TEAM CODE:

Respondent’s MemorialTC-
R- |44
TC-44

6th AUMP Virtual National Moot Court Competition, 2022

BEFORE THE HON’BLE

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

S.L.P. (CRIMINAL) NO. ___ OF 2019

UNDER ARTICLE 136 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA

In the matter of Criminal Appeal by Special Leave

RAUNAK SINGH..................................................................................... .PETITIONER

VERSUS

UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS. .......................................................... RESPONDENTS

UPON SUBMISSION TO THE HON’BLE CHIEF JUSTICE AND HIS COMPANION

JUSTICES OF THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

 Respondent’s Memorial R- | TC-44

Table of Contents
LIST OF ABBRIVIATIONS ................................................................................................................... 4
INDEX OF AUTHORITIES.................................................................................................................... 5
STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION ...................................................................................................... 7
STATEMENT OF FACTS....................................................................................................................... 8
STATEMENT OF ISSUES .................................................................................................................... 10
ISSUE I:................................................................................................................................................... 10
Whether the Petition is Maintainable or Not? ................................................................................ 10
ISSUE II: ................................................................................................................................................. 10
Whether the Case against Raunak Singh is Justified or Not? ..................................................... 10
ISSUE III: .............................................................................................................................................. 10
Whether the FIR should be Quashed or Not? ................................................................................ 10
SUMMARY ARGUMENTS .................................................................................................................. 11
ISSUE I: ................................................................................................................................................ 11
Whether the Petition is Maintainable or Not? ........................................................................ 11
ISSUE II: ............................................................................................................................................... 11
Whether the Case against Raunak Singh is Justified or Not? ..................................................... 11
ISSUE III: ............................................................................................................................................. 12
Whether the FIR should be Quashed or Not? ................................................................................ 12
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED ................................................................................................................ 13
1. Whether the Petition is Maintainable or Not? ........................................................................ 13
1.1. The Scope of Article 136 ..................................................................................................... 13

2. Whether the Case against Raunak Singh is Justified or Not? ................................... 15

2.1. NCB’s Action was under the ambit of law .......................................................................... 15

2.2. The accused had conscious possession of drugs ................................................................. 16

2.3. The Bail provisions under the NDPS Act ............................................................................ 18

2.4. The accused is booked under Section 28 which deals with the Punishment for attempts to
commit offences under the NDPS Act ............................................................................................. 20

2.5. The Accused can be booked for Criminal Conspiracy under Section 29 of the NDPS Act.
21

3. Whether the FIR shall be Quashed or Not? .................................................................... 22

3.1. There is Reasonable Suspicion and Doubt over Accused no.4 .......................................... 22

2|Page MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

 Respondent’s Memorial R- | TC-44

3.2. Evidence produced are appreciable and admissible .......................................................... 23

3.3. The requisites of quashing the FIR are not fulfilled .......................................................... 24

PRAYER ................................................................................................................................................... 26

3|Page MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

 Respondent’s Memorial R- | TC-44

LIST OF ABBRIVIATIONS
A.P. Andhra Pradesh

AIR All India Reporter

Raj Rajasthan

SC Supreme Court

SCC Supreme Court Reports

SCJ Supreme Court Journal

Sec. Section

u/a Under Article

NDPS Narcotics and Psychotropic Substances

IPC INDIA Penal Code, 1860

CrPC Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973

Alias @

And &

4|Page MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

 Respondent’s Memorial R- | TC-44

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

CASES
• Ganga Kumar Srivastava v. State Of Bihar, (2005) 6 SCC 211, 217 para 10
1
• Bharwada Bhoginbhai Hirjibhai v. State of Gujarat (1983) 3 SCC 217
1
• N. Suriyakala Vs. A. Mohandoss and Others (2007) 9 SCC 196
1
• State of U.P. Vs. Babul Nath (1994) 6 SCC 29
1
• Dalbir Kaur & Ors. Vs. State of Punjab (1976) 4 SCC 158; also see Pappu Vs. State of
Uttar Pradesh 2022 SCC OnLine SC 176
1
• Mekala Sivaiah Vs State Of Andhra Pradesh, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 887
1
• Lakhiram Narandas Bawasadhu versus State of Gujrat, 2003 Cri.L.J. 585 (Guj)
1
• Madan Lal & Anr. V. State of Himachal Pradesh Appeal (crl.) 786 of 2002
1
• Mohan Lal v. state of Rajasthan (2015) 6 SCC 222
1
• Gunwantlal v. The State of M.P. , AIR 1972 SC 1756
1
• State of Punjab v. Baldev singh (1999) 6 SCC 172
1
• State of Kerala v. Rajesh AIR 2020 SC 721
1
• Union of India through Narcotics Control Bureau, lucknow v. Md. Nawaz Khan, LL 2021
SC 489
1
• Madan Lal and others v. State of Himachal Pradesh (2003) 7 SCC 465
1
• Rhea Chakarborty v. the Union of India and ors Criminal bail Application (Stamp) No.
2386 of 2020
1
• Gurudev singh v. state of Punjab AIR 2021 SC 1766
1
• Andhra Pradesh v Golconda Linga swamy 2004 6 SCC 522
1
• Abhishek Gupta & Anr. V Delhi & Anr, CRL.M.C. 2242/2020
1
• State of Delhi v. Mohd Afzal, (2003) 71 DRJ 178 (DB): 2003 SCC Online Del 935
1
• Ambalal Sarabhai Enterprise Ltd v. KS Infrastructure LLP Limited and Another, Civil
appeal no. 9346 of 2019 (arising out of SLP (civil) No. 23194 of 2019)
1
• Shakeel Akhtar v. State of Andhra Pradesh Cri.L.J 3881 (AP)
1
• M.D.Malek Mondal vPranjal Bardalai and ors.AIR 2005 SC 2406
1
• Sundar Babu & ors v. State of Tamil Nadu, JT 2009 (13) SC 666, RLW 2009 (2)

5|Page MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

 Respondent’s Memorial R- | TC-44

1
• State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, 1992 AIR 604, 1990 SCR Supl. (3) 259

STATUES
 Constitution of India, 1950

 INDIA Penal Code, 1860

 Indian Evidence Act, 1872

 Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973

 Narcotics Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985

BOOKS REFERRED

 V.N. Shukla, Constitutional Law of India (13th Edition, 2019)

 K.D. Gaur, Indian Penal Code (6th Edi., LexisNexis)

 Dr. L.M. Singhvi, Constitution of India.

 R.V. Kelkar, Criminal Procedure (7th Edi., EBC, 2021)

 K.D. Gaur, Commentary of Indian Penal Code (Universal Law Publishing Company: 2008)

 Prof M.P. Jain, Indian Constitutional Law (8th Edi., LexisNexis, 2018)

 Ratanlal & Dhirajlal, Law of Crimes (Bharat Law House, vol. 2: 2007)

 R.C. Khera, Digest on NDPS Cases 2000-2008 (Allied Book Company, 2009)

 Seervai H.M., Constitutional Law of India, Fourth Edn., Vol. 3, (Universal Law Publishing Co)

6|Page MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

 Respondent’s Memorial R- | TC-44

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

The Petitioner’s has approached the Hon’ble Supreme Court of INDIA in this matter under Article
136 of the Constitution of INDIA which reads as follows:
“Special leave to appeal by the Supreme Court

(1) Notwithstanding anything in this Chapter, the Supreme Court may, in its discretion,
grant special leave to appeal from any judgment, decree, determination, sentence or order
in any cause or matter passed or made by any court or tribunal in the territory of India

(2) Nothing in clause (1) shall apply to any judgment, determination, sentence or order
passed or made by any court or tribunal constituted by or under any law relating to the
Armed Forces”

The present memorandum sets forth the facts, contentions and arguments in the present
case.

7|Page MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

 Respondent’s Memorial R- | TC-44

STATEMENT OF FACTS
1. Narcotics Control Bureau Mumbai conducted a raid on 22nd July on the famous Luxury
Italian Cruise Ship Costa Phalange. This luxury ship is well known for organizing parties.
This luxury ship left the Amalfi coast of Italy on 18th July, 2019, 9:00 AM and reached
the coast of Maharashtra on 19th July 02:00 A.M. On the coast of Maharashtra, 4 people
boarded the cruise ship on 19th July, 03:00 A.M and the cruise ship left the shores of
Maharashtra at 04:00 AM.

2. The 4 people were namely Tina Badani (Daughter of famous Business Tycoon namely
Badani Industries), Vedansh Rabbari (Son of famous diamond merchant named Rabbari
Diamond Company), Rudra Merchant (famous oil merchant in India) and Bollywood
Superstar named ROCKY aka Raunak Singh highest paid actor of Bollywood who acted
in various super hit bollywood and Tollywood Films. He is also previously been in news
for his playboy image and also his alleged illicit network for drugs from Foreign Nationals.

3. A lavish Rave Party was organized at the cruise and all the ravers were partying all night.
At 3:00AM in the morning raid of NCB Mumbai was conducted by the NCB Officer under
the NDPS Act, 1985 on 22nd July 2019 on the cruise ship where the party was organized.
And whole of the cruise ship was seized and interrogation was done by NCB.

4. While interrogating, the NCB apprehended 4 persons from an Italian Cruise Ship Costa
Phalange and they are now subject to custodial interrogation up to 27th July. From the
Basement of the cruise ship where all the ravers were present, NCB recovered 5 grams of
metazocine from Tina Badani; 50 grams of charas from Vedansh Rabbari; 1 gram of
hydromorphone from Rudra Merchant. All the four persons were arrested for violations of
offences under sections 8(c) r/w 20(b), 27, 28, 29 and 35 of Narcotics Drugs and
Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985.

5. Intoto the NCB affected seizure of 5 grams of Myrophine, 25 grams of Opium, 2 grams of
Cocaine and 2,50,000/- INR at the Cruise Ship Costa Phalange which was then 24 nautical
miles off the coast of Maharashtra.

6. Ms. Tina Badani (Accused No. 1) sought bail on the grounds that she is nowhere related
with the alleged offence and she was only invited by one Mr. Alex. When she entered the
room with all the arrested persons, the party was already going on and when NCB raid
8|Page MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT
 Respondent’s Memorial R- | TC-44

occurred in the room they found small packets of hash lying on floor, and NCB let all of
them free.

7. The officials of NCB revealed to media that Ms. Tina Badani (Accused no. 1) has a role to
play in the procurement and consumption of the contraband. It was prima-facie in question
that she used to procure charas and hydromorphone from Mr. Vedansh Rabbari (Accused
No. 2). And as per the media reports there were whatsapp chats which showed that there
was nexus of all the four persons arrested with Mr. Alex from Italy.

8. The investigation is still in progress and 3 more people are arrested with 100 grams of
charas. There is a turbulence in the film industry due to the arrest of famous bollywood star
Raunak Singh. And as shown by Star News, this is not the first time when accused no. 1 is
involved in illicit drug activities.

9. There is ample evidence in the form of Whatsapp chats of the accused no.3 with foreign
national and unknown persons dealing in drugs. In addition to this, accused no 4 i.e.,
ROCKY had the knowledge of the drug rave party organized at the cruise. And it is
suspected that drugs in these chats were in bulk quantity which are not meant for
consumption and could be a part of international Drug Racket. Thus, all these facts prima
facie go to show that accused acted in conspiracy with one another.

10. Subsequently, as aggrieved the Bollywood star i.e., accused no. 4 resorted to Mumbai High
Court under section 482 CrPC, reason being stated for quashing the proceedings including
FIR and further prayed for releasing him on bail till the final order is passed.

11. The application was rejected by the Mumbai High Court, reason being stated that a
whatsapp chat was revealed (in crypted form) of accused no. 4 by prosecution depicting a
conversation: Accused no. 4 (to Mr. Alex): “Require 4 kg of cookie dough required for
being baked from the stock available with you”

Mr. Alex: “Would provide you from the stock for being baked, don’t worry.”

12. Subsequently, the accused filed for quashing the FIR under Article 136 of the Indian
Constitution to the Supreme Court and further prayed relief for the same. Hence, the matter
is pending before Supreme Court.

9|Page MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

 Respondent’s Memorial R- | TC-44

STATEMENT OF ISSUES

ISSUE I:
Whether the Petition is Maintainable or Not?

ISSUE II:
Whether the Case against Raunak Singh is Justified or Not?

ISSUE III:

Whether the FIR should be Quashed or Not?

10 | P a g e MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

 Respondent’s Memorial R- | TC-44

SUMMARY ARGUMENTS

ISSUE I:
Whether the Petition is Maintainable or Not?
It is humbly submitted that the petitioner has approached this Hon’ble Court and invoked the
jurisdiction of Special Leave Petition under Article 136 which gives the Hon’ble Apex Court
the discretion to grant “special leave to appeal” from any judgment, decree, determination,
sentence or order “in any cause or matter” “passed or made” by “any court or tribunal” in the
territory of India. The non obstante clause emphasizes that the power overrides the limitations
on the court’s power to entertain appeals.” 1
However, the respondent contends that this Hon’ble court has emphasized that Article 136
does not confer a “right to appeal” but only a “right to apply” for special leave and this Hon’ble
Court has put in place self-imposed restrictions when it comes to criminal appeals and will
not entertain special leave petitions in criminal cases particularly when there are concurrent
findings of fact, save in exceptional cases, such as cases of perversity or impropriety, violation
of principles of natural justice, error of law or errors of record or misreading of evidence. No
such exceptional errors in law or procedure is present in the current case and thus the petitioner
has no locus standi. Thus the respondent contends that the current petition shall be dismissed
in the interest of justice as allowing such petitions would be an impediment to the course of
judicial proceedings in the country.

ISSUE II:
Whether the Case against Raunak Singh is Justified or Not?
It is humbly submitted that all the charges against Raunak Singh alias ROCKY are justified and
his arrest was lawful and in accordance with the procedures laid down in law. The respondent
humbly submits that the petitioner had the knowledge of the illegal drug rave party being organized
by infamous Mr. Alex and had the means and intention of distribution and consumption of drugs
at said party. The investigation agency has recovered incriminating WhatsApp chats implying a
conspiracy to bring drugs in India in commercial quantity, between Mr. Alex and different drug

1
Seervai H.M., Constitutional Law of India, Fourth Edn., Vol. 3, Universal Law Publishing Co, Note 34 p. 2647 para
25.57.
11 | P a g e MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT
 Respondent’s Memorial R- | TC-44

importers including the present petitioner and other co-accused of this case. Thus to meet the ends
of justice it is humbly requested that petitioner a.k.a. Rocky be prosecuted by the Trial Court in
the light of the presence of significant evidence against him.

ISSUE III:
Whether the FIR should be Quashed or Not?
The respondent humbly submits that the Hon’ble Supreme Court has been given discretionary
powers over matters of grave injustice including erroneous rulings of the subordinate courts but
the apex court itself has time and again warned against improper halting of judicial proceedings
declaring the same as gross miscarriage of justice even if done in absence of substantial evidence
against the accused. In the light of significant evidence against the accused, the respondent humbly
contends that quashing the case against the accused would be against the interests of the society
and the law.

12 | P a g e MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

 Respondent’s Memorial R- | TC-44

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED

1. Whether the Petition is Maintainable or Not?

The council humbly submits that the Constitution of India provides regular appeal to the SC
from decisions of the High courts under Article 132-134, but the petitioner has approached
this Hon’ble court under the special plenary jurisdiction of article 136. Article 136 which
reads as follows: “Special leave to appeal by the Supreme Court 2
(1) Notwithstanding anything in this Chapter, the Supreme Court may, in its discretion,
grant special leave to appeal from any judgment, decree, determination, sentence or
order in any cause or matter passed or made by any court or tribunal in the territory
of India.
(2) Nothing in clause ( 1 ) shall apply to any judgment, determination, sentence or order
passed or made by any court or tribunal constituted by or under any law relating to
the Armed Forces”
Thus the Hon’ble Supreme Court has a plenary jurisdiction in the matter of entertaining
and hearing appeals, by granting special leave, against any kind of judgement or order
made by any court or tribunal except a military tribunal. The Apex court has time and
again held that such jurisdiction is a discretionary one and shall be reserved for cases
where grave miscarriage of justice is suspected or any serious procedural discrepancy is
present. 3 The respondent contends that such blatant injustice has not occurred with
regards to the present case and as such the petitioner shall not enjoy such discretion of the
Hon’ble Court.
1.1. The Scope of Article 136
It is humbly submitted that the Hon’ble Supreme Court has scouted the limits of Article
136 in a plethora of judgements has specified that despite having such a wide jurisdiction
the scope of interference is limited to cases the question of law and only to cases where
severe miscarriage of justice took place. The same has been specified in numerous cases
such as Bharwada Bhoginbhai Hirjibhai v. State of Gujarat4, wherein a two-Judge Bench

2
India Const. art. 136
3
Ganga Kumar Srivastava v. State Of Bihar, (2005) 6 SCC 211, 217 para 10
4
Bharwada Bhoginbhai Hirjibhai v. State of Gujarat (1983) 3 SCC 217
13 | P a g e MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT
 Respondent’s Memorial R- | TC-44

of this hon’ble Court held that this Court does not interfere with the concurrent findings of
fact unless it is established:

i. That the finding is based on no evidence; or

ii. That the finding is perverse, it being such as no reasonable person could arrive at
even if the evidence was taken at its face value; or
iii. The finding is based and built on inadmissible evidence which evidence, excluded
from vision would negate the prosecution case or substantially discredit or impair
it, or
iv. Some vital piece of evidence which would tilt the balance in favor of the convict
has been overlooked, disregarded or wrongly discarded.

Furthermore, this Court in the case of N. Suriyakala Vs. A. Mohandoss and Others5
observed as under:

“In this connection we may clarify the scope of Article 136. Article 136 of the Constitution
is not a regular forum of appeal at all. It is a residual provision which enables the Supreme
Court to interfere with the judgment or order of any court or tribunal in India in its
discretion.”
1.1.1. No scope for Re-appreciation of evidence:

The Apex Court has been very clear regarding re-appreciation of evidence in an SLP
and the same is evident from cases such as State of U.P. Vs. Babul Nath (1994) 6 where
the Hon’ble court opined that “At the very outset we may mention that in an appeal
under Article 136 of the Constitution this Court does not normally reappraise the
evidence by itself and go into the question of credibility of the witnesses and the
assessment of the evidence by the High Court is accepted by the Supreme Court as
final unless, of course, the appreciation of evidence and finding is vitiated by any error
of law of procedure …”. This stand has been reinforced by plethora judgements7 of same
was echoed in the recent case of Mekala Sivaiah Vs State of Andhra Pradesh8 where the

5
N. Suriyakala Vs. A. Mohandoss and Others (2007) 9 SCC 196
6
State of U.P. Vs. Babul Nath (1994) 6 SCC 29
7
Dalbir Kaur & Ors. Vs. State of Punjab (1976) 4 SCC 158; also see Pappu Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh 2022 SCC
OnLine SC 176
8
Mekala Sivaiah Vs State Of Andhra Pradesh, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 887
14 | P a g e MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT
 Respondent’s Memorial R- | TC-44

Hon’ble KRISHNA MURARI, J. held that “This Court does not function as a regular
Court of Appeal in every criminal case. Normally, the High Court is a final court of appeal
and this Court is only a court of special jurisdiction. This Court would not therefore
reappraise the evidence to determine the correctness of findings unless there are
exceptional circumstances where there is manifest illegality or grave and serious
miscarriage of justice, for example, the forms of legal process are disregarded or principles
of natural justice are violated or substantial and grave injustice has otherwise resulted.”

2. Whether the Case against Raunak Singh is Justified or Not?

The respondent humbly submits that petitioner namely Rocky has a public image based around
being a playboy and was rumored to be involved in import, supply and consumption of drugs
and contraband items. This suspicion led the investigating agency to conduct a raid on the
Cruise Ship (Costa Phalange) which belongs to a foreign national, where petitioner along with
other accused persons were present and a significant amount of drugs and cash was recovered.
The respondent submits that the petitioner was in contact with all three co-accused who were
found to be in possession of drugs as well was Mr. Alex who is suspected of being an
International Drug trafficker. The respondent further submits that the WhatsApp chats
recovered from the mobile phone of the petitioner suggest that he was trying to buy drugs in
commercial quantity from Mr. Alex. All these facts together points towards a conspiracy to
bring drugs into the country from international sources and the investigation puts the petitioner
as a prime suspect of this conspiracy. The petitioner humbly submits that since the Actions of
the NCB finds authority from a valid law which has been passed by the parliament and follows
a procedure established by law so it can never be an arbitrary action or violate any rights of
the accused. Thus the following submissions:
2.1. NCB’s Action was under the ambit of law
The Respondent council humbly submits that alleged unlawful arrest of petitioner
and other accused individuals by the NCB officers was a justified act done within the
ambit of law and according to the statutory powers conferred onto the police by the
procedural laws of UNION of INDIA. Section 42 of the NDPS Act, 1985

15 | P a g e MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

 Respondent’s Memorial R- | TC-44

empowers 9the investigating officer to enter into any private premises on suspicion of
any crime being committed under this act and arrest or detain any person as well as
search or seize any contraband present on the premises. As the courts have concluded
in the past that an enclosed space not open to general public or which cannot be
accessed by any member of general population without invitation or authorization
would be considered a private premises and not a public enclosure. 10
Therefore search, seizure and arrest on Costa Phalange by the investigating agency
was proper and justified in law. Jurisprudential principles of salus populi est suprema
lex (the people’s welfare is the supreme law) and salus res publica est suprema
lex (the safety of the nation is supreme law) also apply here as the actions of the
investigation agency was in line with the object of the law and during the course of
duty to uphold the law and is also justified according to the precedent set by the
Hon’ble Supreme Court of India. Supreme Court of India, accepted the validity of
these two principles and characterized them as not only important and relevant, but
lying at the heart of the doctrine that welfare of an individual must yield to that of the
community.

2.2. The accused had conscious possession of drugs

1. It is submitted before the Hon’ble Apex Court that the accused had conscious
possession of drugs and in the facts of the case, it is explicitly mentioned that
ROCKY (accused No.4) had the knowledge of drug party organized at the cruise and
there are reasonable grounds for believing that the accused is a part of International
Drug Racket. From the facts of the case, it is evident that all the four persons arrested
from the rave party had nexus with Mr. Alex from Italy, who had invited them to the
drug party, from where the NCB has seized 5 grams of Myrophine, 25 grams of
Opium and 2 grams of Cocaine. N.D.P.S. Act strictly follows the rule of stringent
punishment which involves a minimum quantum of punishment of imprisonment for
ten years which may extend to twenty years and a minimum fine of Rs. 1 lakh which

9
THE NARCOTIC DRUGS AND PSYCHOTROPIC SUBSTANCES ACT, 1985, §42(a), (c) and (d).
10
Lakhiram Narandas Bawasadhu versus State of Gujrat, 2003 Cri.L.J. 585 (Guj)
16 | P a g e MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT
 Respondent’s Memorial R- | TC-44

may extend to Rs. 2 lakh. The N.D.P.S. act punishes offenders with rigorous
punishment mainly for possession, production, transportation of drugs and
contraband.
2. It is submitted before the Hon’ble Court that Section 35 of the Narcotics Drugs and
Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 recognizes the ‘presumption of culpable mental
state’ and Section 54 of the act also allows for a similar presumption in the possession
of illicit articles. According to Section 35 of the NDPS Act 11:
(1) In any prosecution for an offence under this Act which requires a culpable mental
state of the accused, the Court shall presume the existence of such mental state but it
shall be a defense for the accused to prove the fact that he had no such mental state
with respect to the act charged as an offence in that prosecution. In this section
culpable mental state includes intention, motive knowledge of a fact and belief in, or
reason to believe, a fact.
(2) For the purpose of this section, a fact is said to be proved only when the court
believes it to exist beyond a reasonable doubt and not merely when its existence is
established by a preponderance of probability.
In the present case, there are enough evidences to establish the fact that the charges
against the accused is very well justified and under Section 35(1) of the act, it is a
well settled law that culpable mental state includes intention, motive knowledge of a
fact and belief in, or reason to believe, a fact. The accused had the knowledge about
the drug party at the cruise, he had been involved in such illicit activities previously
and the conversation revealed by the NCB between the accused and Mr. Alex from
Italy, establishes the point of the respondents, beyond any reasonable doubt.

2.2.1. Possession of drugs need not be physical and could be ‘constructive’.

The Supreme Court in the case Madan Lal & Anr. V. State of Himachal Pradesh 12 defines
the word ‘conscious’ as “awareness about a particular fact”- a state of mind. It is pertinent

11
THE NARCOTIC DRUGS AND PSYCHOTROPIC SUBSTANCES ACT, 1985, §35
12
Madan Lal & Anr. V. State of Himachal Pradesh Appeal (crl.) 786 of 2002
17 | P a g e MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT
 Respondent’s Memorial R- | TC-44

to highlight before the Hon’ble Apex Court that according to the present set of facts, the
accused was earlier involved in illicit drug network from foreign Nationals.
It is pertinent to highlight the most landmark pronouncement on the issue of ‘conscious
possession’ from a 2003 judgment of the Supreme Court of India in Mohan Lal Case.
In Mohan Lal v. state of Rajasthan 13, the Court observed that the term possession could
mean physical possession with animus, custody over the prohibited substances with
animus, exercise of dominion and control as a result of concealment or personal knowledge
as to the existence of the contraband and the intention based on this knowledge.
Similarly, in the case of Gunwantlal v. The State of M.P. 14, it was held that possession in
cases under the NDPS Act need not be physical possession and quashing of the FIRs on
the grounds that the accused had no physical possession of drugs would certainly be against
the concept of justice.

2.3. The Bail provisions under the NDPS Act

As the respondent has submitted all the submissions and proved that there is ample
evidence to prosecute the petitioner, it is also contended that no interim relief shall be
granted to the accused as the learned High Court has denied the same in its impugned
order. Section 37 of the NDPS Act deals with cognizable and non-bailable offences.
Section 37 states that:
Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974)
(a). every offense punishable under this act shall be cognizable;
(b). no person accused of an offense punishable for [offences under Section 19 or section
24 or section 27A and also for offences involving commercial quantity] shall be released
on bail or on his own bond unless-
(i). the public prosecutor has been given an opportunity to oppose the application for such
release, and

13
Mohan Lal v. state of Rajasthan (2015) 6 SCC 222
14
Gunwantlal v. The State of M.P. , AIR 1972 SC 1756
18 | P a g e MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT
 Respondent’s Memorial R- | TC-44

(ii). Where the public prosecutor opposes the application, the court is satisfied that there
are reasonable grounds for believing that he is not guilty of such offense and that he is
not likely to commit any offense while on bail.
It is pertinent to state here that the offences under the NDPS Act are treated as cognizable
offence, where the accused may be arrested without a warrant, depicting that these
offences are grave and serious in nature. In the case State of Punjab v. Baldev singh 15,
the Hon’ble Apex Court held that owing to Section 37 of the NDPS Act, all the offences
committed under the act were cognizable and non-bailable and the court also laid down
the stringent conditions for granting bail to the accused under the said act.

As per section 37(b)(ii) of the NDPS Act, bail can only be granted if the court is satisfied
that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the accused is not guilty of such
offence and that he is not likely to commit any offence while on bail. In the facts of the
present case, it is clearly stated that the accused Raunak Singh, has been involved in such
activities previously as well and he had nexus with an international drug smuggler, who
invited accused no 1, Tina Badani to the drug rave party. It is very humbly submitted that
Raunak Singh is a man of means and the series of events that occurred after the
conversation between the accused and the International drug smuggler, clearly helps us
connect the dots and any prudent person, after analyzing the evidences, would not support
the quashing of the proceedings as it would be against the concept of justice and
supremacy of law.
The term “reasonable grounds” in Section 37(b)(ii) has very wide interpretation and in
the case State of Kerala v. Rajesh 16 the Apex Court held that the term “reasonable
grounds” contemplates substantial probable cause for believing that the accused is/or will
not be guilty of any offence under the NDPS Act and the facts and circumstances should
be crystal clear so as to remove any difficulty regarding the accused committing the crime.
In the present case, the accused was in a drug party, with the knowledge of the same, in
nexus with an International drug smuggler, and the suspicious conversation between them
depicts his motive.

15
State of Punjab v. Baldev singh (1999) 6 SCC 172
16
State of Kerala v. Rajesh AIR 2020 SC 721
19 | P a g e MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT
 Respondent’s Memorial R- | TC-44

It is pertinent to state here that mere absence of contraband from the possession is
insufficient to grant bail to the accused and the same was held in Union of India through
Narcotics Control Bureau, lucknow v. Md. Nawaz Khan 17. In Madan Lal and others v.
State of Himachal Pradesh 18, the court held that conscious possession must be
determined in light of the facts of the case and in the present set of facts, the accused had
the knowledge of the contraband. From the four accused, it was only Rounak’s
conversation with Mr. Alex, who was an international drug trafficker, which was brought
into light by the NCB.
2.4. The accused is booked under Section 28 which deals with the Punishment for
attempts to commit offences under the NDPS Act

According to section 28 of the NDPS Act, whoever attempts to commit any offence
punishable under this Chapter or to cause such offence to be committed and in such attempt
does any act towards the commission of the offence shall be punishable with the
punishment provided for the offence. In the present case, the accused has demanded 4 kg
of “cookie dough” from an alleged International drug trafficker and in furtherance of that,
he was also arrested from a drug rave party, along with 5 grams of Myrophine, 25 grams
of Opium and 2 grams of Cocaine.
In the case of Rhea Chakarborty v. the Union of India and ors 19., the Hon’ble Bombay
High Court held that it would defeat the object of the NDPS Act if the accused claimed
bail as a matter of right due to possession in small quantity.
Looking at these series of events, we have enough grounds for apprehension that the
accused is involved in the case that is raised and the charges against him are justified by
law.
All the evidence present points towards reasonable suspicion of production, distribution
and consumption of drugs towards the accused, thus the petition to quash the proceedings
against the accused would be in contravention to the interest of justice.

17
Union of India through Narcotics Control Bureau, lucknow v. Md. Nawaz Khan, LL 2021 SC 489
18
Madan Lal and others v. State of Himachal Pradesh (2003) 7 SCC 465
19
Rhea Chakarborty v. the Union of India and ors Criminal bail Application (Stamp) No. 2386 of 2020
20 | P a g e MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT
 Respondent’s Memorial R- | TC-44

2.5. The Accused can be booked for Criminal Conspiracy under Section 29 of the NDPS
Act.
According to section 29 of the NDPS Act:
(1) Whoever abets, or is a party to a criminal conspiracy to commit, an offence punishable
under this Chapter, shall, whether such offence be or be not committed in consequence of
such abetment or in pursuance of such criminal conspiracy, and notwithstanding anything
contained in section 116 of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860), be punishable with the
punishment provided for the offence.
(2) A person abets, or is a party to a criminal conspiracy to commit, an offence, within the
meaning of this section, who, in India, abets or is a party to the criminal conspiracy to the
commission of any act in a place without and beyond India which--
(a) would constitute an offence if committed within India; or
(b) under the laws of such place, is an offence relating to narcotic drugs or psychotropic
substances having all the legal conditions required to constitute it such an offence the same
as or analogous to the legal conditions required to constitute it an offence punishable under
this Chapter, if committed within India.
In the facts of the case, it is explicitly mentioned that all the four accused had nexus with
one Mr. Alex from Italy and from the conversation between Accused No. 4 and Mr. Alex,
it can be deduced that accused no. 4 was a party to a criminal conspiracy and the seizure
of drugs by the NCB, right from the place where all of them were present, cannot be a
matter of coincidence, and quashing of the FIR and raising the point that whether the
charges are justified or not, in itself is bad in law, given that there are enough evidences to
create a suspicion in the mind of the Court and Under the NDPS Act, a person cannot be
given a clean chit, unless his innocence is proved beyond any reasonable doubt.
In the case Gurudev singh v. state of Punjab 20, the Apex Court observed that the persons
dealing in narcotics drugs play an instrumental role in causing deaths of young, innocent
people who are most vulnerable to drug addiction. If we question the charges against the
accused, despite the facts that there are ample evidences against him to create a reasonable
apprehension of crime committed by him, it would be a bad precedent and the fragile minds
of our country are at risk.

20
Gurudev singh v. state of Punjab AIR 2021 SC 1766
21 | P a g e MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT
 Respondent’s Memorial R- | TC-44

It is therefore, submitted before the Hon’ble court that all the charges against the accused
is justified.

3. Whether the FIR shall be Quashed or Not?

It is very humbly submitted all the charges against Raunak Singh (ROCKY) by NCB are
justified and the FIR should not be quashed and the case should be further investigated
because we have reasonable suspicion and doubt of the involvement of accused no.4 in
illicit International Drug Racket.
3.1. There is Reasonable Suspicion and Doubt over Accused no.4
Quashing of FIR should be justified only when it is exercised in order to meet the Ends
of Justice, but in the present case if quashing is granted it will turn over the principle and
meaning of justice as accused no.4 Mr. Raunak Singh who is arrested from the Cruise Ship
on which raid was conducted by NCB, and accused no.4 was having the prior knowledge
of the Drug Rave Party which makes us presume that he was having the prior intention
and motive to facilitate that Drug Racket which is unfolded after the raid, it is clearly
mentioned in the facts of the case that Mr. Raunak Singh was having nexus with Mr. Alex
from Italy who invited Accused No.1 Ms. Tina Baddani to the Drug Rave Party, accused
no.4 was having prior knowledge of the fact that drug rave party was being organized at
the cruise, his prior knowledge nexus with all the other three persons and the Italian Man
and moreover the whats-app chat which discloses a conversation of Mr. Alex from Italy
and Raunak Singh in which they are discussing about “4kg cookie dough , which Raunak
wants for being baked” being baked is a slang used to denote the influence of Marijuana
which gives a clear picture that accused no.4 is involved in the International Drug Racket,
and when prima facie we can rope material from the facts and deduce that the accused is
involved in the offences. The charges against accused no.4 are justified and the Hon’ble
Supreme Court in the case of Andhra Pradesh v Golconda Linga swamy 21 elaborated on
the types of material and the High Court can assess to quash an FIR. “the court drew a
distinction between consideration of materials that were tendered as evidence and
appreciation of such evidence, only such matter that manifestly fails to prove the
accusation in the FIR can be considered for quashing an FIR. The court held authority of

21 Andhra Pradesh v Golconda Linga swamy 2004 6 SCC 522

22 | P a g e MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

 Respondent’s Memorial R- | TC-44

the court exist for advancement of justice and if any attempt is made to abuse that
authority so as to produce injustice, the court has power to prevent such abuse. It would
be abuse of the process of the court to allow any action which would result in in-justice
and prevent promotion of justice” 22 in the present case if the FIR is quashed at this stage
it will result in blatant violation of principle of Justice, we have enough evidence and
apprehension that accused no.4 is involved in illicit drug activity. Quashing of FIR should
be initiated if there is no prima facie case or offence constituted by accepting the facts in
their face value and entirety and this was iterated by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case
of Mr. Abhishek Gupta & Anr. V Delhi & Anr. 23 but in the present case if we accept the
facts in their face value and entirety all the charges framed against accused no.4 is justified,
thus the present FIR should not be quashed.
3.2. Evidence produced are appreciable and admissible

The evidence produced in the present case are admissible as according to section 65B (1)
of Indian Evidence Act 1872 WhatsApp chats are admissible and are considered to be
Electronic record as evidence in a Court
Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act lays out four primary conditions for admitting
electronic evidence in a Court. These are:
1. The device used to produce/create message must have been in regular use when the
person having lawful control over the device produced the message;
2. The message should be of such kinds that it is regularly and ordinarily used in such
activity;
3. The device must have been functioning properly at the time when the message was
produced;
4. The information contained in the duplicate copy produced before the Court must be the
same as the original electronic record.

If these four conditions are fulfilled, WhatsApp chats could be admitted as evidence in
the Court. It was on the basis of these four conditions that it was held that the electronic

22
https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1369545/
23 Abhishek Gupta & Anr. V Delhi & Anr, CRL.M.C. 2242/2020

23 | P a g e MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

 Respondent’s Memorial R- | TC-44

evidence was admissible in the State of Delhi v. Mohd Afzal 24. In the case Ambalal
Sarabhai Enterprise Ltd v. KS Infrastructure LLP Limited and Another 25, the Apex
Court ruled that the WhatsApp messages, which are virtual verbal communications are
matter of evidence. In the present set of facts, the WhatsApp conversation revealed
between accused and one Mr. Alex from Italy, clearly comes under point 2 mentioned
above and the message of this sort is regularly and ordinarily used in such activity.
Furthermore the admissibility of evidence cannot be a ground for quashing proceedings
which was reitiretated by Hon’ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh in Shakeel Akhtar v.
State of Andhra Pradesh 26 wherein the court stated “the question whether the evidence
of L.W.3, insofaras it relates to receiving credible information from an unknown person
is admissible in evidence or not does not arise for consideration at the very threshold of
the proceeding………..in any event to what extent the evidence of L.W.3 is admissible or
not is a question which has to be decided at the time of trial or thereafter. But this can
never be a ground to quash the proceeding at the very threshold. Same was reiterated in
the case of M.D.Malek Mondal v. Pranjal Bardalai and ors 27 where the Hon’ble
Supreme Court opined that “The contention that there is no material against the petitioner
since only material on record was inadmissible…..The question about corroborative
nature of evidence may also have to be gone into at appropriate stage. The High Court
has rightly declined the prayer to quash the complaint at this initial stage.”

3.3. The requisites of quashing the FIR are not fulfilled

The quashing of FIR is initiated only when the case is a frivolous or bogus case but the
present case is filed on all the legitimate grounds and we have evidence which are proving
accused no.4 as a facilitator of International Drug Racket and in the case of Sundar Babu

24
State of Delhi v. Mohd Afzal, (2003) 71 DRJ 178 (DB): 2003 SCC Online Del 935
25
Ambalal Sarabhai Enterprise Ltd v. KS Infrastructure LLP Limited and Another, Civil appeal no. 9346 of 2019
(arising out of SLP (civil) No. 23194 of 2019)
26
Shakeel Akhtar v. State of Andhra Pradesh Cri.L.J 3881 (AP)
27
M.D.Malek Mondal vPranjal Bardalai and ors.AIR 2005 SC 2406

24 | P a g e MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

 Respondent’s Memorial R- | TC-44

& ors v. State of Tamil Nadu 28 and State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal 29 the Hon’ble
Supreme Court laid down guidelines or grounds for quashing an FIR which are as follow
I. Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint, even if they are taken in entirety
and accepted in their face value does not constitute any offence or case against accused.
II. Where the allegations made in the FIR are so absurd and inherently improbable on the
basis of which no prudent man can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient
ground for proceeding against accused.
III. Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or complaint and the evidence
collected in support of the same do not disclose commission of any offence and make
out a case against the accused.

The conditions stated above are not fulfilled in the present case as if we accept the facts in
entirety and in their face value then we can deduce prima facie that accused no.4 was
having nexus and connection with Mr. Alex who has organized the Drug Rave Party,
accused no. 4 was having prior knowledge of the Drug Rave Party, and there were earlier
instances in which he was involved in illicit drug racket which gives us all reason to cast
doubt on accused no.4 and further investigate the case. The allegations made in the FIR are
all justified as section 35 of the NDPS act which deals with presumption of culpable mental
state and Mr. Raunak singh was having the culpable mental state which can be deduced by
all the chain of events earlier mentioned and thus, there are sufficient ground to initiate a
proceeding against accused no.4. All the allegations and the evidence collected are all in
support of the same and this discloses commission of the offence and, hence quashing the
case at this stage will clearly violate the principle of justice and equality.
The respondents humbly submits that quashing a case will close the doors of justice as at
this stage in presence of ample evidence against the appellant-accused and the proceeding
initiated against Mr. Rocky is justified because of his illicit and unlawful actions of the
accused.

28
Sundar Babu & ors v. State of Tamil Nadu, JT 2009 (13) SC 666, RLW 2009 (2)
29
State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, 1992 AIR 604, 1990 SCR Supl. (3) 259
25 | P a g e MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT
 Respondent’s Memorial R- | TC-44

PRAYER

In the light of the issues raised, arguments advanced and authorities cited, may this Hon’ble Court
be pleased to:

1. Dismiss the Petition filed by the petitioners against the respondent authorities,
2. Uphold the judgement passed by the Hon’ble High court of Mumbai justifying the proceedings
as lawful.

AND/OR

Pass any other order that it deems fit in the interest of Justice, Equity and Good Conscience. And
for this, the Respondent as in duty bound, shall humbly pray.

COUNSELS FOR THE RESPONDENT

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDANT

26 | P a g e MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT