lOMoARcPSD|37844599

Nlujaa Respondent - Memorial

Law (University of Mumbai)

Scan to open on Studocu

Studocu is not sponsored or endorsed by any college or university

Downloaded by Swaraj Doshi ([email protected])
 lOMoARcPSD|37844599

rd
33rd GURJEET
GURJEET SINGH
SINGH MEMORIAL
MEMORIAL NATIONAL
NATIONAL MOOT
MOOT COURT
COURT COMPETITION,
COMPETITION,2022
2022
TC - 16

TEAM CODE : TC-16

3rd GURJEET SINGH MEMORIAL NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION,2022

(U/Art 32 OF INDRI CONSTITUTION)

BEFORE THE HON’BLE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
(WRIT JURISDICTION)

IN THE MATTER OF
WP (Criminal) no.____________2021
RAMTA JOGI AND ANR. .............................PETITIONER
V
STATE OF UGHRA PRADESH ...........................RESPONDENT

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

COUNCIL FOR THE RESPONDENT

TABLE OF CONTENTS
MEMORANDUM ON
MEMORANDUM BEHALF
ON BEHALFOF
OF THE RESPONDENTS
THE RESPONDENT
1
1

Downloaded by Swaraj Doshi ([email protected])

 lOMoARcPSD|37844599

3rd GURJEET SINGH MEMORIAL NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2022

TC - 16

CONTENT PAGE NO.

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS 4

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES 6

I. CASE LAWS 6

II. LEGISLATIONS 8

III.INTERNATIONAL COVENANTS 9

IV. LEGAL JOURNALS 9

V. BOOKS AND COMMENTARIES 9

VI. ARTICLES 10

VII. DATABASES 10

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION 11

STATEMENT OF FACTS 12

ISSUES RAISED 14

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS 15

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED 17

[I]. WHETHER THE WRIT PETITION IS MAINTAINABLE OR NOT? 17

[1.1] No Locus Standi To The Petitioner
[1.2] No Irregularity Of Procedure Or Violation Of Fundamental Rights Or
Principle Of Natural Justice Is Being Done

[II]. SPECIAL TWIN CONDITIONS AS PROVIDED UNDER THE 18

PROVISIONS OF PMLA AND UAPA INSOFAR AS THE GRANT OF
BAIL IS CONCERNED.
[2.1] Narrow approach of court in granting bail
[2.2] Prima facie or reasonable ground to believe that the accused has
committed offence
[2.3] Danger of the accused absconding, if released on bail
[2.4] Reasonable apprehension of tampering the evidence
[2.5] Impact of social media
[2.6] Twin conditions under PMLA

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENTS

2

Downloaded by Swaraj Doshi ([email protected])

 lOMoARcPSD|37844599

3rd GURJEET SINGH MEMORIAL NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2022

TC - 16

[III].WHETHER SECTION 50 OF PMLA VIOLATE THE BASIC 22

TENETS OF INDIAN EVIDENCE ACT, 1872?
[3.1] ED officers are not police officers
[3.2] PMLA Provisions indicate that ED officers are not police officers
[3.3] Admissibility of Evidence when ED is not police officer
[3.4] Statement before ED is admissible
[3.5] There is no infringement of Article 20(3)

[IV]. REVERSE BURDEN OF PROOF ON THE ACCUSED UNDER THE 27

PROVISIONS OF THE UAPA
[4.1] Burden of proof on the accuse
[4.2] Reverse burden and the Constitutional status

PRAYER 33

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENTS

3

Downloaded by Swaraj Doshi ([email protected])

 lOMoARcPSD|37844599

3rd GURJEET SINGH MEMORIAL NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2022

TC - 16

ABBRIVATION EXPANSION

¶ Paragraph Number

¶¶ Paragraph Numbers

& And

AIR All India Reporter

Art. Article

Arts. Articles

Edn. Edition

Hon’ble Honourable

No. Number

Ors. Others

Pg Page Number

SCC Supreme Court cases

SC Supreme Court

U/Art. Under Article

v. Verus

Vol Volume

Anr. Another

PMLA Prevention of Money Laundering Act

UAPA Unlawful activities (Prevention ) Act

NDPS The Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic

Substances

ED Enforcement Directorate

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENTS

4

Downloaded by Swaraj Doshi ([email protected])

 lOMoARcPSD|37844599

3rd GURJEET SINGH MEMORIAL NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2022

TC - 16

ECIR Enforcement Case Information Report

MANU Manupatra

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

I. CASE LAWS.

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENTS

5

Downloaded by Swaraj Doshi ([email protected])

 lOMoARcPSD|37844599

3rd GURJEET SINGH MEMORIAL NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2022

TC - 16

S. NO. CASE TITLE CITATION PP.

1. A K Gopalan v. Noorudeen 1970 AIR 1694. 4

2. Andhra Industrial Works v. Chief AIR 1974 SC 1539. 2

Controller of Imports

3. Anwar Ali and another Vs State of AIR 2020 SC 4519 50

Himachal Pradesh
4. Ashok Munilal Jain V. Assistant MANU/SC/1846/2017 26
Directorate
5. Assistant Collector of Central Excise, AIR 2000 SC 2901 31
Rajamundry vs. Duncan Agro Industries
Ltd. and Ors.
6. Bhupendrasingh A Chudasma v. State of (1998) 2 SCC 603 21
Gujarat

7. C.B.I. Vs. Amar Mani Tripathi AIR 2005 SC 3490 7

8. Calcutta Gas Co. Ltd. v. State of West AIR 1962 SC 1044 2

Bengal

9. Chief Enforcement Officer, Enforcement MANU/TN/3881/2010 34

Directorate, Government of India Vs. D.
Uttamchand Jain.
10. Dalmia Cement (Bharat) Limited v MANU/AP/0055/2016 36
Assistant Director of Enforcement
Directorate
11. Directorate of Enforcement v. Deepak AIR 1994 SC 1775. 25, 26, 27
Mahajan

12. Fertilizer Corp. Kamgar Union v. Union AIR 1981 SC 344. 2

of India.

13. Hussain v. Union Of India. MANU/SC/0274/2017. 12

14. Kamalapati Trivedi v. State of West Bengal. AIR 1979 SC 777. 8

15. Khilari vs. State of U.P. and Ors. MANU/SC/0073/2009. 13

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENTS

6

Downloaded by Swaraj Doshi ([email protected])

 lOMoARcPSD|37844599

3rd GURJEET SINGH MEMORIAL NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2022

TC - 16

16. LIC v Manubhai D shah. AIR 1993 SC 171 18

17. Magan Bhai v. Union of India. 1969 AIR 783. 2

18. Maneka Gandhi v. UOI. AIR 1978SC 597 4

19. Martin Burn Ltd. v. R.N. Banerjee AIR 1958 SC 79. 10

20. Masroor Vs State of Uttar Pradesh (2009) 14 SCC 286. 43

21. National Investigation Agency vs. AIR 2019 SC 1734 10

Zahoor Ahmad Shah Watali

22. Noor Aga v. State of Punjab. (2008) 16 SCC 417 56

23. P. Chidambaram v. Directorate of AIR 2020 SC 1699 22

Enforcement
24. Pappu Yadav v. CBI,AIR 2007 SC 451 AIR 2007 SC 451 8

25. Printers (Mysore) Ltd. v. Assistance (1994) 2 SCC 434 20

Commercial Tax Officer.
26. Re:Harijai Singh v. Re Vijay Kumar (1996) 6 SCC 466 19

27. Ripen Kumar V. Department of Customs MANU/DE/1009/2000. 34

28. Rohit Tandon vs. The Enforcement AIR 2017 SC 5309 34

Directorate

29. Sanjay Chandra V C.B.I (2012) 1 SCC 40 47

30. Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre Vs State (2011) 1 SCC 694 41

of Maharashtra

31. State of Karnataka v. Adithya Rao Sessions Case No.70/2020 14

32. State of Punjab v. Barkat Ram AIR 1962 SC 276. 26

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENTS

7

Downloaded by Swaraj Doshi ([email protected])

 lOMoARcPSD|37844599

3rd GURJEET SINGH MEMORIAL NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2022

TC - 16

33. State of U.P. v. Amarmani Tripathi (2005) 8 SCC 21. 7, 9 , 47

34. State vs Tahir Hussain and ors. MANU/OT/0024/2022. 10

35. Vakamulla Chandrashekhar vs MANU/DE/3614/2017. 30

Enforcement Directorate &Anr.
36. Virupakshappa Gouda Vs State of (2017) 5 SCC 406. 40
Karnataka.

37. Yakub Abdul Razak Memon v. State of MANU/SC/0825/2015. 21

Maharashtra.

II. LEGISLATIONS

S. NO. TITLE OF STATUTE Pg No.

1. CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, 1950 Passim

2. INDIAN EVIDENCE ACT, 1872 Passim

3. INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1860 Passim

4. CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973 Passim

5. CUSTOMS ACT Passim

6. THE NARCOTIC DRUGS AND PSYCHOTROPIC SUBSTANCES Passim

ACT, 1985
7. THE PREVENTION OF MONEY-LAUNDERING ACT, 2002 Passim

8. THE UNLAWFUL ACTIVITIES (PREVENTION) ACT, 1967 Passim

9. POLICE ACT,1861 Passim

10. POLICE ACT, 1888 Passim

III. INTERNATIONAL COVENANTS.

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENTS

8

Downloaded by Swaraj Doshi ([email protected])

 lOMoARcPSD|37844599

3rd GURJEET SINGH MEMORIAL NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2022

TC - 16

S. NO. TITLE OF COVENANT Pg No.

1. INTERNATIONAL CONVENTION ON CIVIL AND POLITICAL Passim

RIGHTS.

IV. LEGAL JOURNALS

S. No. TITLE OF JOURNAL Pg No.

1. ALL INDIA REPORTER (AIR) Passim

2. SUPREME COURT CASES (SCC) Passim

[V]BOOKS &COMMENTARIES
S.No AUTHOR TITLE EDITION PP

1. RV KELKAR’S CRIMINAL PROCEDURE 6 TH Edn Passim

2. M P JAIN INDIAN CONSTITUTIONAL 7 TH Edn Passim

LAW
3. H M SEERVAI CONSTITUTIONAL LAW OF 4 TH Edn Passim
INDIA - VOL 1
4. H M SEERVAI CONSTITUTIONAL LAW OF 3 RDEdn Passim
INDIA - VOL 1

5. H M SEERVAI CONSTITUTIONAL LAW OF 4 TH Edn Passim

INDIA - VOL 2
6. SARKAR’S SARKAR ON EVIDENCE - VOL 15TH Edn Passim
1

7. J N PANDEY CONSTITUTIONAL LAW OF 55TH Edn Passim

INDIA
8. RATANLAL & LAW OF EVIDENCE 25TH Edn Passim
DHIRAJLAL
THE
9. RATANLAL & THE INDIAN PENAL CODE 35TH Edn Passim
DHIRAJLAL

[VI]. ARTICLES
MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENTS
9

Downloaded by Swaraj Doshi ([email protected])

 lOMoARcPSD|37844599

3rd GURJEET SINGH MEMORIAL NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2022

TC - 16

S. NO. AUTHOR TITLE JOURNAL Pg No.

1. Gautam Bhatia State Surveillance and the Right National Law Passim
to Privacy in India: A School of India
Constitutional Biography Review

VI. DATABASES.

S. No. DATABASE Pg No.

1. www.heinonline.in (HEINONLINE) Passim

2. www.jstor.org (JSTOR) Passim

3. www.lexisnexis.in (LEXIS NEXIS) Passim

4. www.scconline.com ( SCC ONLINE) Passim

5. www.manupatra.in (MANUPATRA) Passim

6. www.livelaw.in (LIVE LAW) Passim

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

Writ Petition No.1/2021

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENTS

10

Downloaded by Swaraj Doshi ([email protected])

 lOMoARcPSD|37844599

3rd GURJEET SINGH MEMORIAL NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2022

TC - 16

THE RESPONDENT HAS THE HONOUR TO SUBMIT BEFORE THE HON’BLE

SUPREME COURT OF INDRI UNDER ARTICLE 32 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF
INDRI FOR THE VIOLATION OF FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS ENUMERATED IN PART
III OF THE CONSTITUTION.

Article 32 of the Indian Constitution reads as follows:

“Remedies for enforcement of rights conferred by this Part
(1) The right to move the Supreme Court by appropriate proceedings for the enforcement of
the rights conferred by this Part is guaranteed
(2) The Supreme Court shall have power to issue directions or orders or writs, including
writs in the nature of habeas corpus, mandamus, prohibition, quo warranto and certiorari,
whichever may be appropriate, for the enforcement of any of the rights conferred by this Part
(3) Without prejudice to the powers conferred on the Supreme Court by clause ( 1 ) and ( 2 ),
Parliament may by law empower any other court to exercise within the local limits of its
jurisdiction all or any of the powers exercisable by the Supreme Court under clause ( 2)
(4) The right guaranteed by this article shall not be suspended except as otherwise provided
for by this Constitution”

The present Memorandum Sets Forth the Facts, Contentions And Arguments In The
Present Case.

STATEMENT OF FACTS

[¶1]Ramta Jogi and Ali Baksh are two young engineers who graduated from the University of
Bostono, United Kingdom of Azerica (“UKA”). They had been awarded the highest
MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENTS
11

Downloaded by Swaraj Doshi ([email protected])

 lOMoARcPSD|37844599

3rd GURJEET SINGH MEMORIAL NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2022

TC - 16

scholarship namely - Roses which the Government of Indri (“GoI”) offers to the best minds
of the country. After graduation, Ramta bagged a job in Ameron (an ecommerce multi-
national corporation) whereas, Ali got placed in Flirtbook (a social networking
platform).Surprisingly Ramta and Ali left their job and came back to India and started living
in a small chawl in Farizabad, Ughra Pradesh. They never interacted with neighbours which
made them suspicious about the two boys.

[¶2]On 20.02.2022 at around 11:00 P.M., a 15-year-old boy living in the vicinity, witnessed a
truck park outside the premises where Ramta and Ali lived. As this boy was about to leave, he
saw Ramta and Ali loading huge trunks in the truck. Accidentally, the lock of one of the
trunks, broke open and big machine guns fell from it. The boy got anxious and quietly left the
scene. Upon reaching his home, he confronted his father of what he saw concerning Ramta
and Ali. The father of the boy namely Toofan Singh was an ex-cop with the police of Ughra
Pradesh. Toofan Singh who personally knew the town inspector of Faizabad, immediately
informed him about what his son had just witnessed. Within minutes, a huge battery of police
surrounded the premises of Ramta and Ali. Seeing this, Ramta and Ali attempted to flee from
there, however, they could not escape from the clutches of the cops deployed there.

[¶3]Upon a thorough search , the police were able to find a secret basement like structure that
contained tons of arms and ammunition along with huge liquid cash. All the found items were
seized and sent for forensic examination . A team of forensic experts were also called.
Further investigation by the police revealed that both Ramta and Ali had links with left wing
and right-wing extremist groups and for the past 5 years were supplying illegal weapons to
these groups to carry out unlawful activities within the territory of India.

[¶4]Accordingly, a FIR under Sections 13, 16, 17, 18, 21 of the UAPA , Section 25 of the
Arms Act, 1959 read with Section 120B of the IPC was registered against Ramta and Ali.
Both of them were remanded for 15 days of police custody.

[¶5]After scrutinization of bank accounts , laptop , mobile phones of the boys , the police
could find that they held crores of cryptocurrency and received crores of rupees from shell
entities. They also believed that the boys were into illegal weapon trading through Dark Web.
Considering the amount of money involved , the local police shared the financials of Ramta
and Ali with the ED. ED registered an ECIR under Sections 3 and 4 of the PMLA , 2002. On
the very next day , Notice was issued according to Section 50 of PMLA. ED sought issuance
of production warrants by the Special Court trying the case of Ramta Jogi and Ali Baksh and
MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENTS
12

Downloaded by Swaraj Doshi ([email protected])

 lOMoARcPSD|37844599

3rd GURJEET SINGH MEMORIAL NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2022

TC - 16

for their custody. The Special Court granted 6 days custody of Ramta Jogi and Ali Baksh.
This was extended by another spell of 9 days. During interrogation, Ramta Jogi and Ali
Baksh were subjected various incriminating evidences in their nature of irregular bank
account statements, fraudulent entries, etc. After 15 days of gruelling interrogation, Ramta
Jogi and Ali Baksh returned to the judicial custody.

[¶6]Ramta and Ali separately applied for grant of bail in qua the FIR registered by the police
of Faizabad and the ECIR registered by ED. However, the two Special Courts constituted
under the provisions of UAPA and PMLA rejected the Bail Applications filed Ramta and Ali
citing the special twin conditions provided under the said statutes. Ramta and Ali challenged
the orders of the two Special Courts before the jurisdictional High Court i.e., High Court of
Judicature at Illhadbad. Ramta and Ali had also sought for interim bail till the high court
finally decides the fate of Ramta and Ali. However, no interim relief as sought by Ramta and
Ali was granted by the Court.

[¶7]The hearing before the High Court lasted for an entire month. One of country’s finest
lawyer, Mr. Nakul Chohatgi represented Ramta and Ali. He argued nuances of the bail
jurisprudence to seek bail for his clients. However, the High Court similar to the decision of
Special Court(s), citing the twin conditions under the provisions of PMLA and UAPA
rejected the bail applications filed Ramta and Ali. 18.It has been 80 days since Ramta and Ali
have been languishing in jail and they are yet to be liberated from the confines of prison. This
is nothing short of pretrial conviction. Ramta and Ali are convinced that until the special twin
conditions are existent on the statute book, they cannot get out of the prison.

ISSUES RAISED

ISSUE I

WHETHER THE WRIT PETITION IS MAINTAINABLE OR NOT?

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENTS

13

Downloaded by Swaraj Doshi ([email protected])

 lOMoARcPSD|37844599

3rd GURJEET SINGH MEMORIAL NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2022

TC - 16

ISSUE II

SPECIAL TWIN CONDITIONS AS PROVIDED UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF PMLA

AND UAPA INSOFAR AS THE GRANT OF BAIL IS CONCERNED.

ISSUE III

WHETHER SECTION 50 OF PMLA VIOLATE THE BASIC TENETS OF INDIAN

EVIDENCE ACT, 1872?

ISSUE IV

REVERSE BURDEN OF PROOF ON THE ACCUSED UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF

THE UAPA

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS

[I] WHETHER THE WRIT PETITION IS MAINTAINABLE OR NOT?

It is humbly submitted before the hon’ble supreme court that present case in not maintainable
before the court. The petitioners do not have a locus standi to appear before the hon’ble court

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENTS

14

Downloaded by Swaraj Doshi ([email protected])

 lOMoARcPSD|37844599

3rd GURJEET SINGH MEMORIAL NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2022

TC - 16

by invoking Article 32 [1.1].The petitioners Ramta Jogi and Ali Baksh do not satisfies all the
conditions enumerated under Article 32 and their fundamental rights are not violated
enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution of Indri is violated [1.2]. Even the right to fair
trial is not granted [1.3]. Hence, the petition is not maintainable.

[II] SPECIAL TWIN CONDITIONS AS PROVIDED UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF

PMLA AND UAPA INSOFAR AS THE GRANT OF BAIL IS CONCERNED.

It is humbly submitted before the hon’ble that the special twin conditions as provided under
the provisions of the of PMLA and UAPA in the grant of bail are not violative of the
Fundamental Rights and reasonable restrictions can be put when the national security is at
threat[2.1]. The petitioners satisfy all the conditions mentioned [2.2] [2.3] [2.4]in which does
not grant them the right to bail.

[III] WHETHER SECTION 50 OF PMLA VIOLATE THE BASIC TENETS OF

INDIAN EVIDENCE ACT, 1872?

Section 50 of PMLA gives the power to the enforcement officials to summon or compel
production of documents from the person summoned. Article 20(3) of Indri Constitution is
not violated The power given for ED is for carrying out investigation as mentioned in Section
2(na) of PMLA. The accused is only a suspect as there is no formal complaint register by
Enforcement Director. It is well settled that ED is not police officers. Therefore Section 24
and 25 of Evidence Act is not applicable. ED is established due to the special enactment,
PMLA and its powers are confined to that Act. The confession made before ED is admissible
as they are not police officers and also the ED custody is not police custody.

Therefore the production of documents by Ramta and Ali is admissible before Court and the
findings by ED can be used by Court to decide whether they must receive bail or not.

[IV] REVERSE BURDEN OF PROOF ON THE ACCUSED UNDER THE

PROVISIONS OF THE UAPA.

As per section 43D(5) of UAPA it specifically makes clear that the bail proceeding under the
UAPA is distinct from the regular bail provisions as mentioned under the other legislations.
MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENTS
15

Downloaded by Swaraj Doshi ([email protected])

 lOMoARcPSD|37844599

3rd GURJEET SINGH MEMORIAL NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2022

TC - 16

As per section 43D(5) of UAPA the accused cannot be released on bail if there are reasonable
grounds for believing that the accusation against such person is prima facie true. Therefore
the petitioners were caught with prima facie evidence of tons of arms and ammunitions along
with huge liquid cash from their secret basement.

As per the facts, substances carried in by the respondents were explosive substances, which
attracts the section 43E of the UAPA under which the court shall presume that the accused
has committed such offence and therefore the burden of proof lies on the accused.

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED

[I] WHETHER THE WRIT IS MAINTAINABLE OR NOT?

[¶1]It is humbly submitted to this Hon’ble Supreme Court of Indri that in the given factual
matrix, there is no necessity or compulsion for the intervention of this Hon’ble Court and
invoking its powers under Article 32. Both the petitioners do not have locus standi to appear
MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENTS
16

Downloaded by Swaraj Doshi ([email protected])

 lOMoARcPSD|37844599

3rd GURJEET SINGH MEMORIAL NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2022

TC - 16

before the Supreme Court in this matter. The petition lacks the essential ingredients to
maintain the matter before the Apex Court.

[1.1] No Locus Standi To The Petitioner

[¶2]No action lies in the Supreme Court under Art. 32 1 unless there is an infringement of a
Fundamental Right,2 as the Supreme Court has previously emphasized that “The violation of
Fundamental Right is the sine qua non of the exercise of the right conferred by Art. 32”. 3 In
the given case, there is no Fundamental rights has been infringed. In addition to this, a person
acquires a locus standi, when he has to have a personal or individual right which has been
violated or threatened to be violated.4 Since, no right of petitioner has been infringed, he has
no locus standi before the Court. Mere apprehension that the petitioner would be deprived of
his Fundamental Right is not enough to invoke the jurisdiction of the Court under Art. 32.5

[¶3]The fundamental rights mentioned under Article 21 6 and 147 falls with the purview of the
reasonable restrictions and so it can be subjected to restrictions when there is a threat to the
national security of the state.

[1.2] No Irregularity Of Procedure Or Violation Of Fundamental Rights Or Principle

Of Natural Justice Is Being Done

[¶4]It is humbly pleaded that ‘procedure’ means the manner and form of enforcing the law. 8
The procedure that is being followed must be just, fair and reasonable. 9 In the instant case,
the acts of police and charge framed by the lower courts clearly falls within the purview of
‘due procedure established by law’ under Art. 2110 by following all the laws and the manner
of enforcing the law is fully justified in the instant case. Thus, since in the instant case the
procedure is established by law, so there is no proximity of violation of Art. 2111.

[II] SPECIAL TWIN CONDITIONS AS PROVIDED UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF

PMLA AND UAPA INSOFAR AS THE GRANT OF BAIL IS CONCERNED.

1INDRI CONST. art 32, (parimateria to the Constitution of India).

2Andhra Industrial Works v. Chief Controller of Imports, AIR 1974 SC 1539.
3Fertilizer Corp. Kamgar Union v. Union of India, AIR 1981 SC 344.
4Calcutta Gas Co. Ltd. v. State of West Bengal, AIR 1962 SC 1044.
5Magan Bhai v. Union of India, 1969 AIR 783.
6 INDRI CONST, art 21, (parimateria to the Constitution of India).
7 INDRI CONST, art 14, (parimateria to the Constitution of India).
8A K Gopalan v. Noorudeen, 1970 AIR 1694.
9Maneka Gandhi v. UOI, AIR 1978SC 597.
10INDRI CONST, art 21, Supra note 6.
11 Id.
MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENTS
17

Downloaded by Swaraj Doshi ([email protected])

 lOMoARcPSD|37844599

3rd GURJEET SINGH MEMORIAL NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2022

TC - 16

[¶5]The special twin conditions under both the provisions of PMLA and UAPA are
completely just and fair, and the bail conditions thus provided are in order maintain the
national security of the state. Incarcerating the accused even before the trial is important in
order to ensure that there will be a fair trial and that the accused won’t tamper with the
evidence, abscond or interfere with the trial.

[2.1] Narrow approach of court in granting bail

[¶6]In a regular criminal case, Bail is usually the norm and the pre-trial jail is always the
exception. But if there is a high chance that the accused can later interfere with the fair trial if
released in bail then, it can be denied. The Indian jurisprudence is based on the strong legal
presumption of innocence and hails the idea of freedom and liberty. But the same can be
compromised in extraordinary circumstances where these rights granted under the
constitution of Indri can be put to hold if it hampers the national security of the state.

[¶7]The hon’ble Supreme Court in the case C.B.I. Vs. Amar Mani Tripathi12highlighted that
the bail can be granted normally unless it has exceptional factors for denying it which is
provided in the case. And in the facts, it can be clearly seen that the accused come within the
sphere of the above judgement and were caught with the prima facie evidence and the crime
and the severity of charge was grave. And hence, the bail of Ramta Jogi and Ali Baksh can be
denied based on that.

[¶8]Reasonable restrictions can be put on the bail conditions with regards to the security of
the state and this was highlighted in the case Kamlapati Trivedi v. State of West Bengal13
where the hon’ble supreme court emphasised on bail with two conditions, i.e. the right of the
accused’s freedom and the public interest. The public interest can be given more preference
over the accused’s freedom based on the gravity of the offence 14 and fundamental right can be
eclipsed for the interest of the society in accordance with the circumstance.

[¶9] It is humbly pleaded before the hon’ble court that while granting of bail there are certain
criteria that should be followed which was highlighted in the case State of UP through CBI v.
Amaramani Tripathy15. They are:

12C.B.I. Vs. Amar Mani Tripathi, AIR 2005 SC 3490.

13Kamalapati Trivedi v. State of West Bengal, AIR 1979 SC 777.
14Pappu Yadav v. CBI,AIR 2007 SC 451.
15Supra note 12.
MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENTS
18

Downloaded by Swaraj Doshi ([email protected])

 lOMoARcPSD|37844599

3rd GURJEET SINGH MEMORIAL NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2022

TC - 16

(i) whether there is any prima facie or reasonable ground to believe that the accused had
committed the offence;

(ii) nature and gravity of the charge;

(iii) severity of the punishment in the event of conviction;

(iv) danger of the accused absconding or fleeing, if released on bail;

(v) character, behaviour, means, position and standing of the accused;

(vi) likelihood of the offence being repeated;

(vii) reasonable apprehension of the witnesses being tampered with; and

(viii) danger of course of justice being thwarted by grant of bail

[2.2] Prima facie or reasonable ground to believe that the accused has committed
offence

[¶10]In order to determine a Prima facie case, it is important to analyse whether the given
evidence is sufficient enough to reach at a conclusion 16. So, with the given evidence by the
police if the probability of accusation increases then the bail can be denied at the very first
instance17. When the hon’ble court examines the evidences and found it to be convincing
enough then it won’t have to weigh the merits and demerits of evidences rather at the
possibility of the evidences to be true at the stage of bail18.

[¶11]It is pleaded before the hon’ble court that the accused were caught red handed with a
secret basement which was occupied by them with full of arms and ammunitions along with
huge liquid cash which is sufficient enough to prove the prima facie case. Hence the bail
should be denied.

[2.3] Danger of the accused absconding, if released on bail

[¶12]One of the circumstances that is regarded while grating the bail is the possibility
whether the accused will abscond or will knowingly miss out on the dates. So, it will again
further lead to the delay in the judgement. The same was seen in the case Hussain v. Union

16Martin Burn Ltd. v. R.N. Banerjee , AIR 1958 SC 79.

17State vs Tahir Hussain and ors, MANU/OT/0024/2022.
18National Investigation Agency vs. Zahoor Ahmad Shah Watali,AIR 2019 SC 1734.
MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENTS
19

Downloaded by Swaraj Doshi ([email protected])

 lOMoARcPSD|37844599

3rd GURJEET SINGH MEMORIAL NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2022

TC - 16

of India19 where the court pointed out the possibilities of an accused for absconding a trail
after bail.

[¶13]Further if we look into the facts of the case then there was a clear witness, a fifteen-year
boy who saw them loading the trunks in the truck. So, there is a direct witness in this case
which increases their possibility of being convicted20. If there is a clear witness of an incident,
then the bail can be denied on the statement of that witness. In the case Khilari vs State Of
U.P.&Ors21 on 23 January, 2009 where the hon’ble Supreme Court denied the bail on the sole
basis that the informant has seen the incident and was a clear witness.

The council humbly pleads that the bail should be denied for the accused as there was a
witness to the incident.

[2.4] Reasonable apprehension of tampering the evidence

[¶14] The counsel would like to highlight the case of State of Karnataka v. Adithya Rao22,
where the hon’ble court held that the accused were well educated and literate. They better
knew the outcome of their actions and hence there is a great chance of them tampering with
the evidences.

[¶15]The very fact that the both the accused Ramta Jogi and Ali Baksh were engineers who
graduated from the University of Bostono, UKA and were the brightest students shows their
capability and advanced knowledge23. This itself makes it were clear that they have the full
potential to tamper the evidences related to the illegal transactions done in the dark web24.

[¶16]Not only this, they also had links with the left-wing and right-wing extremist groups foe
the past five years illustrates their high reach and connection which easily help them out to
wipe out the evidences25.

[¶17]It is humbly pleaded before the hon’ble court that the bail should be denied for both the
accused as they can tamper with the evidences thus obtained and this will delay in the trail
proceedings and creating a threat to the National Security and Sovereignty of the State.

[2.5] Impact of social media

19Hussain v. Union Of India,MANU/SC/0274/2017.

20Moot Proposition , Pg 1, Para 3.
21Khilari vs. State of U.P. and Ors., MANU/SC/0073/2009.
22State of Karnataka v. Adithya Rao,Sessions Case No.70/2020.
23Moot Proposition , Pg. 1, Para 1.
24Moot Proposition , Pg. 2. Para 9.
25Moot Proposition , Pg. 2, Para 5.
MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENTS
20

Downloaded by Swaraj Doshi ([email protected])

 lOMoARcPSD|37844599

3rd GURJEET SINGH MEMORIAL NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2022

TC - 16

[¶18]The Preamble of Constitution of Indri, inter alia speaks liberty of thought, expression,
faith and worship. Two essential elements of democracy are free and open discussion. The
freedom to express one’s view is the life of every democratic institution and violation of this
right would amount to inconsistency with the basic democratic framework. 26 Freedom of
expression is the fourth pillar of democracy. People’s right to say, print, distribute, and
discuss in civil society indicates the democratic nature of the said civil society.

[¶19] It is humbly submitted before this Hon’ble court that the scope of freedom of press was
recognized as an essential prerequisite of a democratic form of government and regarded it as
the mother of all other liberties in democratic society. 27 The liberty of the press is the
palladium of all the civil, political, and religious rights. In a democratic set up the press can
act as a bridge between the government and the people. This right is very important at the
stage of the formation of the government. Democracy cannot survive without this right. Press
is the fourth pillar of democracy, which exercises this right of freedom of speech and
expression.28

[¶20]In fact, in Printers (Mysore) Ltd. v. Assistance Commercial Tax Officer, 29 the Supreme
Court has reiterated that it is implicit in the all-democratic countries and the press has rightly
been described as the fourth estate. The democratic credentials of a state are judged by the
extent of freedom the press enjoys in that state. It is a known fact that Media is an important
and inseparable part of a democratic society and called as the fourth pillar of democracy.

[¶21]In this instant case, the media played a significant role in covering the case progress and
the follow-ups of the same. They are even trying to follow them up with which they can come
up with evidences. It to an extent helps to unleash the truth.

[2.6] Twin conditions under PMLA

[¶21]Section 3830 defines money laundering. The general principle is that a person so
involved must be found rendering financial assistance to the accused of terrorist/disruptive
activities, or could be reasonably suspected in indulging in such activities 31. Section 24 of the

26LIC v Manubhai D shah, AIR 1993 SC 171.

27Re:Harijai Singh v. Re Vijay Kumar (1996) 6 SCC 466.
28Rahul Deo, Freedom of Press: Fourth Pillar of Democracy, LAWCTOPUS ACADEMIKE, (Nov. 10, 2020,
9:29 PM) , https://www.lawctopus.com/academike/freedom-press-pillar-democracy/.
29 Printers (Mysore) Ltd. v. Assistance Commercial Tax Officer, (1994) 2 SCC 434.
30 Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, §38, No.15, Acts of Parliament, 2003.
31Yakub Abdul Razak Memon v. State of Maharashtra, MANU/SC/0825/2015.
MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENTS
21

Downloaded by Swaraj Doshi ([email protected])

 lOMoARcPSD|37844599

3rd GURJEET SINGH MEMORIAL NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2022

TC - 16

Act puts the burden of proof on the accused. Such burden can be discharged by showing a
preponderance of probabilities32.

[¶22] In the case of P. Chidambaram v. Directorate of Enforcement33 the Supreme Court has
reiterated a “triple test” that can be used to satisfying in cases of granting of bail.

 That the accused is not at “flight risk.”

 That there is no chances of tampering with evidences.
 That there are no likelihood that the accused shall influence the witnesses.

[¶23]It is humbly pleaded before the hon’ble court that both the accused were found with a
huge liquid cash in the basement occupied by them 34. This eventually attracts the nature and
severity of their crime which is a threat to the state. So, the bail should not be granted to the
accused.

[III] WHETHER SECTION 50 OF PMLA VIOLATE THE BASIC TENETS OF

INDIAN EVIDENCE ACT, 1872?

[3.1] ED officers are not police officers

[¶24]Indian Evidence Act, 187235 speaks about the admissibility of evidence in criminal
proceedings. In most of the criminal proceedings, the evidence is collected by the police
officers who then present it to Magistrate in the form of a report so that the Magistrate can
analyse the facts and circumstance on the basis of those reports. The prima facie or
preliminary investigation is done by the Police officers.

[¶25] It is further submitted that in order to see the validity of the actions of the authority
under PMLA, first we have to look at whether ED officials are considered as Police officers
in the general sense. The definition of a police officer is not expressly available in any statue.
In the case Directorate of Enforcement v. Deepak Mahajan36, the Court stated that the word
Police officer is not defined in any statute but they found that Section 1 of Police Act, 1861 37
which is an interpretation clause defines police as anyone who is enrolled under the Police

32Bhupendrasingh A Chudasma v. State of Gujarat, (1998) 2 SCC 603.

33P. Chidambaram v. Directorate of Enforcement, AIR 2020 SC 1699.
34Moot Proposition, Pg. 1. Para 4.
35Indian Evidence Act, 1872, No.1, Act of Parliament, 1872 (India).
36Directorate of Enforcement v. Deepak Mahajan, AIR 1994 SC 1775.
37The Police Act, 1861, § 1 , No. 1, Act of Parliament, 1861 (India).
MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENTS
22

Downloaded by Swaraj Doshi ([email protected])

 lOMoARcPSD|37844599

3rd GURJEET SINGH MEMORIAL NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2022

TC - 16

Act of 1861.Section 238 of the same Act tells that the police officer must be formally enrolled.
Section 839 of Police Act makes it mandatory that a police officer shall receive a certificate
inspector-general in order to vest the officer with the powers, functions and privileges
authorised. Police Act 188840 enables the central government to constitute police officers for
special purpose. Other than these two statutes , no other clue has been given to who a police
officer is. Therefore the police officer in the Indian Evidence Act is construed to these
category of Police officers.

[¶26]It is contended that there is no mention about enforcement officers in the entire Act.
Enforcement officers are officers who came into existence due to the presence of Special
laws enacted by the parliament. There is no specific statute in PMLA that gives the powers of
a police officer to Enforcement officials. But the powers given to authorised officers resemble
to that of officers under the Customs Act 41, NDPS Act42 etc. It is settled that any officer has
the power to arrest and produce the accused before magistrate within 24 hours but no
extension of power is available from this. The case State of Punjab v. Barkat Ram43holds the
same. But in the Deepak Mahajan case44the court gave a wider and broad interpretation and
held that the ED officers will have the power to remand accused and receive their custody as
well for the purpose of investigation. The same interpretation was followed in Ashok Munilal
Jain v. Assistant Directorate45, ED. As ED is created by the PMLA statute , they are bound to
exercise the powers that are confined within the Act.

[¶27]Further, in the case of Deepak Mahajan46, the court held that customs officers as well as
officer of enforcement are not police officers even though they are both given similar powers,
functions or privileges. The prime factor to consider is the source of power that enforcement
officer and a police officer receive. Police officer are created from general statute whereas
Enforcement officer are created from special laws or special enactments that strive to
eradicate a particular evil of the society.

[3.2] PMLA Provisions indicate that ED officers are not police officers

38Id., § 2.
39supra note 37, § 8.
40The Police Act, 1888, No. 3, Act of Parliament, 1888 (India).
41The Customs Act, 1962, No.52, Act of Parliament , 1962 ( India).
42The Narcotics Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, No. 61, Act of Parliament , 1985 (India).
43State of Punjab v. Barkat Ram, AIR 1962 SC 276.
44supra note 36.
45Ashok Munilal Jain V. Assistant Directorate, MANU/SC/1846/2017.
46supranote 36.
MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENTS
23

Downloaded by Swaraj Doshi ([email protected])

 lOMoARcPSD|37844599

3rd GURJEET SINGH MEMORIAL NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2022

TC - 16

[¶28]It is further stated that Section 49(3) of PMLA47 provides that the central government
will have the power to regulate the duties and powers of the authority under the said Act.
Section 4848 specifies the authorities that are approved as the officers under the Act. Section
45(1A) of PMLA49 expressly specify that no police officer shall investigate unless
specifically ordered by central government by general or special order. Section 2(na)50 defines
an investigation and it is defined as the proceedings under the Act that is carried by the
Director or any authority authorised by central government and not police officers. The prime
authorised officer for investigation is the Director of ED.

[¶29]Section 54 of PMLA51 specifies that certain officers such as Income tax authorities,
custom officers, Officers under NDPS Act are empowered and required to assist the ED.The
provisions of PMLA are sufficient enough to prove that ED officers are not police officers.
[¶30]The sufficiency of PMLA provisions is upheld in the case Vakamulla Chandrashekhar
vs Enforcement Directorate &Anr52. The court was of the view that if Section 54 of PMLA
enable a range of officers to assist ED officials, then there is no need for officers of police to
assist them as ED itself is the police officers under the Act to carry out the investigation.

[3.3] Admissibility of Evidencewhen ED is not police officer.

[¶31]Section 2553 of Indian Evidence Act specifies that Confession made before police officer
is not admissible. The word police officer in the provision would mean the police officer
under Section 162 of CrPc54. If we look back at who a police officer is under CrPc, the
answer would be Section 1 of Police Act 1861 55 and Police Act of 1888 under which ED
officers is not included. Therefore it can be concluded that the confession before ED is
admissible. In the case Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Rajamundry vs. Duncan Agro
Industries Ltd. and Ors,56The judgement was based on Section 108 of Customs Act57. As
Section 50 of PMLA and 108 of Customs Act are similar , this judgement would be
applicable in the case of PMLA too. The court held that the statement made before any person

47supra note 30, § 49(3).

48Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, § 48, No.15, Acts of Parliament, 2003 (India).
49Id. , § 45(1A).
50supra note 48, § 2(na).
51Id., § 54.
52Vakamulla Chandrashekhar vs Enforcement Directorate &Anr, MANU/DE/3614/2017.
53Indian Evidence Act, 1872, § 25, No.1, Act of Parliament, 1872 (India).
54The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, § 162, No. 2 , Act of Parliament , 1974 (India).
55supra note 37.
56Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Rajamundry vs. Duncan Agro Industries Ltd. and Ors, AIR 2000 SC
2901.
57supra note 41, § 108.
MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENTS
24

Downloaded by Swaraj Doshi ([email protected])

 lOMoARcPSD|37844599

3rd GURJEET SINGH MEMORIAL NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2022

TC - 16

other than police officer is acceptable except the confession is not made when in custody and
those confessions will not have any tinge of inadmissibility provided it is not taken when the
accused is in custody. Court also cautioned that the statements before non-personnel police
officer has to be confirmed by the court.

[¶32]The Test of admissibility in Section 2458 of Indian Evidence Act has to conducted before
the court giving approval for admissibility that is the confession must be void of inducement,
threat etc. If the confession proved to be due to inducement or threat then the statement is
useless. As ED is not police officer, if the accused is in the custody of ED, it cannot be
classified as police custody. The custody is only granted for collection of evidence.

[¶33]Further in case Francis Stanly vs. Intelligence Officer, Narcotic Control Bureau,
Thiruvananthapuram59 ,the accused was charged under NDPS Act and the accused gave the
statement before the officer entitled under the NDPS Act hailing from Department of
Revenue and not before police officer. The Supreme Court held that the confession is
admissible and is not invalid by virtue of Section 25 of Indian Evidence Act. The court also
held that such confessions are subjected to close scrutiny and should be devoid of the factors
mentioned in Section 24 of Evidence Act such as threat ,inducement or force.

[3.4] Statement before ED is admissible

[¶34]It is counsel of respondents relies on the case Chief Enforcement Officer, Enforcement
Directorate, Government of India Vs. D. Uttamchand Jain 60, where the Supreme Court have
undisputed the fact that statement given before ED is admissible as evidence but the evidence
given before a police officer is inadmissible as per Section 25 61 of Indian Evidence Act.
Further in Ripen Kumar case62, the Section in question is Section 108 of Customs Act63 which
is similar to that of Section 50 of PMLA 64. The court held that the statement of witness is
admissible but it has to be cross-examined. Section 50(4) of PMLA65 says that the
proceedings under Section 50(2) and (3)66 would amount to judicial proceeding as defined in

58supra note 53, § 24.

59Francis Stanly vs. Intelligence Officer, Narcotic Control Bureau, Thiruvananthapuram, AIR 2007 SC 794.
60Chief Enforcement Officer, Enforcement Directorate, Government of India Vs. D. Uttamchand Jain,
MANU/TN/3881/2010.
61supra note 53.
62Ripen Kumar V. Department of Customs, MANU/DE/1009/2000.
63supra note 57.
64Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, § 50, No.15, Acts of Parliament, 2003 (India).
65Id., § 50(4).
66supra note 64, § 50(2), §50(3).
MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENTS
25

Downloaded by Swaraj Doshi ([email protected])

 lOMoARcPSD|37844599

3rd GURJEET SINGH MEMORIAL NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2022

TC - 16

Section 19367 and 22868 of IPC. In Rohit Tandon case69,the court is of the view that out of 24
evidences given, 7 of them are admissible in view of Section 50 of PMLA 70 as it has
evidentiary value according to Section 50(4) of PMLA71.

[¶35]It is further submitted that Section 33 of Indian Evidence Act 72 states that the statement
given by witness during a judicial proceeding or investigation is relevant . Section 50 (4) 73
classifies the procedure under Section 50 to be a part of judicial proceeding. Therefore the
summons and production of documents is therefore admissible in the light of Section 33 of
Indian Evidence Act.

[3.5] There is no infringement of Article 20(3)

[¶36]It is humbly submitted that Article 20(3) of Indri Constitution gives protection to
accused against evidence of self-incriminating content as well the right to remain silent.
Section 50 of PMLA74 doesn’t violate the elements of Article 20(3)75. According to Section
2(na) of PMLA76 “Investigation” includes all the proceedings under this act conducted by the
director or by an authority authorized by the Central Government under this Act for the
collection of evidence. Therefore collection of evidence is the prime duty of ED. ED take up
cases to investigate the proceeds of the crime as their reasonable grounds to believe that the
source of money is illegal and at the same time PMLA is covered in FIR. In the case Dalmia
Cement (Bharat) Limited v Assistant Director of Enforcement Directorate77,the court held that
mere charge of an ECIR doesn’t constitute the summoned person as accused. The power
given under Section 50 of PMLA78 is for summoning the person to collect evidence and the
person is not constituted as an accused under the offence of money-laundering as the guilt is
not yet proved. As far as petitioners are concerned, they are only suspects under Section 3 of
PMLA79 which says any who is indulged in illegal proceeds of crime is guilty of money-
laundering.

67Indian Penal Code, 1860, § 193, No. 45, Act of Parliament , 1860 (India).
68Id., § 228.
69Rohit Tandon vs. The Enforcement Directorate, AIR 2017 SC 5309.
70supra note 64.
71supra note 64, § 50(4).
72supra note 53, § 33.
73supra note 71.
74supra note 64.
75supra note 1. art. 20(3).
76supra note 50.
77 Dalmia Cement (Bharat) Limited v Assistant Director of Enforcement Directorate, MANU/AP/0055/2016.
78supra note 64.
79Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, § 3, No.15, Acts of Parliament, 2003 (India).
MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENTS
26

Downloaded by Swaraj Doshi ([email protected])

 lOMoARcPSD|37844599

3rd GURJEET SINGH MEMORIAL NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2022

TC - 16

[¶37]PMLA include provisions for investigation, adjudication and prosecution. Section 50 of

PMLA80 comes under the investigation part. There is no adjudication or prosecution initiated
by ED yet. Filing a complaint under Section 3 of PMLA 81 along with Section 200 of CrPc82
would amount to consideration of petitioners as accused. ED has not initiated a complaint
against the petitioners, Ramta Jogi and Ali Baksh , therefore it is not appropriate to say that
Article 2083 of the Constitution has been violated.

[IV] REVERSE BURDEN OF PROOF ON THE ACCUSED UNDER THE

PROVISIONS OF THE UAPA

[¶38]It is most humbly submitted before the Hon’ble court that the main objective of the
enactment UAPA is to provide an effective prevention of unlawful activities or any matters
connected to it, by the individuals or any associations. Therefore it shows that the act was
enacted for the protection of the individuals and the sovereignty of the state. Terrorism is
considered as one of the global issues. Many organizations and countries consider terrorism
as a pervasive issue. Hence the state is responsible to protect the security and welfare of the
citizens therefore it is necessary to have certain stringent laws in order to have national
security

[4.1] Burden of proof on the accuse

[¶39]It is most humbly submitted before the Hon’ble court that, the Unlawful Activities
Prevention Act, 1967 is one such law enforced in order to protect the security and welfare of
the citizens. As per the suggestion made by 47 th Report of the Law Commission, 1972, it is
recommended to have special effort for enforcement in cases pertaining to narcotics,
corruption, food adulteration and terrorism since it threatens the ‘health or material welfare of
the community as a whole’, Hence in the instant mater it was the need of the hour to take
actions with an immediate effect.84

80supra note 64.

81supra note 79.
82The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, § 200, No. 2 , Act of Parliament , 1974 (India).
83supra note 1, art. 20.
84 Law Commission on India, “47th Report – The Trial and Punishment of Social and Economic Offences”
(1972) at pg. 2&4 (highlighting, inter alia, that avaricious or rapacious motive of the criminal, non-emotional
background of the crime, fraud as the mode of operation, etc.).
MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENTS
27

Downloaded by Swaraj Doshi ([email protected])

 lOMoARcPSD|37844599

3rd GURJEET SINGH MEMORIAL NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2022

TC - 16

[¶40]In the case of Virupakshappa Gouda Vs State of Karnataka, 85 Supreme Court held that
based on the mere facts of the charge sheet that has been submitted against the accused will
not reduce the allegations made by the prosecution and the bail application cannot be granted
solely based on the ground of fundament principle of the criminal jurisprudence, that the
accused is presumed to be innocent until he is found guilty by the court.

[¶41]Similarly in the case of Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre Vs State of Maharashtra86 the

court while looking into the bail application observed that there should be a balance between
the interest of the society as well as the personal liberty while considering to the fundamental
principle of criminal jurisprudence that the accused is considered to be innocent until he is
proven guilty by the court. This has to applied y looking at the facts of the case. Thus a bail
cannot be granted to the accused just on the ground of fundament principles of criminal
jurisprudence. Thus by considering the facts of the case here the police has found many tons
of arms and ammunitions along with huge liquid cash in their secret basements. So by
considering the gravity of the offence the societal interest should not be compromised with
the liberty of the individual.

[¶42]Moreover in certain offenses that are against the public welfare then the injury of the
society will be far greater.87 Consequently, there is a high chance that by continuing with the
normal standerds of burden of proof that the effort of the state to address and regulate the
increasing incidents might get delayed.88

[¶43]Again in the case of Masroor Vs State of Uttar Pradesh,89 the Supreme Court held that
right of liberty of individual and the interest of the society has to be balanced. The liberty of
the accused has to depend upon the gravity of the case and the interest of the society should
outweight.

[¶44]Further when the prosecution is encountering the case there will be certain difficulties
in order to obtain and collect the proof and evidence of the matters which will be mostly
known by the accused.90 Reverse burden of proof is also rendering the same goal as followed
by the tradition standers of burden of proof since both the principle aims at obtaining “ the

85Virupakshappa Gouda Vs State of Karnataka, (2017) 5 SCC 406.

86Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre Vs State of Maharashtra, (2011) 1 SCC 694.
87Id.
88Id. At 86
89Masroor Vs State of Uttar Pradesh, (2009) 14 SCC 286.
90 Paul Roberts, “Taking the Burden of Proof Seriously”, Criminal L. Rev. (1985) 783 at pg. 785.
MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENTS
28

Downloaded by Swaraj Doshi ([email protected])

 lOMoARcPSD|37844599

3rd GURJEET SINGH MEMORIAL NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2022

TC - 16

fair balance between the general interest of the community and the personal rights of the
individual”.91

[¶45]As per section 43-D92Modified application of certain provisions of the Code.—(1)

Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code or any other law, every offence punishable
under this Act shall be deemed to be a cognizable offence within the meaning of clause (c) of
Section 2 of the Code, and “cognizable case” as defined in that clause shall be construed
accordingly.

(5) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code, no person accused of an offence

punishable under Chapters IV and VI of this Act shall, if in custody, be released on bail or on
his own bond unless the Public Prosecutor has been given an opportunity of being heard on
the application for such release:

Provided that such accused person shall not be released on bail or on his own bond if the
Court, on a perusal of the case diary or the report made under Section 173 of the Code is of
the opinion that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the accusation against such
person is prima facie true.

[¶46]As per the above-mentioned section of UAPA it specifically makes clear that the bail
proceeding under the UAPA is distinct from the regular bail provisions as mentioned under
the other legislations. As per section 43D(5) of UAPA 93 the accused cannot be released on
bail if there are reasonable grounds for believing that the accusation against such person is
prima facie true. As in the present facts Ramta and Ali was found with huge trunks of
machine guns and also by searching their premises the police also found a secret basement
where it was filled with tones of arms and ammunition along with huge liquid cash 94. Thus
the circumstantial evidence of the present facts shows that there was prima facie evidence
against accuse.

[¶47]Furthermore in the case of Chandra case95 and State of U.P. v. Amarmani Tripathi96 the
Supreme Court while observing the case suggested certain conditions while considering the
bail application, based on the nature and seriousness of the case and on the supporting

91Brown v. Stott,2003, 1 A.C. 681 at pg. 704, per Lord Bingham. Also see R. v. DPP ex-parteKebilene ,2000, 2
A.C. 326 at pg. 384, per Lord Hope.
92Unlawful activities ( Prevention) Act, 1967, § 43 D, No.37, Act of Parliament , 1967 (India).
93 Id. § 43 D, cl.(5).
94Moot Proposition, Pg. 1 , Para 4.
95Sanjay Chandra v. CBI , (2012) 1 SCC 40.
96State of U.P. v. Amarmani Tripathi , (2005) 8 SCC 21.
MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENTS
29

Downloaded by Swaraj Doshi ([email protected])

 lOMoARcPSD|37844599

3rd GURJEET SINGH MEMORIAL NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2022

TC - 16

evidence, Based on the ability of the accused to tamper the evidence or being a threat to the
witness and also the prima facie satisfaction of the court.

[¶48]As per the present facts both the accuse Ramta Jogi and Ali Baksh are highly educated
and being employed in high profile companies like Amerone and Flirtbook 97. Therefore it
shows that the accused is literate enough to know the outcomes of the case and the actions he
has done. Thus by considering the facts of the case and the circumstantial evidence if the
accused is granted bail easily then there is a high possibility that they will manipulate and
tamper the evidence with the knowledge and contacts they have.
[¶49]The circumstantial evidence in a criminal case plays a crucial role since it is considered
as a proof. These evidences can also be the sole evidence if it satisfies the circumstances
through which the guilt was established or may be fully proved, were the circumstance is in
conclusive nature and the facts should also be in consistent with the guilt of the accused
[¶50]In the case of Anwar Ali and another Vs State of Himachal Pradesh 98, the Supreme
Court held that while considering the circumstantial evidence, it should show that the
evidence collected is a complete chain and out of which there is no escape from the
conclusion of all human probabilities. And there should be no other explanation of other
possibilities of the accused to sustain the conviction.
[¶51]So by considering the present facts, Ramta and Ali was found with huge trunks of
machine guns and also when police entered their premises they attempted to flee from there,
by searching their premises the police also found a secret basement where it was filled with
tones of arms and ammunition along with huge liquid cash 99. They also Thus the
circumstantial evidence of the present facts shows that there was prima facie evidence against
accuse. Therefore the fact itself directly implies that they are guilty of the offence.
[¶52]The acts committed by Ramta Jogi and Ali Baksh attracts section 15(1)(a) of the
UAPA100. In the light of above contentions it is humbly pleaded before the Hon’ble court that
the possession of the arms found by the police attracts section 15 101 and hence they can be
charged under terrorist act.
[¶53]Section 15 of UAPA also envisages Section 43E102 which says that,

97Moot Proposition , Pg.1 , Para 1.

98Anwar Ali and another Vs State of Himachal Pradesh, AIR 2020 SC 4519.
99supra note 94.
100supra note 92, § 15,(1),(a).
101supra note 92, § 15.
102supra note 92, § 43E.
MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENTS
30

Downloaded by Swaraj Doshi ([email protected])

 lOMoARcPSD|37844599

3rd GURJEET SINGH MEMORIAL NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2022

TC - 16

In a prosecution for an offence under section 15, if it is proved:

(a) that the arms or explosives or any other substances specified in the said section were
recovered from the possession of the accused and there is reason to believe that such arms or
explosives or other substances of a similar nature were used in the commission of such
offence; or

(b) that by the evidence of the expert the fingerprints of the accused or any other definitive
evidence suggesting the involvement of the accused in the offence were found at the site of the
offence or on anything including arms and vehicles used in connection with the commission
of such offence,

the Court shall presume, unless the contrary is shown, that the accused has committed such
offence.

[¶54]It is most humbly submitted before the Hon’ble court that in the light of above
contention that the substances carried in by the respondents were explosive substances, which
attracts the section 43E of the UAPA under which the court shall presume that the accused
has committed such offence and therefore the burden of proof lies on the accused.

[4.2] Reverse burden and the Constitutional status

[¶55]It is most humbly submitted before the Hon’ble court that the constitutionality of
reverse burden of proof in UAPA should be tested based on the states responsibility to protect
the citizens and the sovereignty of the nation.

[¶56]In the case Noor Aga v. State of Punjab103 Supreme Court held that presumption of
innocence is a human right which is envisaged under Article 14(2) of the International
Convention on Civil and Political Rights. This cannot be considered equal to the fundamental
rights of right to liberty under article 21 of the constitution of India.

103Noor Aga v. State of Punjab, 2008 16 SCC 417.

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENTS
31

Downloaded by Swaraj Doshi ([email protected])

 lOMoARcPSD|37844599

3rd GURJEET SINGH MEMORIAL NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2022

TC - 16

PRAYER

WHEREFORE, in the light of the issues raised, arguments advanced and authorities cited, it
is most humbly prayed before this Hon’ble Court that it may be pleased to

Dismiss, the present Writ Petition.

AND/OR pass any other order or orders as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the
circumstances of the case and in the interest of Justice, Equity and Good Conscience.

All of which is most humbly and respectfully submitted.

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENTS

32

Downloaded by Swaraj Doshi ([email protected])

 lOMoARcPSD|37844599

3rd GURJEET SINGH MEMORIAL NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2022

TC - 16

Date: __/__/ 2022 (S/D)

Place: Supreme Court of Indri (COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENTS)

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENTS

33

Downloaded by Swaraj Doshi ([email protected])