3RD GD GOENKA International Virtual Law and Technology Moot Court Competition

TEAM CODE- IVLTM-310

BEFORE THE HON’BLE SUPREME COURT OF NEPTUNE VERSE

Mr. ATLEE

DIRECTOR MADAM CURA PERVASIVE (APPEALLANTS)

DIRECTOR Mr. SHANE BITKINSON

V.

THE STATE OF NEPTUNE VERSE (RESPONDENT)

The Case Concerning Appeal Against the Decision Of Special Court And High Court In
Respect To The Conviction Of Mr. Atlee and the Directors Madam Cura Pervasive and
Mr. Shane Bitkinsin

MEMORANDUM ON THE BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

3RD GD GOENKA International Virtual Law and Technology Moot Court Competition, 2022.

TEAM CODE- IVLTM-310

BEFORE THE HON’BLE SUPREME COURT OF NEPTUNE VERSE

Mr. ATLEE

DIRECTOR MADAM CURA PERVASIVE (APPEALLANTS)

DIRECTOR Mr. SHANE BITKINSIN

V.

THE STATE OF NEPTUNE VERSE (RESPONDENT)

The Case Concerning Appeal Against The Decision Of Special Court And High Court
In Respect To The Conviction Of Mr. Atlee and the Directors Madam Cura Pervasive
and Mr. Shane Bitkinson.

MEMORANDUM ON THE BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

Page 2 of 28
3RD GD GOENKA International Virtual Law and Technology Moot Court Competition, 2022.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF ABBREVATIONS..................................................................................................4

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES ...............................................................................................5-6

 STATUTORY COMPILATIONS………………………………………………….....5
 BOOKS……………………………………………………………………………......5
 DICTIONARIES……………………………………………………………………...6
 WEBSITES……………………………………………………………………………6
 TABLE OF CASES……………………………………………………………….......7

STATEMENTS OF JURISDICTION...................................................................................7

SYNOPSES OF FACTS.....................................................................................................8-10

ISSUES
RAISED……..............................................................................................................10-11

SUMMARY OF
ARGUMENTS.............................................................................................11-12

ARGUMENT ADVANCED ...........................................................................................13-26

I. WHETHER THE APPEAL AGAINST THE DECISION IS MAINTAINABLE

OR NOT??...........................................................................10-14
II. WHETHER THENJURSIDICTION OF NEPTUNE VERSE IS APPLICABLE
ON Mr. ATLEE AND THE DIRECTORS OF THE
COMPANY?.....................................................15-17
III. WHETHER THE ACTIONS OF Mr. ATLEE AND THE DIRECTORS HAVE
THREATENED THE UNITY, INTEGRITY, SECURITY AND
SOVEREIGNITY OF NEPTUNE VERSE?............................................

PRAYER...............................................................................................................................27

Page 3 of 28
3RD GD GOENKA International Virtual Law and Technology Moot Court Competition, 2022.

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

 Edn. = Edition
 Ors = Others
 Anr = Another
 Govt. = Government
 Ltd. = Limited
 Mr. = Mister
 VS. = versus
 IPC- The Indian Penal Code, 1860
 CrPC- The Criminal Procedure Code, 1973
 Sec. -Section

Page 4 of 28
3RD GD GOENKA International Virtual Law and Technology Moot Court Competition, 2022.

INDEX OF AUTHORITY

 STATUTORY COMPILATIONS

 The Constitution of India, 1950.

 The Information Technology Act, 2000
 The Indian Penal Code, 1860.
 The Criminal Procedure Code, 1973.
 The Indian Evidence Act, 1872
 The Companies Act, 2013
 The Mines & Minerals (Development & Regulation) Act, 1957.

 LIST OF BOOKS

 LAW OF CRIMES AND CRIMINOLOGY, 1stedn., R. P. Kathuria, Vinod Publications,

Vinod Nijhawan Publications Pvt. Ltd., Kashmere Gate, New Delhi.
 THE INDIAN PENAL CODE, 34thedn.Ratanlal and Dhirajlal, Lexis Nexis, Lexis Nexis,
Gurgoan, Haryana.
 THE INDIAN PENAL CODE, 12th edn., P.S.A. Pillai’s Criminal law, Lexis Nexis
 THE INDIAN PENAL CODE, 6th edn., by K D Gaur Criminal Law, Universal Law
Publication.
 TECHNOLOGY LAWS DECODED BOOK by N. S. Nappina, 2017
 INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY LAW AND PRACTICE by Vakul Sharma, 2005
 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW OF INDIA by Narender Kumar, Allahabad Law Agency,
Edition 2021.
 BOOK ON CONSTITUTIONAL LAW by V.N Shukla edited by M.P Singh
 PRINCIPLES OF LAW OF EVIDENCE by Avtar Singh, 12th Edition.
 COMPANY LAW AND ITS PRINCIPLES by Avtar Singh.
 LAW OF MINES AND MINERALS by P. SESHAGIRI RAO Edition 2018.

Page 5 of 28
3RD GD GOENKA International Virtual Law and Technology Moot Court Competition, 2022.

 DICTIONARIES

 Aiyer P.R., Advanced Law Lexicon, (3rd ed., 2005).

 Garner B.A,. Black’s law Dictionary, (9th ed., 2009).
 Oxford Advanced Learners Dictionary, (7th ed., 2008).

 WEBSITES

 www.indiankanoon.com
 www.manupatra.com
 www.legalcitation.com
 www.scconline.com\
 www.lawfinderlive.com.
 www.casemine.com
 www.firstpost.com

Page 6 of 28
3RD GD GOENKA International Virtual Law and Technology Moot Court Competition, 2022.

TABLE OF CASES

 Emperor v. Parimal Chatterjee.

 Ramachand Manjimal v/s Goverdhandas Vishindas Ramchand.

 Central Bank of India Ltd v/s Raj Narain.
 Mobarik Ali v/s state of Bombay
 Ajay Aggarwal; v/s union of India And Ors.

STATEMENT OF JURSIDICTION

The Hon’ble Supreme Court has the jurisdiction to try this matter as specified in the Article
134 read along with Article 134A (b) of the constitution of Neptune Verse

Page 7 of 28
3RD GD GOENKA International Virtual Law and Technology Moot Court Competition, 2022.

Article 134

134. Appellate jurisdiction of Supreme Court in regard to criminal matters. –

An appeal shall lie to the Supreme Court from any judgment, final order or sentence in a
criminal proceeding of a High Court in the territory of India if the High Court-has on appeal
reversed an order of acquittal of an accused person and sentenced him to death; or has
withdrawn for trial before itself any case from any court subordinate to its authority and has
in such trial convicted the accused person and sentenced him to death; or certifies under
Article 134A that the case is a fit one for appeal to the Supreme Court

Read with Article 134A (b)

134A. Certificate for appeal to the Supreme Court. –

Every High Court, passing or making a judgment, decree, final order, or sentence, referred
to in clause (1) of Article 132 or clause (1) of Article 133, or clause (1) of Article 134-

(b) shall, if an oral application is made, by or on behalf of the party aggrieved, immediately
after the passing or making of such judgment, decree, final order or sentence, determine, as
soon as may be after such passing or making, the question whether a certificate of the nature
referred to in clause (1) of Article 132, or clause (1) of Article 133 or, as the case may be,
sub-clause j of clause (1) of Article 134, may be given in respect of that case.

STATEMENT OF FACTS

There is a country called Neptune Verse. This country is a sovereign country and has got its
own sovereign laws the capital of the country is Magic Town. This country has got the
highest number of deposits of mineral iron ore in the world. Neptune Verse is a developing

Page 8 of 28
3RD GD GOENKA International Virtual Law and Technology Moot Court Competition, 2022.

country. The country, to support its large population, has been setting up various mines, with
some regions Being fully supported by the mining activities in the relevant area. Both public
and private players have been setting up mines to extract different types of ores. One such
minerals, which is heavily mind in the country, is gold. In one of the locations of Gold
Neptune Verse Mining Limited, being at Dubanshi, the company has come across massive
reserves of gold. On 15th May, 2022, one of the major terminals of Gold Neptune Verse
Mining Ltd, Which is controlling various excavation operations at Dubanshi site, suddenly
became a victim of premeditated attack. When the Network Systems Operator opened their
systems in the morning they realised that the systems were showing the red background
notice. In the said red background notice, it had been written in the garbled language and font
that the computer system of Dubanshi excavation site of Gold Neptune Verse Mining Ltd has
been targeted by ransomware attack and therefore all the files, folders and electronic data and
records of Gold Neptune Verse mining limited which were resident on the said computer
systems had been encrypted. The message further stated to pay a ransom of 1000 Bitcoins on
a stipulated address of the darknet. The last backup of the main systems was taken on 15th
February, 2022. However, since then, because of oversight or inadvertence, the backup could
not be taken. Due to this attack and no backup, gold mining operations at the Dubanshi site
came to a grinding halt. The company filed a police complaint at the police station od
Dubanshi by Network System Administer of the company, responsible for computer
networks located on the Dubanshi site, on 25th May 2022. Consequently a case is registered
under section 66 read with section 43, 66B, 66C, 66D, 66F, of the Neptune Verse Computer
Technology and Misuse Act, 2022 read with sections 408, 420, 465, 468 and 469 of the
Neptune Verse Penal Code. The police found out that the attack originated from outside the
territorial boundaries of the Neptune Verse. It was routed through the computer of Zoonis Pvt
Ltd and is being used by Mr. Atlee, an employee at Zoonis Pvt Ltd. Mr. Atlee lives in Magic
Town and is a taxpayer of the country. Consequently, on the basis of the Said information the
police arrested Mr Atlee 30th may 2022 and also accused the two directors of Zoonis Pvt
limited, being Madam Cura Pervasive and Mr. Shane Bitkinson who were based in USA.
Zoonis Pvt Ltd responded by quickly suspending Mr Atlee and engaged in negotiations with
the Neptune Verse government, in order to clear the name of its directors. The company
promised all cooperation in the investigation of the ransomware attack. The computer
malware off the attack originated from an African country. The company Gold Neptune
Verse mining limited was advised not to pay any ransom. Experts have said that it will take
the company at least nine months completely restore the data. On 10th June, 2022 the special
Page 9 of 28
3RD GD GOENKA International Virtual Law and Technology Moot Court Competition, 2022.

court convicts Mr. Atlee, as well as the directors of Zoonis Pvt Ltd Through a summary trial
for various offences under section 66 read with section 43, 66B, 66C, 66D, 66F, of the
Neptune Verse Computer Technology and Misuse Act, 2022 read with sections 408, 420,
465, 468 and 469 of the Neptune Verse Penal Code. Mr. Atlee and the Directors of the
Zoonis Pvt Ltd appeal against their conviction to the High Court of Dubanshi. The High
Court rejects the appeals and upholds the convictions of Mr Atlee and the directors of Zoonis
Pvt limited.The food are filed petition before the Supreme Court of Neptune Verse
challenging their convictions in the seat matter. The petition was filed based on the
arguments that the conviction is without any foundation bsince they have got no connection
with the crime in question. They contend that the electronic evidence was collected without
following the due process of law and legally, not much incriminating electronic evidence has
been duly produced to support the case of their involvement in the matter. The directors of
Zoonis Pvt Ltd, being Madam Cura Pervasive and Mr. Shane Bitkinson argue that since they
are not citizens of Neptune Verse, the laws of Neptune Verse are simply not applicable to
them. The prosecution, on the other hand, is arguing before the Supreme Court of Neptune
Verse that the conviction of the three accused people needs to be upheld because it is in
national interest, even if certain provisions of the law have not been followed.The
prosecution further says that as Mr. Atlee is living within the territorial boundaries Of
Neptune Verse, he is amenable to the laws of Neptune Verse and since he has aided, assisted
and abetted, by use of his allocated computer in the various elements Constituting
ransomware attack against the gold excavation site of Dubanshi, his Conviction for various
offences laid down under the Neptune Verse Computer Technology and Misuse Act, 2022
and the Neptune Verse Penal Code needs to be Upheld. The prosecution also argues that as
per Neptune Verse law, the directors in Charge of a company are liable when such an attack
take place from the use of their Computer systems. The prosecution is particularly referring
to the cyber terrorism Elements of the alleged actions of Mr. Atlee, orchestrated with the aim
of causing terror, Fear and panic in the hearts of not just the members of excavation industry
but the entire Neptune Verse gold economy stakeholders ecosystem. Further, the alleged
activities of the Appellants as per the prosecution, have been done with the intent to threaten
the unity, integrity, security and sovereignty of Neptune Verse. The Supreme Court of
Neptune Verse has clubbed all the three petitions of the Petitioners and is now hearing the
said clubbed matters. Verse as a country has got all laws which are exactly the Same as those
prevailing in India.

Page 10 of 28
3RD GD GOENKA International Virtual Law and Technology Moot Court Competition, 2022.

ISSUES RAISED

ISSUE 1: WHETHER THE APPEAL AGAINST THE DECISION IS

MAINTAINABLE OR NOT?

Page 11 of 28
3RD GD GOENKA International Virtual Law and Technology Moot Court Competition, 2022.

ISSUE 2: WHETHER THENJURSIDICTION OF NEPTUNE VERSE IS

APPLICABLE ON Mr. ATLEE AND THE DIRECTORS OF THE COMPANY?

ISSUE 3: WHETHER THE ACTIONS OF Mr. ATLEE AND THE DIRECTORS

HAVE THREATENED THE UNITY, INTEGRITY, SECURITY AND
SOVEREIGNITY OF NEPTUNE VERSE?

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS

ISSUE 1

Page 12 of 28
3RD GD GOENKA International Virtual Law and Technology Moot Court Competition, 2022.

WHETHER THE APPEAL AGAINST THE DECISION IS MAINTAINABLE OR

NOT?

It is humbly submitted before the Hon'ble Court that the convict is liable under section 66(b)
of information and technology act 2000 as he intentionally penetrates into goldmines pvt.ltd
company which caused injury to the company’s computer system. Further, he is liable under
section 107 of IPC for the offence of abetment, further he is liable under section 43 of IT act.
Here the argument questions the maintainability of appeal of which is not maintainable as the
convicts’ appeal was heard on day-to-day basis under the vigilance of hon'ble high court.

ISSUE 2

WHETHER THENJURSIDICTION OF NEPTUNE VERSE IS APPLICABLE ON Mr.

ATLEE AND THE DIRECTORS OF THE COMPANY?

It is humbly submitted that hon'ble supreme court has jurisdiction over the case of Mr. Atlee,
directors of Zoonies Pvt.Ltd. Madam Cura Pervasive and Mr. Shane Bitkinson as article 132
and 133 of Indian constitution provide for appealing jurisdiction of the Supreme court of
India. Section 4 of IPC also support the argument as it talks about the liability of the offence
committed by foreigners in India.

ISSUE 3

WHETHER THE ACTIONS OF Mr. ATLEE AND THE DIRECTORS HAVE

THREATENED THE UNITY, INTEGRITY, SECURITY AND SOVEREIGNITY OF
NEPTUNE VERSE?

The action by Mr. Atlee threatens the Unity, Integrity, Integrity, Security and Sovereignty of
Neptune Verse because the proceeding of case proceeds on day-to-day basis that’s why
matter is Serious and data of Gold mining Company totally encrypted which is harmful for
Country’s economy. Because of this attack people also affect which hurt country’s unity and
integrity. Ransom also solicits in form of bitcoins which definitely harm National economy.

ARGUMENTS ADVANVCED

Page 13 of 28
3RD GD GOENKA International Virtual Law and Technology Moot Court Competition, 2022.

ISSUE 1: WHETHER THE APPEAL AGAINST THE DECISION IS

MAINTAINABLE OR NOT?

Most respectfully it is shown -

That the present appeal is not maintainable

This is most honourably submitted to the court that appeal to hon'ble.supreme court shouldn’t
be maintainable as the case had been decided by special court and then by hon'ble.High court
on the day to day basis and thereafter,rejects the appeals and uphold the conviction of
Mr.Atlee which shows that the matter was dealt with extreme vigilance and there no chances
of flaws in the decision of high court.The hon'ble.Supreme court if allows the appeal ,then
the decision of honourable high court and special court should be upheld as it is a matter of
national interest and destabilisation of economy.The conviction should be liable under sec
66F(b) of information and technology act,2000.Which states that whoever - 1knowingly or
intentionally penetrates or accesses a computer resource without authorisation or
exceeding authorised access, and by means of such conduct obtains access to information,
data or computer database that is restricted for reasons of the security of the State or
foreign relations; or any restricted information, data or computer database, with reasons to
believe that such information, data or computer database so obtained may be used to cause
or likely to cause injury to the interests of the sovereignty and integrity of India, the
security of the State, friendly.

In this case the appellant ,Mr.Attlee has unauthorised access to the data of gold mine pvt.ltd.
company ,he encrypted the data of company which not all effect the company in particular
but the whole economy of neptune versus ,and this act of Mr.Attlee injury the interest of
sovereignty,integrity and security of state

The another argument against maintainability of appeal-

1
Information Technology Act 2008,s 66.

Page 14 of 28
3RD GD GOENKA International Virtual Law and Technology Moot Court Competition, 2022.

The appeal of Mr.Attlee is not maintainable as the act of Mr.Atlee orchestrated with the aim
of causing terror,fearr,panic in the hearts of not just industry but the entire nation gold
economy stakeholder as it also strike terror in the people pf Neptune Verse.Mr.Attlee has
aided ,assisted and abetted the ransom attack as this was done by using his computer.Section
107 of IPC states that —2A person abets the doing of a thing, who Instigates any person to
do that thing; or Engages with one or more other person or persons in any conspiracy for
the doing of that thing, if an act or illegal omission takes place in pursuance of that
conspiracy, and in order to the doing of that thing; or —Intentionally aids, by any act or
illegal omission, the doing of that thing.

In simple language it means a person who, by wilful misrepresentation, or by wilful

concealment of a material fact which he is bound to disclose, voluntarily causes or procures,
or attempts to cause or procure, a thing to be done, is said to instigate the doing of that thing.

It is clearly seen that Mr.Attlee had aided,assisted,abetted as his computer system is used
during the ransom attack,so he is liable under section 107 of Ipc.

This can be further elaborated by the case law n the case of 3Emperor v. Parimal Chatterjee
(1932), it was decided that an abettor is a person who aids in the commission of a crime or
aids in the commission of an act that would be an offence if undertaken by a person capable
of committing an offence with the same intent or knowledge as the abettor.

Here ,it is clearly shown that Mr.Atlee has willfully abated the conduct of ransomware attack
as he has provided his computer system,the directors of the company are also held liable as
the attack was routed through the computer of Zoonies Pvt.Ltd.

The appellant Mr.Attlee is charged under 66 read with section 43,63B,66C,66D,66F of the
computer technology and misuse act,2022 read with section 408,465,468,469 of the Indian
penal code.

Supporting the claim that his appeal shouldn’t be maintainable we refer to a case of 4Pune
citibank Mphasis Call Centre Fraud Case 2005.In this case the issue raised is of data
protection since iit involved unauthorised access to the private electronic account space of

2
The Indian Penal Code 1860,s 107.
3
140 Ind Cas 787
4

Page 15 of 28
3RD GD GOENKA International Virtual Law and Technology Moot Court Competition, 2022.

customers. Therefore, it was held that the offence should be tried under various statutes such
as the IT act and IPC.

JUDGEMENT- The court held that since the act involved unauthorised access to the
electronic accounts of the customers, it fell under the ambit of cybercrime and was to be dealt
with by the IT act. It was also held that since it involved employees of Mphasis call centre
and therefore must have memorised the numbers that the money was transferred using the
society for worldwide interbank financial telecommunication. The accused was charged
under section 43 and section 66 of the IT act,2000 and also under section 420 ,465,467,471 of
IPC,1860.

Taking this in consideration it clearly shows that Mr.Atlee had unauthorised access to the
company's computer system and must be held liable under section 66,43 of IT act .

Section 43 of IT act

5
Penalty and Compensation for damage to computer, computer system, etc (Amended vide
ITAA-2008) If any person without permission of the owner or any other person who is
incharge of a computer, computer system or computer network -

(a) accesses or secures access to such computer, computer system or computer network or
computer resource (ITAA2008)

(b) downloads, copies or extracts any data, computer data base or information from such
computer, computer system or computer network including information or data held or stored
in any removable storage medium;

(c) introduces or causes to be introduced any computer contaminant or computer virus into
any computer, computer system or computer network;

(d) damages or causes to be damaged any computer, computer system or computer network,
data, computer data base or any other programmes residing in such computer, computer
system or computer network;

(e) disrupts or causes disruption of any computer, computer system or computer network;

(f) denies or causes the denial of access to any person authorised to access any computer,
computer system or computer network by any means;
5
Information And Technology Act 2008,s 43.

Page 16 of 28
3RD GD GOENKA International Virtual Law and Technology Moot Court Competition, 2022.

(g) provides any assistance to any person to facilitate access to a computer, computer system
or computer network in contravention of the provisions of this Act, rules or regulations made
thereunder,

(h) charges the services availed of by a person to the account of another person by tampering
with or manipulating any computer, computer system, or computer network,

(i) destroys, deletes or alters any information residing in a computer resource or diminishes
its value or utility or affects it injuriously by any means (Inserted vide ITAA-2008)

(j) Steals, conceals, destroys or alters or causes any person to steal, conceal, destroy or alter
any computer source code used for a computer resource with an intention to cause damage,
(Inserted vide ITAA 2008) 17 he shall be liable to pay damages by way of compensation not
exceeding one crore rupees to the person so affected.

EXPLANATION- - for the purposes of this section -

(i) "Computer Contaminant" means any set of computer instructions that are designed -

(a) to modify, destroy, record, transmit data or programme residing within a computer,
computer system or computer network; or

(b) by any means to usurp the normal operation of the computer, computer system, or
computer network;

(ii) "Computer Database" means a representation of information, knowledge, facts, concepts

or instructions in text, image, audio, video that are being prepared or have been prepared in a
formalised manner or have been produced by a computer, computer system or computer
network and are intended for use in a computer, computer system or computer network;

(iii) "Computer Virus" means any computer instruction, information, data or programme that
destroys, damages, degrades or adversely affects the performance of a computer resource or
attaches itself to another computer resource and operates when a programme, data or
instruction is executed or some other event takes place in that computer resource;

(iv) "Damage" means to destroy, alter, delete, add, modify or re-arrange any computer
resource by any means.

Page 17 of 28
3RD GD GOENKA International Virtual Law and Technology Moot Court Competition, 2022.

(v) "Computer Source code" means the listing of programmes, computer commands, design
and layout and programme analysis of computer resources in any form (Inserted vide ITAA
2008).

Mr. Atlee should be held liable under section 43 as he illegally secures the access to the
computer system of Gold mines pvt.ltd. company. He also disrupts their computer system and
denies access to the computer system of the company to authorised members of the company,
as he encrypts their data.

SECTION 66B -

6
Punishment for dishonestly receiving stolen computer resource or communication
device (Inserted Vide ITA 2008)

Whoever dishonestly receives or retains any stolen computer resource or communication

device knowing or having reason to believe the same to be stolen computer resource or
communication device, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term
which may extend to three years or with fine which may extend to rupees one lakh or with
both.

7
SECTION 66C -

Punishment for identity theft. (Inserted Vide ITA 2008)

Whoever, fraudulently or dishonestly makes use of the electronic signature, password or any
other unique identification feature of any other person, shall be punished with imprisonment
of either description for a term which may extend to three years and shall also be liable to
fine which may extend to rupees one lakh.

Going through the case we found that Mr.attlee has fraudulently or dishonestly made use of
the goldmine company’s master computer passwords or other unique identification to get
into their computer system and encrypt their data

SECTION 66D-

6
Information and Technology Act 2008,s 66b
7
Information and Technology Act 2008,s 66c

Page 18 of 28
3RD GD GOENKA International Virtual Law and Technology Moot Court Competition, 2022.

8
Punishment for cheating by personation by using computer resource-

Whoever, by means of any communication device or computer resource cheats by

personation, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may
extend to three years and shall also be liable to fine which may extend to one lakh rupees.

Here the word personation means to act or portray like any other person ,the charges against
Atlee for personation is correct as he had personified himself as an employee of goldmines
company. Mr. Atlee hacked the computer of the Goldmines Ltd by personifying himself as
their employee and thefting their passwords and security system of the computer to encrypt
their data.

SECTION 408 OF IPC-

9
Criminal breach of trust by clerk or servant. —Whoever, being a clerk or servant or
employed as a clerk or servant, and being in any manner entrusted in such capacity with
property, or with any dominion over property, commits criminal breach of trust in respect of
that property, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may
extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine.

As mentioned in section 408 of IPC to be liable for this offence a person should be a servant
and have entrusted with any capacity, as Mr. Atlee was an employee of Zoonosis pvt.ltd and
was entrusted with their computer system by using that he encrypted goldmines pvt.ltd.
company’s data.

SECTION 420 -

10
Cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property. —

Whoever cheats and thereby dishonestly induces the person deceived to deliver any property
to any person, or to make, alter or destroy the whole or any part of a valuable security, or
anything which is signed or sealed, and which is capable of being converted into a valuable

8
Information and Technology Act 2008,s 66d

9
Indian Penal Code 1860,s 408.
10
Indian Penal Code 1860,s 420.

Page 19 of 28
3RD GD GOENKA International Virtual Law and Technology Moot Court Competition, 2022.

security, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may
extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine.

Mr. Atlee will be charged under section 420 of IPC as he at first dishonestly encrypted gold
mines pvt.ltd. Company’s computer system and then asked for a ransom of 1000 bitcoins on a
dark web.

SECTION 465-

11
Punishment for forgery.—Whoever commits forgery shall be punished with imprisonment
of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both.

Mr.Atlee is liable for forgery as he had copied signature or other essential credentials to the
login goldmine company computer system .

SECTION 468-

12
Forgery for purpose of cheating.—

Whoever commits forgery, intending that the 3 [document or electronic record forged] shall
be used for the purpose of cheating, shall be punished with imprisonment of either
description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine.

Forgery means the action of forging a copy or imitation of any document with dishonest
intention,Mr.Atlee forged company’s passwords,essential credentials to login Goldmines
pvt.ltd. computer system.

SECTION 469-

13
Forgery for purpose of harming reputation.—

Whoever commits forgery, 3 [intending that the document or electronic record forged] shall
harm the reputation of any party, or knowing that it is likely to be used for that purpose, shall
be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three
years, and shall also be liable to fine.

11
Indian Penal Code 1860 ,s 465.
12
Indian Penal Code 1860,s 468.
13

Page 20 of 28
3RD GD GOENKA International Virtual Law and Technology Moot Court Competition, 2022.

Another reason for the rejection of appeal is that he is not a bonafide citizen of the country
and didn’t have a good moral as a citizen ,he is merely a taxpayer…………………..

ISSUE 2: WHETHER THENJURSIDICTION OF NEPTUNE VERSE IS

APPLICABLE ON Mr. ATLEE AND THE DIRECTORS OF THE COMPANY?

Most respectfully it is shown that -

(I) Mr. Attlee and the directors of Zoonies Pvt.Ltd. Madam Cura Pervasive and Mr. Shane
Bitkinson are under the jurisdiction of hon'ble Supreme court.

Article 132 and Article 133 of the constitution of India provide for appealing jurisdiction of
the Supreme court of India.

14
Article 132 - Appellate jurisdiction of supreme court in appeals from high courts in certain
cases-

14
Constitution of India,Article 132.

Page 21 of 28
3RD GD GOENKA International Virtual Law and Technology Moot Court Competition, 2022.

(1) An appeal shall lie to the supreme court from any judgement, decree or final order of a
high court in the territory of India, whether in a civil, criminal or other proceeding that the
case involves a substantial question of law as to the interpretation of this constitution.

(3) Where such a certificate is given any party in the case may appeal to the supreme court on
the ground that any such question as aforesaid has been wrongly decided.

15
ARTICLE 133 -

Appellate jurisdiction of supreme court in appeals from high courts in regard to civil matters-
An appeal shall lie to the supreme court from any judgement, decree or final order in a civil
proceeding of a high court in the territory of india

a) That the case involves a substantial question of law of general importance ;and
b) That in the opinion of the high court the said question needs to be decided by the
supreme court.
(2) Notwithstanding anything in the article 132,any party appealing to the supreme court
under clause (1)may urge as one of the grounds in such appeal that a substantial question of
law as to the interpretation of this constitution has been wrongly decided.

(3) Notwithstanding anything in this article,no appeal shall ,unless parliament by law
otherwise provides, lie to the supreme court from the judgement,decree or final order of one
judge of a high court.

The supreme court can entertain an appeal against a high court’s” judgement,decree or final
order``.Similarly here the supreme court has jurisdiction over the appeal of Mr.Atlee and
directors of Zoonis Pvt.Ltd. Madam Cura Pervasive and Mr.Shane Bitkinson against

High court order.

To further elaborate the concept we will be referring to the case of 16Ramachand Manjima
v/s Goverdhandas Vishindas Ratanchand a stay order was granted by the judicial
commissioner and it was a final order.However the privy council held that the order didn’t

15
Constitution of India, Article 133.
16
https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/56b49616607dba348f0168c9.

Page 22 of 28
3RD GD GOENKA International Virtual Law and Technology Moot Court Competition, 2022.

determine rights of the parties finally and was yet to be determined.Hence the order could not
be said to be a final order.

On this basis we can say that the supreme court has jurisdiction over the high court in
Mr.Attlee.

(II) Moving to the next argument in favour of jurisdiction of supreme court -

A foreigner who commits an offence within India is guilty and can be punished as such
without any limitation as to his corporeal present in India at the time.Section 2 of IPC -

. Punishment of offences committed within India.—17Every person shall be liable to

punishment under this Code and not otherwise for every act or omission contrary to the
provisions thereof, of which he shall be guilty within india. Applies to a foreigner who has
committed an offence within India notwithstanding that he was corporeally present outside.
Being a foreigner does not imply that the foreigner will not be liable for criminal acts in the
country.In fact,nationality can’t be a limiting principle in respect of criminal jurisdiction
which is primarily concerned with security of the state and of the citizens of the state .

Keeping in mind section 2 of IPC Madam Cura Pervasive and Mr.Shane Bitkinson would be
held liable for the act of Mr.Atlee even though they are residents of the USA.

(III) Considering the case of 18Central Bank of India Ltd v/s Raj Narain there was a man
Raj narain resident nationality of Pakistan .Just before the participation a cash credit limit of
3 lac was provided to him and he had pledged stocks worth 2 lac during partition.However
the bank complained that he owned the rest of money to them also it was said that he had
obtained those stocks illegally and sold it at karachi.After the case was filed Raj resisted
saying that when all this happened he was a pakistani national and he can’t be held liable ,at
last when the case was taken to SC ,it was held that according to section 4 of IPC (4.
Extension of Code to extra-territorial offences.—The provisions of this Code apply also to
any offence committed by—

17
Indian Penal Code 1860,s 2.
18
1955 AIR 36,1955 SCR(1)697

Page 23 of 28
3RD GD GOENKA International Virtual Law and Technology Moot Court Competition, 2022.

19
[(1) any citizen of India in any place without and beyond India;

any person on any ship or aircraft registered in India wherever it may be.]

[(3) any person in any place without and beyond India committing an offence targeting a
computer resource located in India.]

2[Explanation.—In this section— (a) the word “offence” includes every act committed
outside India which, if committed in India, would be punishable under this Code;)

If while committing a crime in India then it won’t matter where the crime was committed.

Considering this case law section 2,3 of IPC would be liable on the Atlee Directors.

Hon'ble Supreme court has jurisdiction over the appeal of both the directors of the company.

Considering the case of20 Mobarik Ali v/s State of Bombay a person who was resident of
pakistan induced a person residing in bombay through telegram,telephone,conventions,letters
to send him money when the he case came in front of the court,the pakistani national pleaded
that he can’t be made liable for the offence of cheating since he was not physically present
within the territory of india.The court rejected the contention and held that the basis of
jurisdiction under section 2 of act is not the corporeal presence of the offender but the locality
where the offence is committed and since the offender is committed the offence in bombay.

Taking this case into consideration , directors of the company would be held liable.

In case of 21AJAY AGGARWAL v/s UNION OF INDIA AND ORS 5 may 1993,it was held
in this case that under section 4 of IPC and section 188 of CPC 22{Offence committed outside
India. When an offence is committed outside India-

(a) by a citizen of India, whether on the high seas or elsewhere; or

19
Indian Penal Code 1860,s 4
20
1957 AIR 857,1958 SCR 328
21
1993 AIR 1637,1993 SCR(3)543
22
Civil Procedure Code 1908, s 188.

Page 24 of 28
3RD GD GOENKA International Virtual Law and Technology Moot Court Competition, 2022.

(b) by a person, not being such citizen, on any ship or aircraft registered in India, he may be
dealt with in respect of such offence as if it had been com- mitted at any place within India
at which he may be found: Provided that, notwithstanding anything in any of the preceding
sections of this Chapter, no such offence shall be inquired into or tried in India except with
the previous sanction of the Central Government.}

Considering (b) of section 188 of CPC offence committed outside by a person not being
such a citizen,on any ship or aircraft registered in India,he may be dealt with in respect of
such offences as if it had been committed at any place within India at which he may be
found.

Referring to the above mentioned case Mr.Atlee not being a citizen of the country Neptune
verse but he has committed the offence being present in Neptune verse for which he would
be liable under section188 of IPC.

ISSUE 3: WHETHER THE ACTIONS OF Mr. ATLEE AND THE DIRECTORS

HAVE THREATENED THE UNITY, INTEGRITY, SECURITY AND
SOVEREIGNITY OF NEPTUNE VERSE?

Sec- 66F. Punishment for cyber terrorism1 (1) Whoever,- (A) with intent to threaten the unity,
integrity, security or sovereignty of India or to strike terror in the people or any section of the people
by –

(i)denying or cause the denial of access to any person authorized to access computer resource; or

(ii) attempting to penetrate or access a computer resource without authorisation or exceeding

authorized access; or

(iii) introducing or causing to introduce any Computer Contaminant. and by means of such conduct
causes or is likely to cause death or injuries to persons or damage to or destruction of property or
disrupts or knowing that it is likely to cause damage or disruption of supplies or services essential to
the life of the community or adversely affect the critical information infrastructure specified under
section 70, or (B) knowingly or intentionally penetrates or accesses a computer resource without
authorisation or exceeding authorized access, and by means of such conduct obtains access to
information, data or computer database that is restricted for reasons of the security of the State or
foreign relations; or any restricted information, data or computer database, with reasons to believe
that such information, data or computer database so obtained may be used to cause or likely to
cause injury to the interests of the sovereignty and integrity of India, the security of the State,
friendly relations with foreign States, public order, decency or morality, or in relation to contempt of
court, defamation or incitement to an offence, or to the advantage of any foreign nation, group of
individuals or otherwise, commits the offence of cyber terrorism.

Page 25 of 28
3RD GD GOENKA International Virtual Law and Technology Moot Court Competition, 2022.

(2) Whoever commits or conspires to commit cyber terrorism shall be punishable with
imprisonment which may extend to imprisonment for life’.

Explanation to the section 66F - Under section 66F of IT Act, 2000 which later came up with a much
broader and precise law says that cracking or illegally hacking into any victim's computer is a crime.
It covers a wide range of cyber-crimes under this section of the IT Act and covers the punishment
regarding cyber terrorism. The act of the appellants causes denial of access to the computer system
of the Gold mining company. Also Mr. Atlee accessed the computer resource without authorisation.
This act of the appellants contributes to cyber terrorism, threatening the sovereignty, unity, integrity
and security of Neptune Verse.

Major terror attacks using cyber technology

● An analysis of the 26/11 Mumbai attacks showed that cyber communication between the
terrorists and usage of cyber technology by them to be acquainted with the target population and
the place, created similar devastating results in India.

● In July 2011, the digital technology was further used for bomb blasts in a crowded city market in
Jhaveri Bazaar, Mumbai. The 2010 Varanasi blast case also saw the usage of cyber communication
wherein the Indian Mujahiddin claimed responsibility for the blast.

● The Tamil Tiger’s email attacks to computers in the Sri Lankan embassies, in India, the cyber
terrorism scenario has not been expanded to attack on the machines or the network widely. On the
contrary, the term cyber terrorism has been broadly used by the media especially to identify the
usage of cyber space and /or cyber technology to aide the terrorist activities, gain information about
the target place and population, recruitment and motivation etc.

● There are several reports on the hacking and defacement of Indian government websites.Some of
the examples are the 2010 hacking and defacement of the CBI website by the Pakistani hackers, who
called themselves ‘Pakistan cyber army’, wherein the hackers had put up a message stating ‘Pakistan
cyber army is warning the Indian cyber army not to attack their websites’ (NDTV Correspondent,
2010). The website was affected, but not the regular emailing services.

● During the period of January to June 2011, a total of 117 government websites had been defaced
(Saxena, 2011). Some important websites like the website of National Investigation Agency (NIA) was
also affected, but it was temporarily disabled and not hacked. Such types of attacks actually fulfill the
qualities of cyber attacks against government.

Page 26 of 28
3RD GD GOENKA International Virtual Law and Technology Moot Court Competition, 2022.

PRAYER

In light of the issues raised, arguments advanced and authorities cited, the counsel for the

Petitioner humbly prays that the Hon’ble Court be pleased to adjudge, hold and declare:

Page 27 of 28
3RD GD GOENKA International Virtual Law and Technology Moot Court Competition, 2022.

That, the Appellant shall be held liable for the offenses mentioned and hence shall not
be acquitted.

And pass any order that this Hon’ble court may deem fit in the interest of equity, justice and
good conscience.

AND FOR THIS ACT OF KINDNESS, THE COUNCEL FOR THE PETITONER
SHALL BE DUTY BOUND FOREVER PRAY.

S/d

(Council on The Behalf of Respondent)

Page 28 of 28