Team: 23

Moot Court Competion Organized By City Law College, Jankipuram

BEORE THE HON’BLE SUPREME COURT OF STAN

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO: OF 2023

IN THE MATTER OF:

TANVIR AHMAD AND RAMENDRA SINGHAL………PETITIONER

UNION OF STAN.................................................................RESPONDENT

FOR THE KIND ATTENTION OF THE CHIEF JUSTICE AND HON’BLE

JUSTICES OF THE SUPREME COURT OF STAN

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE

RESPONDENT
INDEX
1. INDEX OF AUTHORITIES 3-4
A. TABLE OF CASES 3
B. BOOKS 4
C. LEGISLATIONS, ORDINANCES, NOTIFICATIONS & CIRCULARS 4
D. WEB SOURCES 4
2. INDEX OF ABBRIVIATION 5
3. STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION 6
4. STATEMENT OF FACTS 7-8
5. ISSUES RAISED 9
6. SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS 10-11
7. ARGUMENTS ADVANCED 12-18
A. Whether the appeal filed by Tanvir Ahmad and Ramendra Singhal is maintainable before
the Hon’ble Supreme Court of Stan? 12
B. Whether the judgement of the Hon’ble High Court erroneous? 13 - 14
C. Whether Tanvir Ahmed and Ramendar Singhal are liable Under Sections 66, 66F of the
Information Technology Act, 2000 and Section 441 of the Stanian Penal Code? 14 – 17
8. PRAYER 18

2
 TABLE OF CASES

Arun Kumar v. State of Uttar Pradesh 12

Biahr Legal Support society v. Chief Justice of India 12

National Association of Software and Service Companies vs. Ajay Sood and ors 13

State of Maharashtra v. Dhansingh Rajput 15

Haryana v. Raj Kumar (2019) 16

State of Maharashtra v. Ajay D. Doshi 16

State of Kerala v. V.J. Alex 16

State of Rajasthan v. Anwar Pasha 16

State of Tamil Nadu v. M. Sundar (2017) 17

3
BOOKS
1.Textbook on Indian Penal Code, KD Gaur( 7th edition of 2022)
2. Indian Penal Code, Ratanlal and Dhirajlal(36th ed. Of 2022)
3. Indian Penal Code, S.N Mishra(22nd ed. Of 2018)
4. Criminal Law, PSA Pillai (14th ed. Of 2019)
5. J.N Pandey Constitution Law Of India, 58th Edition , 2021
LEGISLATIONS, ORDINANCES, NOTIFICATIONS, CIRCULARS
1. Information and Technology Act, 2000
2. Imperial Legislative Council, Indian Penal Code, 6th October, 1860
3. Imperial Legislative Council, Indian Evidence Act, 15th March, 1872
4. The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
5. The Supreme Court (Enlargement of Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction) Act, 1970
WEB SOURCES
1. www.manupatrafast.com(MANUPATRA) last visited: 21.06.2023
2. www.judis.nic.in(SUPREME COURT OF INDIA OFFICIAL), last visited: 21.06.2023
3. www.scconline.com(SCC ONLINE) last visited:.20.06.2023
4.https://www.scobserver.in (Supreme Court Observer) last visited:17.06.2023
5.https://www.casemine.com(Casemine) last visited:17.06.2023
6. https://www.legalserviceindia.com (Legal Service India), last visited:17.06.2023

4
 INDEX OF ABBREVIATION
ABBREVIATION EXPANSION
Hon’ble Honorable
IPC Indian Penal Code
SC Supreme Court
AIR All India Reporter
Vs Versus
SCC Supreme Court Cases
BOMLJ Bombay Law Journal
Anr. Another
Ors. Others
CrLJ Criminal Law Journal
LJ Journal
AP Andhra Pradesh
SLP Special leave Petition
UP Uttar Pradesh
APL Application

SSRO Stanian Space research org

Ld learned

UPC Unique Participation Code

IPC Indian Penal Code

SPC Stanian Penal Code

IT Act Information Technology Act

5
 STATEMENT OF JUDRICTION

The petitioners have invoked the criminal appellate jurisdiction of the Hon’ble apex court of
Stan under Article 136of the Constitution of Stan

6
 STATEMENT OF FACTS

1. The Republic of Stan is a developing nation in southern Asia with a growing vision to
harness space energy for national development. The Stanian Space Research Organization
(SSRO) is the country’s space agency focused on using space technology, research in space
science, and planetary exploration.

2. In March 2021, the SSRO announced a reward of 1,00,000 in national currency for finding
vulnerabilities in their upgraded cybersecurity systems. Participants filled in an online form,
paid 500 units in the national Currency, and received a Unique Participation Code (UPC) for
identification and prize claim. Thousands of people from all over the country applied for the
same but no successful outcome could be drawn. The contest was subsequently closed on
August 31st, 2021.

3. Tanvir Ahmad and Ramendra Singhal, first-year students at Stanian Institute of Cyber
Security, had also applied for the SSRO competition in June 2021 but failed to breach the
upgraded system. After many unsuccessful attempts, in October 2021, they attempted a multi-
vector attack on SSRO's servers using a self-programmed virus introduced through an email.
The breach was successful, but the virus began behaving unexpectedly, making countless
copies of confidential data from multiple websites hosted on SSRO's servers. Tanvir and
Ramendra were alarmed as this was not their intended outcome during their test runs.

4. After Tanvir Ahmad and Ramendra Singhal's self-programmed virus started

malfunctioning, they sent an anonymous email to SSRO with the virus's coding and details to
terminate the attack. However, due to clogged servers, the message was not received in time.
Multiple websites hosted on SSRO's servers were affected, leading to an emergency response
and eventual shutdown of the servers to prevent further damage.

5.After the servers were rebooted and order was restored, the anonymous email sent by
Tanvir Ahmad and Ramendra Singhal was tracked to their IP address. They were
subsequently arrested and charged with Sections 66 and 66F of the Information Technology
Act, 2000, and Section 441 of the Stanian Penal Code, 1860.

6. The Ld. Sessions Court acquitted both the students on the account that both lacked criminal
intention for which their act was not equivalent to cyber terrorism or criminal trespass.
Afterwards, the case was appealed before the High Court of Periyana where the verdict of
Sessions court was reversed, convicting both the students stating that there was unauthorized

7
breach of confidential data by them. The accused then filed an appeal before the Hon’ble
Supreme Court of Stan.

7. All the relevant laws of The Republic of Stan are Pari Materia to those of India.

8
 ISSUES RAISED

ISSUE 1: Whether the appeal filed by Tanvir Ahmed and Ramendra Singhal before the
Hon'ble Supreme Court of Stan is maintainable?

ISSUE 2: Whether the verdict passed by the Hon’ble High Court of Periyana is erroneous?

ISSUE 3: Whether Tanvir Ahmed and Ramendar Singhal are liable Under Sections 66, 66F of
the Information Technology Act, 2000 and Section 441 of the Stanian Penal Code?

9
 SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS

ISSUE 1: Whether the appeal filed by Tanvir Ahmed and Ramendra Singhal before the
Hon'ble Supreme Court of Stan is maintainable?

It is humbly submitted before the Supreme Court of Stan that the appeal filed by the accused
Tanvir Ahmed and Ramendra Singhal is not maintainable as it doesn’t contain any
substantive question of law or fact of general importance. Tanvir Ahmad and Ramendra
Singhal's appeal does not raise valid legal grounds for challenging the High Court's decision,
such as errors of law or miscarriage of justice, and hence the appeal cannot be maintainable.
Appellate courts generally do not re-examine the facts of the case, but only review legal
issues.

ISSUE 2: Whether the verdict passed by the Hon’ble High Court of Periyana is
erroneous?

It is humbly submitted to the Hon’ble Supreme court that the verdict passed by the Hon'ble
High Court of Periyana is not erroneous because it complied with applicable laws inStan,
including the Constitution, statutes such as the Stanian Penal Code (IPC), and Criminal
Procedure Code (CrPC). It relied on relevant judicial precedents, which are established legal
principles or interpretations of statutes. It provided a reasoned and well-justified judgment,
based on a thorough analysis of evidence, facts, and applicable laws. It exercised judicial
discretion and independence, within the bounds of the law. It upheld justice and public
interest, in line with legal principles and policies of the Indian legal system. The prosecution
can argue that the High Court's verdict is consistent with these factors and is not erroneous.

ISSUE 3: Whether Tanvir Ahmed and Ramendar Singhal are liable Sections 66, 66F of the
Information Technology Act, 2000 and Section 441 of the Stanian Penal Code?

It is humbly contended that Tanvir Ahmed and Ramendra Singhal liable under Sections 66,
66F of the Information Technology Act, 2000 and Section 441 of the Stanian Penal Code for
their actions. Firstly, Section 66 of the Information Technology Act, 2000 deals with
computer- related offenses such as unauthorized access to computer systems or networks. It is
argued that Tanvir Ahmed and Ramendra Singhal intentionally accessed government servers
without proper authorization, which constitutes a violation of Section 66 of the IT Act.
10
Secondly,

10
Section 66F of the Information Technology Act, 2000 deals with cyber terrorism, which
involves using computers or computer networks for unlawful activities that pose a threat to
the sovereignty, integrity, or security of India. The prosecution can argue that Tanvir Ahmed
and Ramendra Singhal introduced a self-programmed virus into the government servers,
which caused disruption and damage to the systems, and thus engaged in cyber terrorism as
per Section 66F of the IT Act. Thirdly, Section 441 of the Stanian Penal Code deals with
criminal trespass, which involves entering someone else's property without authorization. The
prosecution can argue that Tanvir Ahmed and Ramendra Singhal trespassed into the
government servers without proper authorization, which constitutes a violation of Section 441
of the Stanian Penal Code.

11
 ARGUMENTS ADVANCED

ISSUE 1: Whether the appeal filed by Tanvir Ahmed and Ramendra Singhal before the
Hon'ble Supreme Court of Stan is maintainable?

It is humbly submitted before the Supreme Court of Stan that the petition filed by Tanvir
Ahmed and Ramendra Singhal is not maintainable as it doesn’t reflect any miscarriage pf
justice through the verdict passed by Hon’ble High Court of Periyana. It needs to be pointed
out that except for the statutory provisions laid down by The Code of Criminal Procedure,
1973 or any other law which is in force, an appeal cannot lie from any judgment or an order
of a criminal court. Thus, there is no vested right to appeal as such as even the first appeal
will be subjected to statutory limitations. The justification behind this principle is that the
courts which try a case are competent enough with the presumption that the trial has been
conducted fairly. The law provides a person who has been convicted of a crime to appeal to
the Supreme Court or the High Court or the Sessions Court as per the circumstances. In the
case of Arun Kumar vs. State of Uttar Pradesh1, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that if the
High Court found that the view taken by the Sessions Judge to acquit the appellants was
manifestly wrong, moreover, it even led to miscarriage of justice; therefore, the High Court
was correct in setting aside the acquittal and convicting them. In the present case, The High
Court of Periyana correctly held the conviction of the accused and subsequently quashed the
verdict of the Ld. Sessions Court as because the mere unauthorised entry to a highly secured
government server was itself an offence and by doing such, they not only trespassed into the
governmental property but also breached its confidentiality. In the case of Bihar Legal
Support Society vs Chief Justice of India2, the Apex court held that, “It may be however,
pointed out that this Court was never intended to be a regular court of appeal against orders
made by the High Court or the sessions court or the magistrates.” Hence, entertaining such an
appeal where justice has already been delivered by the Hon’ble High Court of Periyana will
not only exploit the precious time of the apex court, but will also clog other important issues
which require immediate hearing.

1
AIR 1989 SC 1445
12
2
AIR 1987 (38)

13
ISSUE 2: Whether the verdict passed by the Hon’ble High Court of Periyana is
erroneous?

It is humbly submitted before the Hon’ble apex court that the judgement passed by the
Hon’ble High Court of Periyana is not erroneous in nature as the accused were convicted
beyond every reasonable doubt. It is humbly submitted before the Hon'ble Supreme Court of
Stan, that the judgment of Hon'ble High Court is not erroneous and stands on its merits. One
of the fundamental aspects of Section 66F of the Information Technology Act, 2000 is the
fact that such penetration of computer contaminant or any such access is done in an
unauthorised way, which have been restricted for the security of the state or foreign relations,
in such a case would have been the commission of cyber terrorism. Herein, Tanvir Ahmed
and Ramendra Singhal, who penetrated their access into the security systems of SSRO was
without their justified authorisation as such access was after the date of closure of the
competition, which was after August 31st, 2021. Therefore, such access without the consent
and the legitimate certification of the SSRO is deemed to be the unauthorised and thereby
against the security and integrity of the Republic of Stan.

The modus operandi or the method of attack of infiltrating the virus into the governmental
portals that was used by the accused Tanvir Ahmed and Ramendra Singhal was known as
“Phishing Attack”. In the landmark judgement of National Association of Software and
Service Companies vs. Ajay Sood and ors.3, the Delhi High Court declared ‘phishing’ on the
internet to be an illegal act, entailing an injunction and recovery of damages. Hence, the mere
act of phishing on the governmental websites amounts to crime and breach of confidentiality.
It is also humbly contended before the apex court that there was clear act of negligence on the
part of the accused. Both Tanvir Ahmed and Ramendra Singhal failed to take reasonable care
while handling the self-programmed virus and because of that it got the scope to mal function
by entering into the governmental servers and making numerous copies to it. If Tanvir
Ahmed and Ramendra Singhal really had the intention to secure the servers by finding the
vulnerability, then they would have incorporated the same by handling over the self-
programmed virus to the authorities of SSRO and letting them the opportunity to test the
vulnerabilities in the server by themselves, in this way, they would have taken reasonable
care for the same and could have avoided the cyber casualties concerning the confidential
governmental servers and the subsequent data.

3
119 (2005) DLT 596

14
It is humbly submitted before the Hon'ble Apex Court that both Tanvir Ahmed and Ramendra
Singhal should be held liable under Section 66F of the Information Technology Act, 2000
and Section 441 of the Stanian Penal Code, 1860.

Herein, the acts of introducing and administering the virus would imply consequentially that
such an act was done without the authorisation of the SSRO of the Republic of Stan. Such an
unauthorised act is deemed to have been against the security and integrity of the nation by
leaking the confidential data and is considered an act by their implied intent as though no
direct evidence of their primary malice intention was found, their conduct, negligence thereby
and their knowledge such administration of virus would indicate risk of any malfunction is
fundamental enough to deem them guilty.

Section 441 of the Stanian Penal Code, 1860 states

Whoever enters into or upon property in possession of another with intent to commit an
offence or to intimidate, insult or annoy any person in possession of such property, or having
lawfully entered into or upon such property, unlawfully remains there with intent thereby to
intimidate, insult or annoy any such person or with intent to commit an offence, or having
lawfully entered into or upon such property, remains there with the intention of taking
unauthorized possession or making unauthorized use of such property and fails to withdraw
from such property or its possession or use, when called upon to do so by that another person
by notice in writing, duly served on him is said to commit criminal trespass. Herein, the
unauthorised access into such government property (security system of SSRO) which is of
national importance and element of national security is being penetrated which has
consequentially resulted in huge hue and cry amongst the privacy and security issues of
nation at large is deemed to have been liable by criminal trespass under Section 441 of
Stanian Penal Code.

ISSUE 3: Whether Tanvir Ahmed and Ramendar Singhal are liable for
criminal trespass and cyber terrorism?

The liability of Tanvir Ahmed and Ramendra Singhal under Sections 66, 66F of the
Information Technology Act, 2000 and Section 441 of the Stanian Penal Code can be
established by examining the legal provisions and relevant real cases in detail. Section 66 of
the Information Technology Act, 2000 Which states “Computer related offences. If any
person, dishonestly or fraudulently, does any act referred to in section 43, he shall be
punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years or with fine which

15
may extend to five lakh rupees or with both. (a) the word "dishonestly" shall have the
meaning assigned to it in section 24 of

16
the Stanian Penal Code (45 of 1860); (b) the word "fraudulently" shall have the meaning
assigned to it in section 25 of the Stanian Penal Code (45 of 1860).] This section deals with
unauthorized access to computer systems or networks. It is argued that Tanvir Ahmed and
Ramendra Singhal intentionally accessed government servers without proper authorization,
which constitutes a violation of Section 66. The term "unauthorized access" refers to the act
of intentionally gaining access to a computer system or network without the permission of the
owner or without being authorized by law to do so.

In the case of State of Maharashtra v. Dhansingh Rajput (2010) 4, the accused had gained
unauthorized access to a computer system and caused damage to data. The court held that the
accused was liable under Section 66 of the Information Technology Act, 2000 for
intentionally accessing the computer system without proper authorization. Similarly, in the
case of State of Haryana v. Raj Kumar (2019)5, the accused was held liable under Section 66
for unauthorized access to a computer system with the intent to commit an offense.

It is argued that Tanvir Ahmed and Ramendra Singhal's act of accessing government servers
without proper authorization, as alleged, constitutes a clear violation of Section 66 of the
Information Technology Act, 2000.

Section 66F of the Information Technology Act, 2000 Which states that “Punishment for
cyber terrorism. (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 authorised to access computer resource;
or (ii) attempting to penetrate or access a computer resource without authorisation or
exceeding authorised 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 authorised access, and by means of such conduct obtains access to information,
data or computer data base that is restricted for reasons of the security of the State or foreign
relations; or any restricted information, data or computer data base, with reasons to believe
that such information, data or

4
2017 ALL M R (CRI) 46
17
5
CWP-17644-2019

18
computer data base 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. (2) Whoever commits or
conspires to commit cyber terrorism shall be punishable with imprisonment which may
extend to imprisonment for life” This section deals with cyber terrorism, which involves
using computers or computer networks for unlawful activities that pose a threat to the
sovereignty, integrity, or security of India. It is argued that Tanvir Ahmed and Ramendra
Singhal introduced a self- programmed virus into the government servers, causing disruption
and damage to the systems, and thus engaged in cyber terrorism as per Section 66F. In the
case of State of Rajasthan v. Anwar Pasha (2018)6, the accused had created and spread a virus
to disrupt computer systems, causing damage to data and affecting the normal functioning of
the systems. The court held that the accused was liable under Section 66F of the Information
Technology Act, 2000 for engaging in cyber terrorism. Similarly, in the case of State of
Maharashtra v. Ajay D. Doshi (2012)7, the accused was held liable under Section 66F for
creating and spreading a virus to disrupt computer systems. The prosecution can argue that
Tanvir Ahmed and Ramendra Singhal's act of introducing a virus into the government
servers, as alleged, constitutes a clear violation of Section 66F of the Information Technology
Act, 2000, as it involved using a computer system for unlawful activities that posed a threat
to the sovereignty, integrity, or security of India.

Section 441 of the Stanian Penal Code which states “Criminal trespass Whoever enters into
or upon property in the possession of another with intent to commit an offence or to
intimidate, insult or annoy any person in possession of such property, or having lawfully
entered into or upon such property, unlawfully remains there with intent thereby to
intimidate, insult or annoy any such person, or with intent to commit an offence, is said to
commit "criminal trespass".” This section deals with criminal trespass, which involves
entering into someone else's property without authorization. It is argued that Tanvir Ahmed
and Ramendra Singhal trespassed into the government servers without proper authorization,
which constitutes a violation of Section
441. The term "trespass" refers to the act of intentionally entering someone else's property

6
1986 WLN UC 48
19
7
WRIT PETITION NO.8952 OF 2019

11
0
without lawful authority or permission. In the case of State of Kerala v. V.J. Alex (2019) 8, the
accused had gained unauthorized access to a computer system and extracted data without
proper authorization. The court held that the accused was liable under Section 441 of the
Stanian Penal Code for criminal trespass. Similarly, in the case of State of Tamil Nadu v. M.
Sundar (20179), the accused was held liable under Section 441 for unauthorized access to a
computer system.

8
Appeal (civil) 979-986 of 1999
9
CRL.A NO. 2399 OF 2006

11
1
 PRAYER

Wherefore, in the light of the issues raised and arguments advanced, and authorities cited, it
is humbly and respectfully prayed for the Hon’ble SC of Republic of Stan may be pleased to:

1. To quash the appeal filed by the Appellants may be dismissed for insufficient grounds to
challenge the impugned decision of the lower court.

2. To declare conviction of Mr Tanvir Ahmed and Mr. Ramedra Singhal under Section 66 and
66F of the IT Act, 2000 and Section 441 of the Stanian Penal Code, 1860.

2. Any other relief deemed fit by this Hon'ble Court may be granted in favour of the
Respondents.

AND/OR

Pass any other order it may deem fit in the interests of justice, equity, and good conscience.
For this Act Of Kindness, The Respondents Shall Duty Bound Forever Pray

Sd/-

(Counsel For Respondent)

11
2