

6. Issues Framed 9

7. Summary of Arguments 10

8. The Arguments Advanced 11-20

9. Prayer 21

2
 THE LIST OF ABBREVATIONS

1. AIR All India Reporter

2. App. Appellant
3. Art. or art. Article
4. Cr.PC Criminal Procedural Code
5. FIR First Information Report
6. H.C High Court
7. Hon’ble Honourable
8. IPC Indian Penal Code
9. Resp. Respondent
10. S.C Supreme Court
11. SCC Supreme Court Cases
12. Sec. Section
13. v. Versus
14. Cri Criminal
15. NCRB National Crime Records Bureau
16. PMLA Prevention of Money Laundering Act
17. ED Enforcement Directorate
18. NIA National Investigation Agency

3
THE INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

4
 THE STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

THE CONSEL, FOR THE RESPONENT, STATE OF NCT OF KAMCHATKA, HEREBY HUMBLY
SUBMIT TO THIS HON’BLE COURT’S JURISDICTION UNDER ARTICLE 32(2) OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF UNION OF INDIA.

The present memorial on the behalf of the Respondents sets forth the facts,
contentions and arguments in the present case.

Article 32(2) of the Indian Constitution

(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.

THE STATEMENT OF FACTS

5
 After getting independence from colonial regime in 1947, the union of Hawkins with a population of
around 1.4 billion dreamt of making it an inclusive country by believing in the ideals of socialism,
secularism, equality, justice and fraternity. The constitution of Hawkins provides various rights and
liberty to individuals.
 However, Hawkins kept experiencing an unbated increase in crime rate every year. As per NCRB, The
offence grew by 550% between the year 2010 and 2017, including offences majorly against women,
children and terrorist activities.
 To curb these offences special laws like UAPA, PMLA, NIA and Criminal Procedure (Identification) Act,
2022 were enacted.
 Eleven is pursuing journalism from a college in the capital city of Hawkins. She runs her own website
where she posts her blogs against the government most of the time.
 Jim hopper, her uncle who resides in different country Switzerland takes care of her expenses and
pays her college fees.
 Due to the constant presence on social media on her website she gained lot of popularity in the
metropolitan cities of Hawkins.
 She announced on social media that she is planning to host protest against these enactments. There
were also rumours spread that Eleven is planning an unlawful assembly.
 On 21-04-2017, she posted on her social media that she is going to stage a protest along with her
activist friends in the capital city of Hawkins and urged people in large masses to join her.
 Following that on the same day, protesters gathered in large numbers. Rumours spread that she
receives foreign funding merely to incite people and dismantle the existing government.
 Protest continued for days while during the protest Eleven gave several inciting speeches and urged
protesters to keep raising their voice against the security legislations and government.
 She urged protesters to keep fighting at all costs and do whatever it takes. She even promised to
provide all logistical support to the protestors.
 One of the protestors recorded her video and shared it on social media. Consequently, reports of
violence in the adjoining districts were reported.
 Considering that police reached the protest site to stop the protest but faced physical altercations.
 Eleven was arrested from the site and FIR was registered against her under section-13, 16, 17, 18 of
UAPA, section 124A and 120B of IPC.
 During investigation police seized around INR 6,00,000 cash at her apartment. Upon interrogation she
kept silent about the money but her friends stated that she is receiving funding including foreign
transfers to carry out the logistical expenses of the protest. Then the matter was directed to NIA for
further investigation.
 On receiving information regarding apprehension of money laundering ED lodged an ECIR against
Eleven under section 4 of PMLA.

6
 Thereafter ED served notice under section 50 of PMLA to her for interrogation. She admitted that she
has been receiving funding and foreign transfers from her uncle Hopper.
 NIA submitted charge sheet to the special Court. And the court framed all the charges which were
pressed in the FIR and ECIR.
 Meantime Eleven’s uncle, Hopper returned to Hawkins. As Hopper played seminal role in providing
foreign funding to fulfil her criminal endeavours in the country, Special Court accepted an application
under section 319 of Cr.PC to arraign Hopper as accused in the same trial.
 Prosecution submitted all the material evidences including electronic evidences and seizures.
 On the other hand, on the defence side Hopper stated that he has only been paying Eleven’s college
fee and her monthly expenses. Whereas Eleven submitted her bank details which show most of the
transfers were from her uncle with several transactions from other sources.
 After hearing the final arguments, special court relying on the material evidences presented by the
Prosecution and statements given by Eleven found that the Defence has failed to gain confidence of
the court whereas Prosecution has established its case beyond reasonable doubt.
 Moreover, the court also found that Eleven’s blogs and speeches were directly connected with
unlawful assembly and violence. Even accused failed to provide proper explanation to all the
monetary transactions. On the other hand, Hopper was convicted for money laundering and criminal
conspiracy for constantly aiding Eleven’s criminal endeavours.
 High court also upheld the conviction order of the Special Court.
 Eleven and Hopper further filed SLP under Article 136 against the conviction upheld by the High Court
alleging that legal principles and statutes are wrongly applied.
 During pandemic of COVID-19 while serving their sentences, their measurements were taken as per
the new law enacted for identification of prisoners.
 In the year 2022, Eleven filed a writ petition under Article 32 challenging the criminal procedure
(identification) act, 2022 on the pretext of violation of privacy and other fundamental rights under
constitution.
 In the same petition she also challenged the constitutional validity of Section 50 of PMLA.

CASES REFERRED

7
1.State of Bombay v. Kathi Kalu Oghad, 1961 AIR 1808, 1962 SCR (3) 10............................................12

2. Kharak Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Ors, [1964] 1 SCR 332, AIR 1963 SC 1295...................13

3. Dalmia Cement (Bharat) Limited and ORs. v. Asst. Director of Enforcement Directorate and Ors.,

WP. Nos.36838 of 2014 ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….15

4. B. Narayanswamy v. Deputy Director, Enforcement Directorate, Chennai, W.M.P.No.38470 &

38480 of 2018……………………………………………………………………………….…………………………………………………15

5. Natasha Narwal v. State of NCT of Delhi, CRL.A. 82/2021................................................................17

6. Kedar Nath Singh v. State of Bihar, 1962 AIR 955, 1962 SCR Supl. (2) 769......................................18

7. Baldev Singh v. State of Punjab , 1971 CriLJ 234...............................................................................19

8. Ahsan Ahmad Mirza and Others v. Enforcement Directorate & anr WP(C) No.2780/2019……….……20

ISSUES RAISED

8
1. Whether the Criminal Procedure (Identification) Act, 2022 constitutionally valid
and whether Eleven can be compelled to give measurements and biological
samples to the jail authorities?

2. Whether section 50 of Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002

unconstitutional?

3. Whether the Special Court error in convicting Eleven for the offences under
section 13, 16, 17, 18 of Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act; under section 4 of
Prevention of Money Laundering Act and under section 124A, 120B of Indian
Penal Code; and Hopper under section 4 Prevention of Money Laundering Act of
and under section 120B of Indian Penal Code?

THE SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS

9
1. Whether the Criminal Procedure (Identification) Act, 2022 constitutionally valid and
whether Eleven can be compelled to give measurements and biological samples to the jail
authorities?

2. Whether section 50 of Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 unconstitutional?

3. Whether the Special Court errored in convicting Eleven for the offences under section 13,
16, 17, 18 of Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act; under section 4 of Prevention of Money
Laundering Act and under section 124A, 120B of Indian Penal Code; and Hopper under
section 4 of Prevention of Money Laundering Act and under section 120B of Indian Penal
code?

THE ARGUMENTS ADVANCED

10
 ISSUE NO. 1

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

Before advancing to the arguments, let us get a true picture of what the original Act provides for and
what the Act intends to provide for. Under the Act of 1920, the term “ measurements” has been
defined to include finger impression and foot-print impressions. However, keeping in mind the
advancement in scientific and technological fields, the Act has expanded this inclusive list to provide
for finger-impression, palm-print impressions, foot-print impressions, photographs, iris and retina
scan, physical, biological samples and their analysis, behavioural attributes including signatures,
handwriting or any other examination referred to in sec. 531 or sec. 53A2 of the Cr.PC.

It has been contended that coercing an individual (whether convicted or otherwise) to give
measurements in a criminal investigation and/ or trial will result in a violation of the individual’s right
against self-incrimination enshrined under Article 20(3) 3 of the Constitution of Hawkins. This right
entails that no person accused of an offence shall be compelled to be a witness against himself. These
arguments are flawed and based on incorrect appreciation of judicial precedents.

First, several judgments have categorically held that measurements such as finger-impression, voice-
samples, etc. are not in the nature of a “personal testimony.” The kind of measurements covered
under the Act cannot be intrinsically changed and are used only as materials of comparison to lend
assurance to a court that its inference based on other pieces of evidence is reliable. These are neither
oral nor documentary evidence nor fall outside the ambit of testimony.

In the case of State of Bombay v. Kathi Kalu Oghad4, the XI Judge Bench of Hon’ble Supreme Court
has held that “giving thumb impressions or foot or palm or fingers or specimen writings or showing
parts of the body by way of identification are not included in the expression “to be a witness.”

Hence, it is humbly submitted that “measurements” given by Eleven under the Criminal Procedure
(Identification) Act, 2020 is not violative of the article 20(3).

1
Sec.-53 of Cr.PC Examination of accused by medical practitioner at the request of police officer.
2
Sec.53A Cr.PC. Examination of person accused of rape by medical practitioner.
3
Article 20(3) No person accused of any offence shall be compelled to be a witness against himself
4
1961 AIR 1808, 1962 SCR (3) 10

11
 Secondly, most of the specified measurements under the Act are already covered under different
stages of criminal investigation and trial under the Cr.PC. For example, under Section 53, a medical
practitioner is authorized to conduct an examination on an arrested person and such examination
“includes the examination of blood, blood stains, semen, swabs in case of sexual offences, sputum
and sweat, hair samples and finger nail clippings by the use of modern and scientific techniques
including DNA profiling and such other tests which the registered medical practitioner thinks
necessary in a particular case.” Under Section 311A of the Cr.PC, the Magistrate is empowered to
order a person to give specimen signatures or handwriting during investigation or proceedings under
the Cr.PC. In fact, the Hon’ble Supreme Court, while exercising its jurisdiction under Article 142 of the
Constitution of Hawkins conferred powers on the Magistrate to order any person to give voice
samples until explicit provisions are engrafted under the Cr.PC. The Act simply consolidates and
updates the various legal provisions and judicial precedents in one common legislative framework.

Further the proportionality and reasonableness of the Act 5 is justified by the following:

1) Unlike the old Act6, this Act7 of 2022 imposes an obligation to share measurements with a police
officer for grave offences committed against a woman or a child or for any offence punishable with
imprisonment for a period not less than 7 years. Under the Act, convicted persons and persons who
had been arrested for offences punishable with rigorous imprisonment for a term of 1 year or
upwards were required to give their measurements to police officers.

2) The law as it stands under the Act, does not provide the manner of collecting the measurements by
police officers. It merely provides that measurements are to be collected by police officers in the
“prescribed manner.” Several judicial decisions have discussed the importance of “prescribed
manner” and whether it entails a requirement of an executive rule for implementation. However,
necessary safeguards have been provided for in the Act, which provides that police or prison officers
can take measurements as may be prescribed by the Central Government or State Government,
thereby mandatorily requiring executive checks and balances.

3) The measurements collected by police officers are not considered as gospel truth either under the
Act. A police officer can either collect the measurements on his own or approach a Magistrate to pass
necessary orders for taking of measurements. In the event police officers take the measurements on
their own, they bear the burden to dispel doubts as to its bonafides and to rule out fabrication.
Hence, the Act continues to encourage police officers to take measurements by approaching a
Magistrate.

5
Criminal Procedure (Identification) Act
6
The Identification of Prisoners Act, 1920
7
Criminal Procedure (Identification) Act

12
 Thus it is contended that Appellant no. 1(Eleven) is obliged to furnish measurements to prescribed
authorities under section 3 of Criminal Procedure (Identification) Act, 2022.

Pertaining to right to privacy under Article 21:-

In the case of Kharak Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Ors8 Jeevan Reddy J. held that “in the
context of anti-terrorism enactment, the right to privacy was subservient to the security of the state
and withholding information relevant for the detention of crime cannot be nullified on the grounds of
right to privacy.”

Hence, it humbly submitted that that Eleven along with her activist friends had staged a protest on
mass level due to which violence started in the adjoining districts. Therefore, if there arises a question
of State Security it becomes compulsory for the authorities to take action against such people.

ISSUE 2

2. WHETHER SECTION 50 OF PREVENTION OF MONEY LAUNDERING ACT UNCONSTITUTIONAl?

8
[1964] 1 SCR 332, AIR 1963 SC 1295

13
 It has been contended that sec 50 of Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) is unconstitutional
because it is violative of Article 20(3) 9. The issue raised is baseless and lacks ground to be challenged
against PMLA.

Section 50 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act confers power on the Enforcement Directorate
(ED) to summon any person for the purpose of giving evidence. Section 50(2) of PMLA empowers the
Director, Additional Director, Joint Director, Deputy Director to summon “any person” for the purpose
of giving evidence or producing records. Sec. 50(3) compels such a person to answer truthfully. Non-
compliance with Sec. 50(3) is penalized through Section 63 of the PMLA. 

Sec. 50 of the PMLA does not violate Article 20(3) of the Constitution, that is, the right against self-
incrimination.

The reasons for the same are:-

1. Under Art. 20(3) which says that “no person accused of an offence shall be compelled to be a witness
against himself”. It is based on the legal maxim ‘nemo teneteur prodre accussare
seipsum’, which means ‘No man is obliged to be a witness against himself’. The key word here is
“accused”. As long as a person is not legally accused of an offence, he or she does not enjoy the
protection of Article 20(3).

2. A statement made under section 50 of the PMLA would not infringe the fundamental right contained
in Art. 20(3) in as much as the person making the statement is not an accused at the time when the
statement under sec. 50 is made. A person, when summoned under section 50 of the PMLA to give
evidence or produce record, cannot claim protection under Article 20(3) for two reasons.
 since the complaint is not filed by the prosecution or
 they are merely suspects at the time they are summoned.

In this case also the prosecution had not filed complaint to the ED and there were no formal
accusation against them by the prosecution. They took cognizance when money trails were found.
There upon an ECIR was registered.

In the case of Dalmia Cement (Bharat) Limited and ORs . v. Asst. Director of Enforcement Directorate
and Ors10.,the petitioners had challenged the summons under sec. 50 of the PMLA by claiming it to be
violative of the constitutional protection guarantee under Article 20(3). The Court went on to hold
that “the summons issued under section 50 was not violative of the constitutional protection and
guarantee under Article 20(3) as no formal accusation was made when the summons was issued”. The

9
(3) No person accused of any offence shall be compelled to be a witness against himself
10
WP. Nos.36838 of 2014

14
 Court further observed that until the complaint under section 4411 of the PMLA was filed by the ED,
the Petitioners could not be said to have been standing in the capacity of accused persons in order to
afford the constitutional protection under Art. 20 (3).

Also in the case of B. Narayanswamy v. Deputy Director, Enforcement Directorate, Chennai12 , the
Court held that “at the time of making enquiry under section 50(2) and 50(3) of the PMLA, the
persons so summoned cannot be treated as an accused person unless they are  found to have been
involved in money laundering”. It was specifically argued by the prosecution that summoning persons
under sec. 50 was only for the purposes of collecting evidence and then on the basis of the evidence
collected and the statements recorded, if it was established that the person is involved in money
laundering, only then would he be treated as an accused and a complaint would be filed against
him13. 
Thus it is contended that sec. 50 of PMLA is not violative of Art. 20(3). Thus, not inconsistent to
constitution of Hawkins.

In this case Appellant no. 1 upon showing the account transaction admitted that she has raised money
through various transactions. Also earlier to this her friends also disclosed about the same. Further
she remained silent over the details of other transactions apart from her uncle Appellant no. 2. It is
pertinent to mention that there was no coercion upon her by the investigating authority to disclose
the same.

ISSUE NO. 3

3. WHETHER THE SPECIAL COURT ERRORED IN CONVICTING ELEVEN FOR THE OFFENCES
UNDER SECTION 13,16,17,18 OF UNLAWFUL ACTIVITIES (PREVENTION) ACT AND UNDER

11
Offences triable by Special Courts
12
W.M.P.No.38470 & 38480 of 2018
13
https://www.livelaw.in/law-firms/law-firm-articles-/statements-of-accused-section-50-pmla-constitutional-protection-185266 (last
visited on 02-06-2022 )

15
 SECTION 124A, 120B OF INDIAN PENAL CODE; AND HOPPER UNDER SECTION 4 OF
PREVENTION OF MONEY LAUNDERING ACT AND UNDER SECTION 120B OF INDIAN PENAL
CODE?

The Constitution of Hawkins indeed under Art. 19(1) (c) provides right to peaceably assemble allows
people to question and object to acts of the government by demonstrations, agitations and public
meetings, to launch sustained protest movements. But at the same time imposes reasonable
restriction to protect sovereignty and integrity of India, security of the state and some among them
are public order, decency or morality, incitement to an offence. Further, resorting to violence during
the protest is a violation of a key fundamental duty of citizens. Under, the Constitution makes it a
fundamental duty of every citizen “to safeguard public property and to abjure violence”.
This is what happened in the present case. Under the garb of peaceful protest criminal agenda was
purported.
There are several instances which prove that it was not a peaceful protest.

The Appellant no. 1 knowing that she has massive following and influence on social media held an
outrageous protest and incessantly incited people to carry on the protest. She gave several speeches
at the protest site. She said “we should keep fighting at all costs and must do whatever it takes.”
Further she also promised that she will provide all logistical support to protestors. Hence, it is humbly
submitted these statements clearly shows that rather than presenting discontent to the impugned
laws she was more mendaciously endeavoured to incite the protestors to destroy peace and to cause
violence for the same. This is the flagrant violation of public order, Decency or Morality and
Incitement to an offence.

Consequently she was convicted under sec. 13 14, 1615, 1716, 1817 of Unlawful Activities (Prevention)
Act; sec. 124A18 and 120B19; and sec. 420 of Prevention of Money Laundering Act.

Conviction under Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act

The Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 enables more effective prevention of certain unlawful
activities of individuals and associations and for dealing with terrorist activities, and other related
matters.
14
Unlawful Activities (Prevention Act), 1967(UAPA), s. 13 - Punishment for unlawful activities.
15
Unlawful Activities (Prevention Act), 1967(UAPA), s. 16- Punishment for terrorist act.
16
Unlawful Activities (Prevention Act), 1967(UAPA), s. 17- Punishment for raising funds for terrorist act.
17
Unlawful Activities (Prevention Act), 1967(UAPA), s. 18- Punishment for conspiracy, etc.
18
Indian Penal Code, 1860 s.-124A- Sedition
19
Indian Penal Code, 1860 s.-120B- Punishment of criminal conspiracy
20
Prevention of Money Laundering Act s. 4- Punishment for money-laundering

16
 Unlawful activity refers to any action taken by individual or association (whether by committing an act
or by words, either spoken or written or by signs to questions) disclaims, disrupts, or is intended to
disrupt the territorial integrity and sovereignty of India.

Check on Fundamental Rights

The National Integration Council, the Constitution (16th Amendment) Act, 1963, has empowered
Parliament to impose (by law) reasonable restrictions in the interests of sovereignty and integrity of
India, on the;
1. Freedom of Speech and Expression
2. Right to Form Associations or Unions
3. Right to Assemble peaceably and without arms.

Section 1321 of Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act provides Punishment for unlawful activities.
Further section 16, 17, 18 UAPA provides Punishments for committing, raising funds, and conspiring
such activities.
Thus it is humbly submitted that appellant no. 1 has sought all such unlawful activities by inciting,
raising funds, and conspiring to fulfil her pursuits.

In case of Natasha Narwal v. State of NCT of Delhi22, court opined that “intentionally blocking roads
leading to disruption of essential services, attack on police personnel and eventually culminating in
riots would fall under the scope of terrorist act under UAPA.”

It was apparent that there were physical altercations happened at the protest site even with the
police.

Conviction under Sedition

Sec. 124A defines sedition as: “Whoever, by words, either spoken or written, or by signs, or by visible
representation, or otherwise, brings or attempts to bring into hatred or contempt, or excites or

21
1.Whoever—
a). takes part in or commits, or
b). advocates, abets, advises or incites the commission of, any unlawful activity, shall be punishable with imprisonment for a
term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine.
22
CRL.A. 82/2021

17
 attempts to excite disaffection towards, the Government established by law shall be punished with
imprisonment for life, to which fine may be added”

The expression “disaffection” includes disloyalty and all feelings of enmity.

It is evident from the facts of the case that how aggressively she was inciting the protestors by
promising to provide all logistics to the protestors at any cost. There are many video clips of her went
viral in which she can be seen spreading hate and provoking people against the laws and government.
Even she was arrested from the protest site.

Moreover electronic evidences, call recordings and incriminating conversations adduced to the court
proved her disaffection, disloyalty and feeling of enmity towards the government. Her motive was
subversion of established government. Through outraging the protestors to cause public disorder and
inciting them to cause violence.

In a democratic country, the right to freedom of speech and expression is a  sine qua non, but
reasonable restriction as mentioned under Art. 19(2) is necessary in the interest of the sovereignty,
safety, integrity, friendly relations with foreign states, public order, decency, morality or contempt of
court. Consequently, any law which is made in the interest of public order is intra vires of the
Constitution.23

In Kedar Nath Singh v. State of Bihar24, the Constitutional Bench of Supreme Court upheld the
constitutionality of Section 124A and held it to be in harmony with Article 19(1) (a).
The Supreme Court held that “Sec. 124A of IPC is intra vires of the Constitution and in harmony with  
Art.19(1)(a) read with Art.19(2) of the Constitution. Also, that the accused has no intention to create
public disorder, disturbance of law and order established by the law”.

Thus Appellant is appropriately convicted under section 124A of India Penal Code.

Conviction under Prevention of Money Laundering Act and sec. 120B of Indian Penal Code

23
https://www.legalserviceindia.com/legal/article-572-constitution-of-india-freedom-of-speech-and-expression.html (last visited on 03-
06-2022 )
24
1962 AIR 955, 1962 SCR Supl. (2) 769

18
 Both Appellant no. 1(Eleven) and Appellant no. 2 (Jim Hopper) are convicted under sec. 4 25 of PMLA
and sec. 120B of IPC.
Sec. 326 of PMLA Defines offence of money laundering.
Moreover, the offences regarding money laundering are enlisted under paragraph 2 of Part A of the
Schedule. Sec. 120B of IPC is listed at the top among these offences.
Having regard to the settled legal position that the offence of criminal conspiracy as defined under
sec.120A and punishable under sec. 120B of IPC is an independent and stand alone offence and,
therefore, even if the predicate offence is not a scheduled offence, it would still be a scheduled
offence for the purpose of sec. 3.

In the case of Baldev Singh v. State of Punjab27, 2009 (3) Crimes 8 (SC), the Supreme Court has clearly
held that “an offence of criminal conspiracy is an independent offence and is punishable separately;
its ingredients being:-
(i) an agreement between two or more persons;
(ii) an agreement must relate to doing or causing to be done either ;
(a) an illegal act;
(b) an act which is not illegal in itself, but is done by an illegal  means.”

Hence, it is humbly submitted that there were rumours spread during protests that Appellant no. 1
receiving foreign funding merely to incite people and dismantle the existing govt.
Coincidentally, during investigation police found approx. INR 6,00,000 at her apartment. It is
imperative to note that she is a student without any income sources. Upon asking the source of
money she remained silent but her friends said that she is raising it to carry out logistics for the
protest and she gets foreign transfers as well. Later she admitted to ED that she raised money from
her uncle Hopper (Appellant. No. 2).
Subsequent to that Appellant no 2(Hopper) was arrested under sec. 319 28 of Cr. P. C. Upon
questioning he said that he has only been paying her college fee. But account details shows that most
of the transaction were from Appellant no. 2.
The question is then how come the money raised.
The Appellants failed to answer the question. Also there was inconsistency between their statements.
Thus they failed to gain the confidence of the court. Appellant no. 1 raised funding to commit

25
Sec. 4 of Punishment for money-laundering-Whoever commits the offence of money-laundering shall be punishable with rigorous
imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than three years but which may extend to seven years and shall also be liable to fine
which may extend to five lakh rupees: Provided that where the proceeds of crime involved in money-laundering relates to any offence
specified under paragraph 2 of Part A of the Schedule, the provisions of this section shall have effect as if for the words “which may extend
to seven years”, the words “which may extend to ten years” had been substituted.
26
Sec. 3 of Punishment for money-laundering Whosoever directly or indirectly attempts to indulge or knowingly assists or knowingly is a
party or is actually involved in any process or activity connected with the proceeds of crime and projecting it as untainted property shall be
guilty of offence of money-laundering.
27
 1971 CriLJ 234
28
Power to proceed against other persons appearing to be guilty of offence.

19
 unlawful activity and Appellant no. 2 (Hopper) constantly aided her with money to fulfil her
mendacious endeavours.

Thus, it is humbly contended that Special court convicted them appropriately for money-laundering
(sec. 4, PMLA) and criminal conspiracy (sec. 120B, IPC).

In the case of Ahsan Ahmad Mirza and Others v. Enforcement Directorate & anr29, Justice Sanjeev
Kumar opined that “It is beyond the pale of any doubt that offence of criminal conspiracy punishable
under sec. 120B IPC is a standalone offence and figures on top of Part A of the Schedule of PMLA. That
being the position, it is difficult to accept the plea that unless the offence of criminal conspiracy is
committed in conjunction with a scheduled offence, it cannot be taken to be a scheduled offence for
the purpose of sec. 3 read with Sec. 2(1)(u) of PMLA. Undoubtedly, the offence of money- laundering
relates to the process or activity connected with the proceeds of the crime including its concealment
possession, acquisition etc. and 'proceeds of crime' would mean any property derived or obtained
directly or indirectly as a result of criminal activity relating to scheduled offence. Once  sec. 120B is
held to be a distinct, independent and stand alone offence and is one of the scheduled offences under
PMLA, any property derived or obtained by any person directly or indirectly as a result of criminal
activity relating to the offence of conspiracy would come within the definition of 'proceeds of crime.”

Hence, it is humbly submitted that High court rightly held the conviction of both the appellant no. 1
and 2.

29
WP(C ) No.2780/2019

20
 PRAYER

It is, therefore, most humbly prayed that the Honourable Court may be pleased to observe that:

1) The Criminal Procedure (Identification) Act, 2022 is a bonafide act and constitutionally valid;

2) There is no ground to challenge the constitutionality of sec. 50 of PMLA, 2002 and

3) Special Court has fairly convicted Appellants under appropriate statutes.

or

And pass such further or any other order as the Honourable Court may deem fit to impart justice,
equity and good conscience.

21