Está en la página 1de 36

TC-01

THE 5th NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION "CHECKMATE" 2015 ARMY


INSTITUTE OF LAW

BEFORE THE HONOURABLE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA


Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction
&
Original Writ Jurisdiction
In the matter of,
Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure &
Articles 32, 14, 19 of the Constitution Of India

Criminal Appeal No. 32 of 2015,

Manu Sharma v. U.T. of Chandigarh


With
Criminal Appeal No. 33 of 2015,

Vaibhav Sharma v. State of Punjab


With
W.P.(C). No. 16 of 2015,

Manu Sharma v. Union of India

APPELLANT

VERSUS

RESPONDENT

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT


i

THE 5TH NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION,CHECKMATE 2015 ARMY


INSTITUTE OF LAW

TABLE OF CONTENTS

S.No.

Heading

Page No.

1.
2.
3.
3A.
3B.
3C.
3D
4.
5.
6.
7.
(1)

Table of Contents
List of Abbreviation
Index of Authorities
Statutes and Conventions
Books and Commentaries
Papers and Articles
Cases
Statement of Jurisdiction
Question of Law
Statement of Facts
Summary of Pleading
Issue 1: Maintainablity for Quashing of Appeal against Manu
Sharma

ii
iii
iv-vi
iv
iv
iv
iv-vi
vii
viii
ix-x
xi-xiv
1 - 11

1A.
1B.

Quashing of FIR under S.482 of CrPC cannot be invoked


The Murder of Ish has been committed with the connivance of Manu
Sharma

1-3
3

Cont.1
Cont.2
1C.
1D.
Cont.1
Cont.2
1E.
2.

The Program was not entirely autonomous


Manu Sharma was controlling the AI system
Responsibility and Liabiity of user while handling the Programs
Manu Sharma's liability u/s 34 of IPC
Physical presence is not sine qua non
Virtual Presence is sufficient
Charges against Manu Sharma u/s 120B is not frivolous
Issue-2 Maintainability of quashing FIR against Vaibhav Sharma

3-4
4-5
5-7
7-9
9
9
9-11
11-13

2A.
2B.
3
3A.
3B.
3C.
8

Disclosure of cognizable offence and no preparation of chargesheet


Section 35 of NDPS Act
Issue-3 Whether the Ordinance banning A.I invalid?
Evolution of AI will pose major threat to human life
Ordinance does not violates Art. 14 of Constitution
Ordinance does not violates Art. 19(1)(g) of Constitution
Prayer

11-12
12-13
13-14
14-16
16-19
19-20
21

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

ii

THE 5TH NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION,CHECKMATE 2015 ARMY


INSTITUTE OF LAW

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
ABBREVIATION

ACTUAL TERM

/S.

Section

Sections

Art.

Article

A.I.

Artificial Intelligence

A.I.R

All India Reporter

All

Allahabad

Bom

Bombay

CrLJ

Criminal Law Journal

FIR

First Information Report

Hyd.

Hyderabad

Id.

Ibid./Ibidem

M.P

Madhya Pradesh

NDPS

Narcotic Drug & Psychotropic


Substance Act

Pat.

Patna

Ors.

Others

PC

Privy Council

SC

Supreme Court

SCC

Supreme Court Cases

Sd/-

Signed

T.N.

Tamil Nadu

U.P.

Uttar Pradesh

U/s

Under section

v.

Versus

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

iii

THE 5TH NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION,CHECKMATE 2015 ARMY


INSTITUTE OF LAW

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES
STAUTES AND CONVENTIONS
The Constitution of India.
Indian Penal Code, 1860
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substance Act 1985, Section 35
BOOKS AND COMMENTARIES
Joushua Dressler Cases and Materials on Criminal Law 126 (2007)
Lawrence B. Solum, Legal Personhood for Artificial Intelligence , N.C.L. Rev. 1231(1992)
Bishop, JP, Criminal Law , Vol 1 , (3rd Ed.) Section 939
PAPER AND ARTICLES
Roger C. Schank " What is AI, Anyway?" Vol 8 No. 4, AIMAG, (Winter 1987), at 59
The End of Human Race , available at time.com
Christine Daniel " Ban on Automated Purchasing Machines , Adding Berkley Municipal
Code Chapter
CASES
1.

Abdul Kadir (1963) 65 Bom LR 864...........................................................................10

2.

Balwant kaur v. U.T Chandigarh, 1988 CrLJ , 398.....................................................10

3.

Boushea v. United States, 173 F.2d 88, 92( 3d Cir. 1973).............................................6

4.

CBI/SIT v. Nalini, AIR SC 2640....................................................................................10

5.

Convyers v. State, 790 A.2d 15 (Md.2002)....................................................................6

6.

Commonwealth v. Hill, 11 Mass 136 (1814)..................................................................6

7.

Devendar Pal Singh v. State of (NCT) of Delhi............................................................10

8.

Darshan Singh v. State of Punjab, AIR 1983 SC 554...................................................10

9.

Dani Singh v. State of Bihar, 2004 (13) SCC 203...........................................................8

10. Dharindar v. State of UP and ors. (2010) 7 SCC 759 , 2010(7) SCALE 12..................8

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

iv

THE 5TH NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION,CHECKMATE 2015 ARMY


INSTITUTE OF LAW

11. Esher Singh v. State of AP (2004) 11 SCC 585..............................................................10


12. Gallimore v. Commonwealth, 436 S.E.2d 421, 424 ( va 1993)...................................6
13. Hem Chand Jha v. State of West Bengal, (2008)11.....................................................8
14. Harbans Kaur v. State of Haryana ,AIR 2005, SC 2989............................................8
15. Johnson v. State, 38 App. SO. 182, 183 (Ala 1904)....................................................6
16. Kuria and another v. State of Rajasthan , AIR 2013 SC 1085....................................7
17. Kuria and another v. State of Rajasthan , AIR (2012) 10SCC 433.............................8
18. Kurukshetra University v. State of Haryana, AIR 1977 SC 2789...............................1
19. Krishna Kumar v. State of J&K , AIR 1967 SC 1368.................................................20
20. Lala Ram v. State of Rajasthan , (2007) 10 SC 225.....................................................8
21. Magsodan v. State of UP 1983 CrLJ 4374...................................................................8.
22. M.Jignesh v. State of AP 2003 CrLJ 739.....................................................................10
23. Maheshwari Oil Mill v. State of Bihar, 1978 CrLJ 659 (Pat.)......................................2
24. Maxey v. United States, 30 App. D.C 63,80 (App. D.C, 1907)....................................6
25. Michael, (1840) 2. Mood 120, 169 E.R.48...................................................................6
26. Morrisey v. State, 790 A.2d 15(Md. 2002)...................................................................6
27. Municipal Corporation , Ahmedabad v. Jan Mohd. Usmanbhai, (1986) 2SCC 20....20
28. Nand kishore v. State of MP, AIR 2011 SC 2775.........................................................8
29. Om Prakash v. State of Punjab ,AIR 1961 SC 1782azir Ahmed, AIR 1945 PC
(18)................................................................................................................................7
30. Parnell v. State, 912 S.W.2d 422, 424 (Ark.1996)........................................................6
31. People v. Monks, 133 Cal.App. 440, 446 (Cal.Dist. Ct. App).......................................7
32. People v. Monk, 24 P.2d 508, 511 (Cal.Dist.Ct.App)....................................................7
33. People v. Mutchler 140 N.E 820, 823 (III 1923)...........................................................6
34. Paras Raja Manikyala Rao v. State of AP , (2003) 12 SC 306...................................8,9
35. Premlata v. State of Rajasthan, 1998 CrLJ 1930..........................................................10
36. R. Balakrishna Pillai v. State of Kerela, 1996 CrLJ 757 (Ker).....................................10
37. Ram Swarup Singh v. State of Bihar, 2006 CrLJ (4442) (Pat.)......................................1.
38. Ravi Shankar Srivastava, AIR 2006 , SC 287...............................................................2
39. Shreekantiyah Ramayya v. State of Bombay, AIR 1955 SC 287...................................9
40. State of Andhra Pradesh v. Goloconda Livya Swamy AIR 2004 SC 3267....................3

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

THE 5TH NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION,CHECKMATE 2015 ARMY


INSTITUTE OF LAW

41. State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, AIR 1992 SC 604 1989 CrLJ 1013 ...........................2
42. State of MP v. Awadh kishore Chopra , AIR 2004 , SC 517..........................................2
43. State of West Bengal v. S.N Basak, AIR , 1963 S.C 447..........................................................2
44. State v. Runkles 605 A.2d 111, 121 (Md. 1992).......................................................................6
45. State v. Thomas,619 S.W 2d 513, 514 (Tenn.1981).................................................................6
46. Sukhpal v. State of U.P 2006 CrLJ 2338 (2240) 2238 (All).....................................................2
47. State of AP v. M. Sobhan babu, 2011(3) SCALE 451 : 2011 CrLJ 2175 (SC)........................8
48. Shyamal Ghosh v. State of WB, 2012,7 SCC 646....................................................................8.
49. Thangal kunju Musaliar v. M. Venkatachalam Potti.............................................................18.
50. United States v. Bryan , 483 F.2d 88, 92 ( 3d Cir. 1973).........................................................6
51. Virendra Singh v. State of MP (2010) 8 SCC 401; 2001 (3) SCC 673: AIR 2001 SC 1344....9

ELECTRONIC MEDIUM
http://time.com ( Last Modified Dec 14, 2014)
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Deep_Blue_(chess_computer)&oldid=649778278
(last visited Mar. 4, 2015)
http://www.randalolson.com/2012/08/13/neuroevolution-an-alternative-route-to-artificial-inte
lligence/ (last visited Mar. 4, 2015)

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

vi

THE 5TH NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION,CHECKMATE 2015 ARMY


INSTITUTE OF LAW

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION
The Respondent has appeared before the Honble Court in response to the three appeals filed
by the Appellants in this Court and which have been clubbed together by the Honble Court.
The first two applications invoke its appellate jurisdiction under Art. 136 of the Constitution
for consideration of appeals brought to it under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure
The third petition invokes its original writ jurisdiction under Art. 32 of the Indian Constitution.
The Counsels for the Respondent most humbly and respectfully submit to the jurisdiction of this
Hon'ble Supreme Court and accept that this Court has the power to hear and decide the present
matter.

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

vii

THE 5TH NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION,CHECKMATE 2015 ARMY


INSTITUTE OF LAW

QUESTIONS OF LAW
ISSUE-1
Whether the appeal for quashing the FIR against Manu Sharma under section 482 of CrPC is
maintainable?
ISSUE-2
Whether the appeal for quashing the FIR against Vaibhav Sharma under section 482 of CrPC is
maintainable?
ISSUE-3
Whether the ordinance banning A.I in general interest of the society invalid?

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

viii

THE 5TH NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION,CHECKMATE 2015 ARMY


INSTITUTE OF LAW

STATEMENT OF FACTS
1) Riha kaushal is a 28 years old girl . Brought up by her father i.e Nitin kaushal. Through a
conversation on twitter over Nitins blog Shehajbir noticed Riha, things progressed from
there. Her marriage to Shehajbir has been finalized.
2) On 31st December 2014, her father died in plane crash . It made a great impact on her
mind. She decided not to get in touch with anybody and not to get married. Shehajbir was
quick to move on.
3) Chandandeep Juneja her old friend told her about a program Stargazer who helped
another friend dealing with the loss of their parents. Riha was having a hard time dealing
with the situation. It was only with the help of her college friend Ish that she was living
by . They both knew each other , Ish always liked Riha since college days.
4) On the 14th January 2015, Riha checked her mail account, there was one email from Nitin
Kauhal which says Yes Riha its me. Stargazer was a program which worked on the
collected information about the person from internet and it tried to replicate the
person using Artificial intelligence.
5) Rihas mood was improving .She being a modern girl was aware that it was just a
program but still bit felt real ,she was back on her felt.
6) Noticing this on 2nd February , he proposed Riha,this baffled Riha and she went away
without answering question.
7) Riha stopped using stargazer. MD , Stargazer , Jagateshwar Sohi of stargazer
monitored this sudden termination of program from one of his clients and informed
about his termination to Manu Sharma(Developing officer of application) . Mr
Sharma recognized Riha from his college days ,both had feelings for each other but
could not convey because of Ish.
8) Manu Sharma personally took the charge of her case and informed all employees
about the same. He decided to invite Riha to an even more experimental and
expensive section of Stargazer and an e-mail was sent to Riha asking her to upload
all the videos and audio clips of her father. She receioved a call from an international
number ,that sounded just like her father .
9)

Ish started sending unwanted gifts, she told these things to her father. He at first
suggested to have frank conversations with Ish, when this plan failed , he told Riha to
call Ish for dinner, hit him with something and then blame him of outraging her

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

ix

THE 5TH NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION,CHECKMATE 2015 ARMY


INSTITUTE OF LAW

modesty by bruising herself.


10) She asked Ish for dinner at her place on 14th February 2015. After dinner, she screamed
for her safety and hit with a vase on the head of Ish and called the police. Police
came in 10 mins and found that Ish was dead . Riha told police that how Ish tried to
assault her.
11) To verify Rihas claim Police went through her call history. There were few calls from
Ish but majority of the calls were from an international number. Her IM logs also
indicated that she was chatting with someone identified as Dad although he is dead.
Mr.Salil Sabhlok, took charge of the matter.IM identified was of company called
Stargazer .
12) On 16th February Manu Sharma was called India for interrogation. On 17th February
Police registered FIR, in which Manu sharma was an accused along with Riha
Kaushal. Police interrogated M.D of Stargazer, who revealed that their system was
autonomous but could be influenced by inputs, he also said that Manu Sharma's
action in classifying Riha's files was suspicious.
13) On 17th February Manu Sharma called a press conference and said that he had no
control over what that machine said to Riha , and how she interpreted it.
14) Investigating officer (Salil Sethi ) told that Ish was a dedicated Police officer . On 14th
February Ishs call records shows that he had received a call from the same
International number of Stargazer. Even her ex-fiance Shehajbir was an investor in
Stargazer.
15) Media reports carried a story about Vaibhav Sharma, who made an automated bot to
order Coke. One day that bot ordered Coke from a decoy website which was a setup to
catch drug peddlers which brought Policer to his doorstep and led to registration of an
FIR against Vaibhav .
16) The Central government got issued an ordinance dated 20th February , banning all
hardware or code that possessed characteristics of Aritificial Intelligence.
17) Manu Sharma and Vaibhav filed petitions under Section 482 of the CrPC seeking
quashing of the respective FIRs qua them. However, the Honble Punjab and Haryana
High court dismissed both these petitions on the ground that the Police was yet to present
charge sheet.Then they both preferred Special Leave Petitions before the Honble

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

THE 5TH NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION,CHECKMATE 2015 ARMY


INSTITUTE OF LAW

Supreme court against the order of dismissal. In a separate petition Manu Sharma also
challenged the governmentals move to ban all forms of AI, being violative of the
Constitution of India and other laws of the land.

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

xi

THE 5TH NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION,CHECKMATE 2015 ARMY


INSTITUTE OF LAW

SUMMARY OF PLEADINGS
ISSUE 1
WHETHER THE APPEAL FOR QUASHING THE FIR AGAINST MANU SHARMA
UNDER SECTION
482 OF CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE IS MAINTAINABLE?
Extra ordinary power of quashing the FIR under S.482 of Cr.PC. cannot be invoked in the
present case
From countless judgements of the Hon,ble Court Court it can be easily concluded that:
1) High Court cannot quash a FIR, more so when police has not even commenced

the

investigation and till the chargesheet has not yet been filed.
2) In case of disclosure of a prima facie cognizable offence the court will not quash

the

FIR.
There has been a disclosure of the offence of murder the most heinous of all offences and the
investigation is yet in course, the chargesheet has not been prepared. The court should refrain
from giving a prima facie decision when entire facts of cases are incomplete and hazy, and
evidence is not collected and issues involved cannot be seen in their true perspective
The Murder of Ish has been committed with the connivance of Manu Sharma.
Manu Sharma was the one constructing the vicious plan of Ishs murder. Based on the
undermentioned facts and evidence it can be reasonable concluded:
Firstly, Psychological inputs were being given to the program means that behaviour of The
Program could have been manipulated.
Secondly, Because A.I. Has no property of its own, it can be reasonable concluded that the one
who made payment for the Mousse cake was monitoring each and every action of The Program.
Thirdly, Termination of the call for ten minutes gives an indication that AI has acted accordingly
to the inputs given which was given to it during those ten minutes
Fourthly, Manu Sharma had a motive to handle this case personally as he loved Riha.and Ish was
the barricade in between.
Fifthly, Manus unexplained visit to India two days after the commission of the offence raises

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

xii

THE 5TH NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION,CHECKMATE 2015 ARMY


INSTITUTE OF LAW

suspicions.
Sixthly, Manu Sharma undertook entire control of Rihas case and kept it confidential as a
conspiracy was being hatched.
Seventhly, Manus action was classified as suspicious by M..D.of the Stargazer Company as he
was personally handling the entire case debarring others specifically.
ISSUE 2
WHETHER THE APPEAL FOR QUASHING THE FIR AGAINST VAIBHAV SHARMA
UNDER SECTION
482 OF CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE IS MAINTAINABLE?
There has been disclosure of cognizable offence and the chargesheet has not yet been
prepared.
The police is still investigating the case and quashing the FIR at such stage without letting police
to reach to the roots of the case would be the abuse of powers under S.482 of CrPC as such
power is exercised by the Courts in very exceptional and rare cases and never when there is a
disclosure of a cognizable offence and chargesheet has not yet been prepared.
S. 35 of the NDPS Act presumes culpable mental state of the accused.
S. 35 of the NDPS Act presumes culpable mind of the accused unless proved otherwise by the
defence beyond reasonable doubt. In fact the present case suggests the presence of a racket
dealing in drugs using automated softwares as instrumentality to escape criminal liability.
ISSUE 3
WHETHER THE ORDINANCE BANNING A.I. IN GENERAL INTEREST OF THE
SOCIETY INVALID?
Taking cognizance of the multitude of crimes committed in disguise of A.I. there was this instant
requirement of an immediate move on part of the Government to put a check on the increasing
cases of crimes where the artificial intelligence was being used as an instrumentality to further
the criminal acts while escaping criminal liability
Artificial Intelligence is the evolution of an intelligent life-form akin to human life that shall
in foreseeable future pose a major threat to humanity.
Emminent physicists like Stephen Hawking, Elon Musk and Nick Bostrom have argued
unanimously that AI is the human races biggest existential threat and therefore the Ordinance

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

xiii

THE 5TH NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION,CHECKMATE 2015 ARMY


INSTITUTE OF LAW

banning A.I., till structural framework to accomodate A.I. in the present society is not developed,
is in welfare of the citizens of the nation
The said ordinance is not in violation of Art. 14 of the Indian Constitution.
The proposed classifications by the respondents based on two grounds i.e. Firstly, the Good and
the Bad use of A.I. and Secondly, the Classification between the More Advanced and the Less
Advanced A.I. Systems are artificia, eavsive and arbitraryl and not founded on an intelligible
differentia.
Further, the present ordinance banning Artificial Intelligence in any form is not arbitrary and
unreasonable as there has been no arbitrariness in state action in issuing ordinance and that the
respondent has never been denied equality of treatment. A.I. Has posed a threat to human society
and accordingly the state has banned the use of A.I. The safety of citizens of the country has been
the chief motive in banning the use of A.I. which could not be challenged on the grounds of being
arbitrary and unreasonable.
The said ordinance is not in violation of Art. 19(1)(g) of the Indian Constitution.
That the said ordinance is banning commercial research, sale or dissemination in any other form
of hardware or code that possessed characteristics of Artificial Intelligence. The step taken by
the Central Government is completely a preventive measure and is in the interest of the general
public which cannot be certainly denied in any case, as it is for the benefit of all and should be
held valid as imposing reasonable restriction in the interest of general public.

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

xiv

THE 5TH NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION,CHECKMATE 2015 ARMY


INSTITUTE OF LAW

BODY OF PLEADINGS
ISSUE 1
WHETHER THE APPEAL FOR QUASHING THE FIR AGAINST MANU
SHARMA UNDER SECTION
482 OF CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE IS MAINTAINABLE?
To establish a stand upon the of maintainability of the appeal for quashing the FIR against Manu
Sharma, the two principal questions that arise before the Court are:
1) If in the instant case, the Courts power to quash an FIR for a cognizable offence at the very
initial stage when the Chargesheet has not yet been filed could be invoked.
2) If Manu Sharma was wholly un-specked and the The Stargazer A.I. System (from hereinafter
The Program) was entirely autonomous system.
SUBMISSION A:
Extra ordinary power of quashing the FIR under S.482 of Cr.PC. cannot be invoked in the
present case
1.1.1.S.482 saves the inherent power which the Court possessed before the enactment of the
Court. It envisages three circumstances under which the inherent jurisdiction may be
exercised, namely,
i). To give effect to an order under the Code,
ii). To prevent the abuse of process of the Court,
iii). To secure the ends of justice.
1.1.2.The High Court in exercise of its inherent power also cannot quash the order by weighing
the correctness and sufficiency of the evidence. It cannot also consider the defence
documents. In such cases, the High Court has only to see as to if the entire evidence
produced by the prosecution is to believed; whether it constitutes an offence or not.1
1.1.3. In the present case, Manu Sharma is charged for a committing a very serious offence under
sec.302/34 IPC. Mere quoting or presenting the evidences on behalf of appellant would not
absolve the appellant from the offence and hence FIR cannot be quashed.

Ram Swarup Singh v. State of Bihar, 2006 CrLJ 4441(4442)(Pat): 2006(4) Pat LJR 25
MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

THE 5TH NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION,CHECKMATE 2015 ARMY


INSTITUTE OF LAW

1.1.4. A two Judge Bench of this Court laid down certain broad tests to exercise the inherent
power or extraordinary power of the High Court. It is not necessary to reiterate the
guidelines. Suffice it to said that they are only illustrative. The High Court should
sparingly and only in exceptional cases in other words, in rarest of the rare cases and
not merely because it would be appellable to the learned judge, be inclined to exercise the
power to quash the FIR/Chargesheet/Complaint. In that case the Court held that the FIR
should not be quashed since it disclosed prima facie cognizable offences to proceed
further in the investigation.2 Further a Full Bench Judgement in case of Ram Pal Yadav v.
State of U.P.3

is clear and categorical that unless there is a matter pending before the

subordinate court no application under S.482, CrPC can be entertained by H.C.. In other
words it means that till the stage of Criminal Investigation of a criminal case and
thereafter till the filing of charge sheet and taking cognizance of the offence by the
court, no application can be made in H.C. For quashing the FIR or investigation U/s
482 CrPC.
1.1.5. The powers possessed by the High Court under s.482 of the Code are very wide and the
very plenitude of the power requires great caution in its exercise, Court must be careful to
see that its decision in exercise of this power is based on sound principles. The inherent
power should not be exercised to stifle a legitimate prosecution. High Court being the
highest Court of a state should normally refrain from giving a prima facie decision in a case
where the entire facts are incomplete and hazy, more so when the evidence has not been
collected and produced before the Court and the issues involved, whether factual or legal,
and are of magnitude and cannot be seen in their true perspective without sufficient
material.4 Meticulous examination of statements recorded by Police or question as to
whether graver or lesser offence is disclosed, need not be done.5
1.1.6. From the above mentioned judgements of the Court it can be easily concluded that: 1) High
Court cannot quash a FIR, more so when police has not even commenced the
investigation6 and till the chargesheet has not yet been filed.7
2

State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, AIR 1992 SC 604


1989 CrLJ 1013
4
State of M.P. V. Awadh Kishore Chopra, AIR 2004, SC 517; CBI v. Ravi Shanker Shrivastava, AIR 2006, SC 287.
5
Sukhpal v. State of U.P, 2006 CrLJ 2238(2240) 2238 (All)
6
Kurukshetra University v. State of Haryana, AIR 1977 SC 2289; Maheshwari Oil Mill v. State of Bihar, 1978 CrLJ
659 (Pat.)
7
Supra note 3; State of West Bengal v. S.N. Basak, AIR 1963 S.C. 447; Nazir Ahmed, AIR 1945 PC 18
3

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

THE 5TH NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION,CHECKMATE 2015 ARMY


INSTITUTE OF LAW

3) In case of disclosure of a prima facie cognizable offence the court will not quash

the

FIR.8
SUBMISSION:
In the present case the Counsels for the State submit that there has been a disclosure of the
offence of murder the most heinous of all offences and the investigation is yet in course, the
chargesheet has not been prepared. The court should refrain from giving a prima facie
decision when entire facts of cases are incomplete and hazy, and evidence is not collected
and issues involved cannot be seen in their true perspective.9
SUBMISSION B:
The Murder of Ish has been committed with the connivance of Manu Sharma.
In the present submission it shall be indubitably proved before the court that The Stargazer
Program was not entirely autonmous in its actions and Manu Sharma did have a part to play in
the targic death of Ish.
Contention 1: The Program was not entirely autonomous.
1.2.1 The Program did not actually replicate exactly the target person, however, as per the
evidence available from the facts of the case, it tried to replicate the person. This means that
the system was not wholly acting as per the brain of the target person but at the same time,
alongwith was also using the inputs and the logics being given to it.
1.2.2 The above contention is also supported by the fact revealed by M.D. Of Stargazer that The
Program was being inluenced by the inputs given by the handlers and psychological
specialists to tweak its code to better humanise it.

The fact that psychological inputs

were being given to the The Program makes it evident that the behaviour of The Program
or in other words how the program was going to react to a particular situation could have
been controlled by tweaking its code and was not something that The Program thought of,
on its own. Further the fact that the handlers or the ones in charge of the Program could
influence it, draws one even closer to the conclusion that the actions of The Program could

Supra note 2, 3
State of Andhra Pradesh v. Goloconda Linga Swamy, AIR 2004 SC 3267: The court should, however, normally
refrain from giving a prima facie decision when entire facts of cases are incomplete and hazy, and evidence is not
collected and issues involved cannot be seen in their true perspective
9

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

THE 5TH NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION,CHECKMATE 2015 ARMY


INSTITUTE OF LAW

have been controlled.


1.2.3

Payment For The Mousse Cake.


Here, it would be very pertinent to take into account the delivery of the Chocolate Mousse
Cake by The Program to Riha after Manu Sharma had decided to personally monitor the
case of Riha Kaushal. The fact that payment of the cake was made by A.I. System is quite
dubious. Here, it naturally points to the premise that the A.I. System was being thoroughly
monitored and because A.I. System had no property of its own, there must have been some
human being that actuated the payment for the cake and therefore it can be reasonably
concluded that the one who made the payment for the take was discerning each and every
action of The Program.

1.2.4. The basic feature of an AI is creativity10 which means that AI takes an alternative action
when initial action fails.Here, in the present case, call was disconnected when Riha said that
she would do something to end her life.If it would have been AI then call must not have
been disconnected to give an advice to Riha. Certainly there was some person who was
giving inputs to the AI thats why call was terminated for ten minutes while
conversation was still going on and it gives an indication that AI has acted accordingly
to the inputs given which was giving to it during those ten minutes.And it has already
been established from the fact that inputs were given to the AI to tweak its code and
tohumanise it in a better way.
Contention 2: Manu Sharma was controlling the AI System.
1.2.5.That Manu Sharma being the creator of The Program enjoyed good status and position in
the office of Stargazer. He never looked in any one of his clients case but this case attracted
him.As Riha was no one else but his college friend for whom he had feelings in his past. To
get Riha back in her life this was the most appropriate plan to handle her case and keep it
confidential in such a way that others would not be able to know about the intricacy of the
case.
1.2.6. That Manu Sharma has a motive to handle this case personally as he loved Riha and she
10

Roger C. Schank, What Is AI, Anyway?, Vol.8 No. 4, AI MAG., (Winter 1987), at 59.

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

THE 5TH NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION,CHECKMATE 2015 ARMY


INSTITUTE OF LAW

too loved him but on account of Ish presence they both were unable to express their feelings
to each other. Ish was always been a major distraction for both of them even in the present
scenario he is baffling Riha upto such an extent that it is easy for her to kill herself rather
than to be with Ish. As Manu loves Riha so he came up with such a plan to eliminate Ish and
to get Riha back in her life.
1.2.7. Why Manu Sharma was visiting India
That on 16th Feb 2015 Manu Sharma was visiting India this indicates that the plan which he
sketched out for eliminating Ish has already been fulfilled. Now he wants to be the one who
can offer his shoulders to Riha in her bad times
1.2.8. Manu Sharma acted on behalf of the Stargazer
That Manu Sharma without taking the consent or prior permission from the M.D. Of

the

Stargazer or any other higher official sent an email on Companys behalf to Riha to pursue or to
continue the use of program and even invited her for more experimental and expensive section.
He had already a plan in his mind to eliminate Ish, he rendered
something,bruise herself and imitate in front of others

advice to Riha to hit Ish with

Ish has tried to outrage her modesty.

1.2.9. M.D. of Stargazer during his interrogation stated that Manus action were suspicious
That Manus action was classified as suspicious by M..D.of the Stargazer Company as
he was personally handling the entire case debarring others from this Rihas case
specifically. All his action were devious and underhanded and neither M.D. Nor any
employee was aware of his actions.

SUBMISSION C:
Responsibity and liability of user while handling the Program
1.3.1.In order to impose criminal liability on any kind of entity, it must be proven that the above
two elements existed,i.e. actus reus and mens rea11.. When it has been proven that a person
committed the criminal act knowingly or with criminal intent, that person is held criminally
liable for that offence12. . According to DRESSLER :There are three posssible models of
liability in which criminal liability of A.I. can be proved:- The perpetration-via-Another
liability model;The Natural- Probable-consequence liability model; and the Direct
11
12

JOSHUA DRESSLER, CASES AND MATERIALS ON CRIMINAL LAW 126 (2007).


Id
MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

THE 5TH NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION,CHECKMATE 2015 ARMY


INSTITUTE OF LAW

liability model.13 When it has been already established in the above submissions that The
Ptrogram was being instrumentally used by the handlers and in this case particularly Manu
Sharma, the The perpetration-via-Another liability model shall be the guidance to impose
the criminal liability.
1.3.2. The Perpetration-via-Another Liability Model This
entity as possessing any human attributes.

model does not consider the AI

The AI entity is considered an innocent agent.14

Accordingly, due to that legal viewpoint, a machine is a machine, and is never human.
Pursuant to this model, these capabilities are insufficient to deem the AI entity a perpetrator
of an offence.

These capabilities resemble the parallel capabilities of a mentally limited

person, such as a child,15 a person who is mentally incompetent,16 or one who lacks a
criminal state of mind.17Legally, when an offence is committed by an innocent agent (a
child,18 a person who is mentally incompetent,19 or one who lacks a criminal state of mind
to commit an offence20) that person is criminally liable as a perpetrator-via-another.21

In

such cases, the intermediary is regarded as a mere instrument, albeit a sophisticated


instrument, while the party orchestrating the offence (the perpetrator-via-another) is the real
perpetrator as a principal in the first degree and is held accountable for the conduct of the
innocent agent.
1.3.3. According to this model, there is no legal difference between an AI entity and a
screwdriver or an animal.

When a burglar uses a screwdriver in order to open up a window,

he uses the screwdriver instrumentally, and the screwdriver is not criminally liable.
screwdrivers action is, in fact, the burglars.
an animal instrumentally.
13
14
15

The

This is the same legal situation when using

An assault committed by a dog by order of its master is, in fact,

Id.
Lawrence B. Solum, Legal Personhood for Artificial Intelligences, N.C. L. REV. 1231 (1992)
Maxey v. United States, 30 App. D.C. 63, 80 (App. D.C. 1907);

16.Johnson v. State, 142 Ala. 70, 71 (1904).


17.United States v. Bryan, 483 F.2d 88, 92 (3d Cir. 1973).
18

Maxey, 30 App. D.C. at 80 (App. D.C. 1907); Commonwealth v. Hill, 11 Mass. 136 (1814); Michael, (1840) 2
Mood. 120, 169 E.R. 48.
19
Johnson v. State, 38 So. 182, 183 (Ala. 1904); People v. Monks, 24 P.2d 508, 511 (Cal. Dist. Ct. App. 1933).
20
United States v. Bryan, 483 F.2d 88, 92 (3d Cir. 1973); Boushea v. United States, 173 F.2d 131, 134 (8th Cir.
1949); People v. Mutchler, 140 N.E. 820, 823 (Ill. 1923); State v. Runkles, 605 A.2d 111, 121 (Md. 1992); Parnell v.
State, 912 S.W.2d 422, 424 (Ark. 1996); State v. Thomas, 619 S.W.2d 513, 514 (Tenn. 1981).
21
Morrisey v. State, 620 A.2d 207, 210 (Del. 1993); Conyers v. State, 790 A.2d 15 (Md. 2002); Gallimore v.
Commonwealth, 436 S.E.2d 421, 424 (Va. 1993).
MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

THE 5TH NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION,CHECKMATE 2015 ARMY


INSTITUTE OF LAW

an assault committed by the master.


1.3.4. The legal result of applying this model is that the programmer and the user are criminally
liable for the specific offence committed, while the AI entity has no criminal liability
whatsoever.22
1.3.5. That the counsel for the respondent submits before the Court that Manu Sharma was
handling the Program, so he was programmer as well as the user, he must be vigilant
enough for the better and dignified use of that program but he used that program for his
own interest. From the very start he had the culpable state of mind that he wanted to
eliminate Ish from its way so that he can be with Riha.
SUBMISSION D:
Manu Sharma was criminally liable for an offence committed u/s 34 of IPC
Generally no person can be held liable for an act done by someone else but the priniciple of
criminal liability is that the person who commits an offence is responsible for that and he can
only be held guilty. It deals with the doing of separate acts, similar, or adverse by several persons,
of all are done in furtherance of common intention. In such situation, each person is liable for the
result of that as if he had done the act himself.23The soul of

S.3424, IPC is the joint liability in

doing a criminal act.25


1.4.1. The doctrine of combination in crime is, according to Bishop, that when two or more
persons unite to accomplish a criminal object, whether through the physical volition of
one, or of all, proceeding severally or collectively, each individual whose will
contributed to the wrong-doing is in law responsible for the whole, in the same way as
though performed by himself alone.26
1.4.2.

That every person whose evil intent contributed to a criminal act and who becomes a

party to the commision of crime, howsoever insignificant his role may be, is in law guilty of
the whole crime. If a man sets in motion the physical power of another, he is liable for its
result. If he contemplated the result he would be liable even if it is produced in a manner
22

People v. Monks, 133 Cal. App. 440, 446 (Cal. Dist. Ct. App. 1933).
Om Prakash v. State of Punjab, AIR 1961 SC 1782
24
Indian Penal Code(45 of 1860), 34. Acts done by several persons in furtherance of common intentionWhen a criminal act is done by several persons in furtherance of the common intention of all, each of such persons is
liable for that act in the same manner as if it were done by him alone
25
Kuria and another v. State of Rajasthan, AIR 2013 SC 1085
26
Bishop, J.P ; Criminal Law, Vol.1 (3rd Ed.) Section 439
23

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

THE 5TH NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION,CHECKMATE 2015 ARMY


INSTITUTE OF LAW

different from what he contemplated.27


1.4.3. That the Supreme Court referred to the OXFORD ENGLISH DICTIONARY where the
word furtherance is defined as an action of helping forward.Russel, in his book on
CRIMINAL LAW

adopted this definition and said; It indicates some kind of aid or

assistance proceeding an effect in future and that any act

amy be regarded as done in

furtherance of the ultimate felony if it is a step intentionally taken for the purpose of
effecting the felony The S.C. has also construed the word, furtheranceas advancement
or promotion.28 The phrase common intention means a pre-oriented plan and acting in
pursuance to the plan. The common intention to give effect to a particular any act may even
develop the spur of moment between a number of persons with reference to the facts of a
given case.29
1.4.4.

That in the present case common intention is there, as Riha has acted according to the

plan given by the Manu (as already established that Manu Sharma was controlling the
AI)31and accordingly as advice tendered to her she committed the murder of Ish. Manu
Sharma has taken the advantage of frustated state of mind of Riha, as she was highly
distressed with the actions of Ish, Manu has taken undue advantage and encouraged her so
much so that she was unable to differentiate between legal and illegal act.
1.4.5. That the common intention can be inferred from the circumstances of the case and that the
intention can be gathered from the circumstances as they arise even during an incident.32The
Court has to examine the prosecution evidence in regard to application of S.34 cumulatively
and if the ingredients are satisfied, the consequences must follow. It is difficult to state any
hard and fast rule which can be applied universally to all cases. It will always depend on the
facts and circumtances of the given case whether the person involved in the commision of
the crime with a common intention can be held guilty of the main offence committed by
them together.33In most of the cases common intention has to be inferred from the act or
27
28
29
31
32

Prof. S.N Misra, Indian Penal Code 101( Central Law Publications, Allahabad, 19th edn.,2013)
Parasa Raja Manikyala Rao v. State of A.P. ,(2003) 12 SC 306
Dharnidar v. State of U.P. And Ors.,(2010) 7 SCC 759, 2010(7) SCALE 12
See supra pg.5 1.2.5.
State of A.P. V. M. Sobhan Babu, 2011(3) SCALE 451:2011 CrLJ 2175 (SC)

33

Kuria and another v. State of Rajasthan, AIR (2012) 10 SCC 433 ; Hemchand Jha v. State of Bihar, (2008) 11
SCC 303; Shyamal Ghosh v. State Of West Bengal, (2012) 7 SCC 646 ; Nand Kishore v. State of M.P., AIR 2011 SC
2775
MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

THE 5TH NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION,CHECKMATE 2015 ARMY


INSTITUTE OF LAW

conduct or other relevant circumtances of this case in hand..33


Contention 1. Physical presence is not sine qua non
1.4.6. Physical presence at the very spot is not always a necessary ingredient to attract the action.
The S.C. Decision in Shreekantiah Ramayya v. State of Bombay34 is the authority for the
aforesaid proposition. Vivian Bose J.speaking for the Bench of three judges stated thus:
He need not to be present in the actual room; he can, for instance, stand guard by a
gate outside ready to warn his companions about any approach of danger or wait in a
car on a nearby road ready to facilitate their escape. The physical preesnce at the scene
of offence of the offender sough to be rendered liable under this Section is not one of the
conditions of its applicability in every case.35 Thus participation in the crime in
furtherance of common intention is sine qua non for S.34 IPC.
Contention 2. Virtual Presence if sufficient
1.4.7 That in Suresh v. State of U.P.36 Thomas J. while explaining the scope and ambit of S.34
gave an illustration, Another illustration with advancement of electronic equipment can be
etched like this: One of such persons in furtherance of the common intention, overseeing the
actions from a distance through binoculars can give instructions to the other accused
through mobile phones as to how effectively the common intention can be implemented. We
do not find any reason why S.34 cannot apply in the case of those two persons indicated in
the illustrations. By adopting this interpretation given by S.C. It can safely be concluded
that even the virtual presence of the accused if sufficient if there is evidence for common
intention and participation.
That it is submitted before the Court that Manu Sharma was having common
intention and his presence in the case made him liable u/s 34 of IPC.

33

Maqsoodan v. State of U.P. , 1983 Cr LJ 4374; Lala Ram v. State of Rajasthan,(2007) 10 SC


225; Harbans Kaur v. State of Haryana, AIR 2005, SC 2989;Dani Singh v. State of Bihar, 2004
(13) SCC 203
34
AIR 1955 SC 287: 1955 SCR (1) 1177
35
Parasa Raja Manikyala Rao v. State of U.P. ,(2003) 12 SC 306 ; Virendra Singh v. State of
M.P., (2010) 8 SCC 407 ; Jaikrishnadas Desai, (1960) 3 SCR 319 ; Dani Singh v. State of Bihar,
AIR 2004 SC 4570
36
2001 (3) SCC 673: AIR 2001 SC 1344
MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

THE 5TH NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION,CHECKMATE 2015 ARMY


INSTITUTE OF LAW

SUBMISSSION E:
Charges of Criminal Conspiracy u/s 120B OF IPC against Manu Sharma is not frivolous
Conspiracy has to be treated as a continuing offence under S.120 B of IPC37 and whoever is a
party to the conspiracy during the period for which he is charged is liable under this section.38 A
conspiracy is held to be continued and renewed as to encompass all its members wherever and
whenever any member of its acts in furtherance of the common intention.39 The most important
ingredient of a criminal conspiracy is an agreement for an illegal act, conpiracy continues to
subsist till it is executed or rescinded or frustrated by choice or necessity.40
1.5.1. That in the case of CBI/SIT v. Nalini41 it was held that:a). Conspiracy is hatched in private or in secrecy. It is rarely possible to establish a
conspiracy by direct evidence. Usually, both the existence of the conspiracy and its object
have to be inferred from the circumstances and the conduct of the accused.
b). When two or more persons agree to commit a crime of conspiracy, then regardless of
making or considering any plans for its commission, and despite the fact that no step is
taken by any such person to carry out their common purpose, a crime is committed by each
and every one who joins in the agreement. There has thus to be two conspirators and there
may be more than that. To prove the charge of conpiracy it is not necessary that intended
crime was committed or not. If committed it may further help prosecution to prove the
charge of conspiracy.
37

1[120B. Punishment of criminal conspiracy.


(1)Whoever is a party to a criminal conspiracy to commit an offence punishable with death, 2[imprisonment for life]
or rigorous imprisonment for a term of two years or upwards, shall, where no express provision is made in this Code
for the punishment of such a conspiracy, be punished in the same manner as if he had abetted such
offence.(2)Whoever is a party to a criminal conspiracy other than a criminal conspiracy to commit an offence
punishable as aforesaid shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term not exceeding six
months, or with fine or with both.]
38
Abdul Kadar, (1963) 65 Bom LR 864 ; State of U.P. V. Pheru Singh, AIR 1989 SC 1205; Darshan Singh v. State of
Punjab, AIR 1983 SC 554, Balwant Kaur v. U.T. Chandigarh,1988 Cr. L.J. 398. The absence of one of the
conspirators at one of their meetings does not by itself rule out his complicity. Conspiracies are hatched under cover
of secrecy. They are generally proved by circumstantial evidence.; M. Jignesh v. State of A.P., 2003 Cr.L. J. 739(AP)
39
Esher Singh v. State of A.P.,(2004) 11 SCC 585
40
R. Balkrishna Pillai v. State of Kerala, 1996 Cr. L.J. 757 (Ker) ; Devender Pal Singh v. State(NCT) of Delhi, 2002
Cr..L.J. 2034 (SC), acquittal of a co-accused on the ground of non-corroboration of the confessional statement did
not have the effect of demolishing the prosecution regarding conspiracy, Premlata v. State of Rajasthan, 1998 Cr. L.J.
1430 (Raj),a charge-sheet was not quashed where there was a evidence to believe that the two accused persons had
conspired to produce document for fulfilling the eligibility criteria for an appointment.
41
AIR 1999 SC 2640: 1999 Cr. L.J. 3124
MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

10

THE 5TH NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION,CHECKMATE 2015 ARMY


INSTITUTE OF LAW

c). A man may join a conspiracy by word or by deed. However, criminal responsibility for a
conspiracy requires more than a merely passive attitude towards an existing conspiracy. One
who commits an overt act with knowledge of conspiracy is guilty. And one who tacitly
consents to the object of a conspiracy and goes along with other conspirators, actually
standing by while the other but the conspiracy into effect, is guilty, thogh he intends to take
no active part in the crime.
That Manu Sharmas act was not passive as he was the one who conspire each and
every move and accordingly Riha acted to that. Therefore Counsel submits that
furthermore, investigation should be done to prove the charges under S.120 B of IPC.
SUBMISSION- S.482 can be invoked in the rarest of the rare cases when there is abuse
of process of law or saving the inherent powers of the High Court , but in the present
case Manu Sharmas suspicious conduct and action is an obstacle in his way to avail
this remedy.

ISSUE 2
WHETHER THE APPEAL FOR QUASHING THE FIR AGAINST VAIBHAV
SHARMA UNDER SECTION
482 OF CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE IS MAINTAINABLE?
Power to Quash FIR under S.482 of CrPC is exercised sparingly and only in rarest of the rare
cases.42 Therefore in the interest of justice it needs to be analysed here if the present case is one
so exceptional and one that involves an abuse of the process of law that FIR here be quashed by
the Court.
In the present matter before the court, there has been disclosure of a cognizable offence,
chargesheet has not yet been prepared by the police and the The Narcotic Drugs and
Psychotropic Substances Act 1985 (hereinafter NDPS Act) presumes the culpable mind of the
accused43.
SUBMISSION A:
There has been disclosure of cognizable offence and the chargesheet has not yet been
prepared.
42
43

State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, AIR 1992 SC 604


The Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act 1985, 35
MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

11

THE 5TH NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION,CHECKMATE 2015 ARMY


INSTITUTE OF LAW

2.1.1 The accused has been found guilty of purchasing psychotropic substance from the
purposely set-up website by the police to catch the dealers and buyers in drugs. S.22 of the
NDPS Act punishes sale, purchase, manufacture, transports etc. of psychotropic
substances.44 The said drug has been apparently purchased with the instrumentality of a
software by the accused thereby acting in contravention of S.845 of the NDPS Act and
accordingly an FIR under S.22 of the Act has been registered against him taking cognizance
of the cognizable offence constituted.
2.1.2 It is brought before the court that the investigation is still in process and the chargesheet has
not yet been prepared by the police. The accused has moved to the Honble Court to quash
the FIR instituted against him at the very initial stage, when police is still investigating the
case and quashing the FIR at such stage without letting police to reach to the roots of
the case would be the abuse of powers under S.482 of CrPC which, as established in the
Submission A to the Issue 1, is exercised by the Courts in very exceptional and rare
cases and never when there is a disclosure of a cognizable offence and chargesheet has
not yet been prepared.46
SUBMISSION B:
S. 35 of the NDPS Act presumes culpable mental state of the accused.

2.2.1 In the present case Vaibhav Sharma has been accused under S.22 of the NDPS Act of
indulging in purchase of the psychotropic substances. The actus reus element of the
offence is complete and what remains is the mens rea element. The S.35(1)47 of the NDPS
44

Id. 22. Punishment for contravention in relation to psychotropic substances.


Whoever, in contravention of any provision of this Act or any rule or order made or condition of licence granted
thereunder, manufacturers, possesses, sells, purchases, transports, imports inter-State, exports inter-State or uses any
psychotropic substance shall be punishable.
45
Id. 8. Prohibition of certain operations.

No person shall(a) Cultivate any coca plant or gather any portion of coca plant; or
(b) Cultivate the opium poppy or any cannabis plant; or
(c) Produce, manufacture, possess, sell, purchase, transport, warehouse, use, consume, import
inter-State, export inter-State, import into India, export from India or transship any narcotic drug
or psychotropic substance.
46

Supra pg.2 1.1.4 , pg.3 1.1.6


35. Presumption of culpable mental state.
(1) In any prosecution for an offence under this Act, which requires a culpable mental state of the accused, the court
47

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

12

THE 5TH NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION,CHECKMATE 2015 ARMY


INSTITUTE OF LAW

Act presumes the culpable mental state of the accused found guilty of committing the
offence unless otherwise established by the defence. This completes the mens rea element of
the crime constituted by the accused and accordingly the FIR U/s.22 of the Act has been
lodged.
2.2.2 The defence by the accused that he lacked the necessary intent to commit the crime merely
on the ground that the purchase order was automated by a bot is far from satisfactory. In
fact, such automation indicates towards a racket using such bots to indulge in drug dealings
while attempting to escape any criminal liability if caught red-handed by shifting the entire
liability upon a piece of software.
2.2.3 The Police is still investigating the case and depth of the case is yet be reached at. To be
noted here is that S.35(2)48 of the NDPS Act establishes the proof of the fact of the
absence of the culpable mental state only if the court believes it to exist beyond reasonable
doubt and not mere when its existence is established by a preponderance of probability.
Submission:
It is therefore humbly submitted before the Honble Court that the contention of the
defence that bot and not the accused is liable for the offence committed is unsatisfactory
and does not negate the presence of the culpable state of mind of the accused beyond a
reasonable doubt, but in fact indicates to the presence of a racket dealing in drugs using
automated softwares as instrumentality to escape criminal liability.

ISSUE 3
WHETHER THE ORDINANCE BANNING A.I. IN GENERAL INTEREST
OF THE SOCIETY INVALID?
The Government has passed an ordinance dated 20.02.15 banning commercial research, sale or
dissemination in any other form of hardware or code that possessed characteristics of

Artificial

shall presume the existence of such mental state but it shall be a defence 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.
Explanation. -In this section culpable mental state includes intention, motive, knowledge of a fact and belief in,
or reason to believe, a fact.
48
Id. 35(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.
MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

13

THE 5TH NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION,CHECKMATE 2015 ARMY


INSTITUTE OF LAW

Intelligence. Taking cognizance of the multitude of crimes committed in disguise of A.I. there
was this instant requirement of an immediate move on part of the Government to put a check on
the increasing cases of crimes where the artificial intelligence was being used as an
instrumentality to further the criminal acts while escaping criminal liability. However
governments this move in the interest of the public at large has been challenged on the grounds
of violating constitutional provisions. In light of the contentions raised by the respondent it shall
be proved herein under the following submissions that the present ordinance was requisite in the
immediate circumstances and is not violative of the Constitutional Provisions or any other laws
of the land.
SUBMISSION A:
Artificial Intelligence is the evolution of an intelligent life-form akin to human life that shall
in foreseeable future pose a major threat to humanity.
3.1.1. That it is submitted before the Court that we find ourselves at a crucial moment in Earths
history. Like a boulder perched upon a mountains peak, we stand at an unstable point. We
cannot stay where we are:AI is coming provided that scientific progress continues. Soon we
will tumble down one side of the mountain or another to a stable resting place.One way lies
human extinction. Another resting place may be a stable global totalitarianism that halts
scientific progress, although that seems unlikely.49
3.1.2. AI leads to intelligence explosion, and, because we dont know how to give an AI
benevolent goals, by default an intelligence explosion will optimize the world for accidently
disastrous,ends. A controlled intelligence explosion, on the other hand, could optimize the
world for good.50
3.1.3. That in an article51 written by Gary Marcus he quoted a book by James Barrat, Our Final
Invention: Artificial Intelligence and the End of the Human Era52, lays out a strong
case for why we should be at least a little worried. His core argument, which he borrows
49

50

Facing The Intelligence Explosion, available at: intelligenceexplosion.com

(Last Modified Nov 24,2011)

Id.

51

Gary Marcus, Why We Should Think About The Threat Of Artificial Intelligence . The New Yorker. Oct
24,2013
52
James Barrat, Our Final Invention:Artificial Intelligence And End of Human Era Macmillan, 1st Oct 2013
MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

14

THE 5TH NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION,CHECKMATE 2015 ARMY


INSTITUTE OF LAW

from the A.I. researcher Steve Omohundro, is that the drive for self-preservation and
resource acquisition may be inherent in all goal-driven systems of a certain degree of
intelligence. In Omohundros words, if it is smart enough, a robot that is designed to play
chess might also want to be build a spaceship, in order to obtain more resources for
whatever goals it might have. A purely rational artificial intelligence,He writes, might
expand its idea of self-preservation to include proactive attacks on future threats,
3.1.4. That the Ban on Automated Consumer Electronic device purchasing machines prohibited53
in Ciy of Berkeley by an ordinance u/s 13.64.030 of Berkeley Municipal Code54.

These are

defined as any automated self-serve kiosk system that buys back personal electronic
devices for immediate cash, credit, or a charitable donation, including but not limited to
systems patented and copyrighted by ecoATM Corp., and other similar devices or
machines. Therefore, in accordance with the preventive measures City of Berkeley have
banned Automated Purchasing Machines in effort to keep their cities safe.
3.1.5. That it is submitted by the counsel for the respondent that in the present case AI is
possessing the higher attributes of human cognitive behaviour which places the AI and the
human on the same footing,as AI is posing major threat to humans ,it can act arbitrarily and
it will produce ineffective and inefficacious result which is not in the favour of our race.
3.1.6. That AI should be banned of all sorts so that in future no other crime of this sort would
ever be commited. Human life is the most precious one and the sanctity of this basis cannot
be overlooked by any development which poses threat to human mankind. Development
cannot be incurred at the risk of human loss.
3.1.8. That strong AI produced sufficiently intelligent software, it might be able to reprogram and
improve itself. The improved software would be even better at improving itself, leading to
recursive self-improvement. The new intelligence could thus increase exponentially and
dramatically surpass humans. Hyper-intelligent software may not necessarily decide to
53

Christine Daniel, Ban on Automated Purchasing Machines, Adding Berkely Municipal Code Chapter 13.64 Jan
27, 2015
54
13.64.030 - Automated consumer electronic device purchasing machines prohibited. Automated consumer
electronic device purchasing machines and other similar devices or machines are prohibited in the City of Berkeley.
No person shall locate, install operate, own, suffer, allow to be operated or aid, abet or assist in the installation or
operation of any Automated buy-back machine or other similar device or machine within the City.
MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

15

THE 5TH NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION,CHECKMATE 2015 ARMY


INSTITUTE OF LAW

support the continued existence of mankind, and would be extremely difficult to stop.55
3.1.9. That in an article56 Stephen Hawking,the emminent physicist told thatThe development
of full artificial intelligence could spell the end of the human race, Further he stated that It
would take off on its own and re-design itself at an ever increasing rate. Humans, who are
limited by slow biological evolution, couldnt compete, and would be superseded. Another
emminent personailty in Business world of Tesla and Space X, Elon Musk, likened
improving artificial intelligence to summoning the demon and called AI the human
races biggest existential threat which could be more dangerous than nuclear weapons. Nick
Bostrom in his new book Superintelligence, argues that once machines surpass human
intellect, they could mobilize and decide to eradicate humans extremely quickly using any
number of strategies (deploying unseen pathogens, recruiting humans to their side or simple
brute force). The world of the future would become ever more technologically advanced and
complex, but we wouldnt be around to see it. A society of economic miracles and
technological awesomeness, with nobody there to benefit, he writes. A Disneyland without
children.
SUBMISSION B:
The said ordinance is not in violation of Art. 1457 of the Indian Constitution.

3.2.1 Article 14 of the constitution guarantees the right to equality to every citizen of

India. The

said ordinance has been challenged by the Respondent on the ground that it is arbitrary and
being general in character fails to provide for a reasonable classification.
3.2.2 It is submitted that the said ordinance is not in violation of Art. 14 of the Constitution as the
proposed classification is arbitrary, artificial or evasive. The counsels for the
respondent have proposed classifications based on 2 grounds i.e. Firstly, the Good and the
Bad use of A.I. and Secondly, the Classification between the More Advanced and the
Less Advanced A.I. Systems.
55

Yudkowsky, Eliezer (2008)


The End Of Human Race, available at, http://time.com ( Last Modified Dec 14, 2014)
57
Art. 14: Equality Before Law
The State shall not deny to any person equality before the law or equal protection of law within the territory of
56

India.
MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

16

THE 5TH NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION,CHECKMATE 2015 ARMY


INSTITUTE OF LAW

3.2.3 In a landmark case, State of West Bengal v Anwar Ali Sarkar58, the Honble Court laid
down the test for a reasonable classification:
(1) It must not be arbitrary, artificial or evasive. The Classification must be founded
on an intelligible differentia which distinguishes persons or things that are grouped
together from others left out of the group.
(2) The Differentia must have a rational relation to the object sought to be achieved by the
statute in question.
The above tests were reconfirmed by the Court in Prabodh Verma v State of UP59, D.S.
Nakara v. Union Of India60.
3.2.4 It is submitted that the 1st proposed classification regarding Good and Bad use is
absolutely artificial, as the same A.I. System could be used for Beneficial as well as for
purposes of Furthering crime in society. Here, it is not possible to classify persons or A.I.
Systems on this proposed classification ground as it would be impossible to group Good
and Bad A.I. Systems before the cognizance of the offence committed from its use.
Moreover, as it is the same A.I. System that was built for accomplishing legal objects
however is now being used for committing crime, hence no classification in this proposed
category is possible. Such classification would be absolutely evasive and artificial as no
natural differences exist but are being artificially created by the respondent.
3.2.5 It is submitted further that the proposed classification is not founded upon an intelligible
differentia which is one of the necessary mandate61 of a reasonable classification under Art.
14. Intelligible differentia distinguishes persons or things that are grouped together from
others left out of the group62. In the present case as established there is no line of distinction
between the Good and the Bad A.I. and therefore, there exists no inherent distinction that
could be the basis of the intelligible differentia.
\3.2.6 It is submitted that the second proposed classification between the More Advanced and
the Less Advanced A.I. Systems cannot be founded on an Intelligible differentia as there
exists no borderline between an advanced A.I. System and its lesser advanced counterpart.
58

59

AIR 1952 SC 75
(1984) 4 SCC 251

60

AIR 1983 SC 130

61
62

Supra note 2
Id.
MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

17

THE 5TH NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION,CHECKMATE 2015 ARMY


INSTITUTE OF LAW

To distinguish the mind of a bot that automates coke orders from the mind of a
computer program skilled to play an exceptional game of chess63 with few of the best chess
players in the world further distinguishing it from the mind of an A.I. Meant to imitate the
behaviour of a deceased person, would be a futile attempt towards creation of an artificial
borderline between the A.I. Systems.
3.2.7 That even a less developed AI can also become advanced as it is able to learn things
easily65 .And hence it is not possible for Government to specifically classify a genre of High
Advance AI Systems and Less Advance AI Systems. No exhaustive solution can be taken till
date to ban specific type of AI Systems, hence banning of all sorts of AI system is a proper
measure for the safety and security of citizens of India, till reasonable mandates for the
permissible Intelligent Systems could be founded and implemented.
3.2.8 It is submitted that the present ordinance banning Artificial Intelligence in any form is not
arbitrary and unreasonable. In the landmark Maneka Gandhis case66, Bhagwati, J., quoted
the new concept of equality propounded out in the case of E.P. Royappa v. State of Tamil
Nadu67, in the following words:
.............Equality is a dynamic with many aspects and dimensions and it cannot be
imprisoned within traditional and doctrinaire limits. Article 14 strikes arbitrariness in state
action and ensures fairness and equality of treatment....
3.2.9 It is submitted that there has been no arbitrariness in state action in issuing ordinance and
that the respondent has never been denied equality of treatment. It has been established in
the Submission A to Issue 3 that A.I. Has posed a threat to human society and accordingly
the state has banned the use of A.I. The safety of citizens of the country has been the chief

63

Deep Blue was a chess-playing computer developed by IBM. It is known for being the first piece of artificial
intelligence to win both a chess game and a chess match against a reigning world champion under regular time
controls.
Deep Blue won its first game against a world champion on February 10, 1996, when it defeated Garry Kasparov in
game one of a six-game match, available at:
Deep Blue (chess computer),
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Deep_Blue_(chess_computer)&oldid=649778278 (last visited Mar. 4,
2015)
65
Neuroevolution, available at:

http://www.randalolson.com/2012/08/13/neuroevolution-an-alternative-route-to-artificial-intellig
ence/ (last visited Mar. 4, 2015)
66
67

Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, AIR 1978 SC 597


AIR 1974 SC 555;
MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

18

THE 5TH NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION,CHECKMATE 2015 ARMY


INSTITUTE OF LAW

motive in banning the use of A.I. which could not be challenged on the grounds of being
arbitrary and unreasonable.
3.2.10 It is submitted that respondent had developed The Program that had resulted in murder
of an innocent, and taking cognizance of such offences committed behind the veil of A.I.
Systems, banning of such system by Government is not an act of unfairness to the
respondent, instead it is an act of protection and fairness for the citizens of the entire nation.
3.2.11 It is further submitted that the court laid down this proposition that before invalidating any
discretionary action as violative of Article 14 this presumption should be kept in the mind
that the authorities will discharge their duties honestly and in accordance with the Rule of
Law67. Hence it is argued that the said ordinance passed in the instant case should be
treated as not violative of Article 14.
SUBMISSION C:
The said ordinance is not in violation of Art. 19(1)(g)68 of the Indian Constitution.
3.3.1. The right to carryon a profession, trade or business is not qualified. It can be restricted and
regulated by authority of law. Thus the State can under clause (6) of Art.1969 make any lawa). imposing reasonable restriction on this right in the interest of public
b). prescribing professional or technical qualifications necessary for practising any profession or
carrying on any occupation, trade or business,
c). enabling the State to carry on any trade or business to the exclusion of citizens wholly or
partially.
3.3.2. That it is submitted before this Hon,ble Court that in the case of in Sukumar Mukherjee v.
67

Thangal Kunju Musaliar vs. M.Venkatachalam Potti, AIR 1956 SC 246.

68

(g) to practise any profession, or to carry on any occupation, trade or business

69

(6) Nothing in sub clause (g) of the said clause shall affect the operation of any existing law in so far as it

imposes, or prevent the State from making any law imposing, in the interests of the general public, reasonable
restrictions on the exercise of the right conferred by the said sub clause, and, in particular, nothing in the said sub
clause shall affect the operation of any existing law in so far as it relates to, or prevent the State from making any law
relating to,
(i)the professional or technical qualifications necessary for practising any profession or carrying on any occupation,
trade or business, or
(ii)the carrying on by the State, or by a corporation owned or controlled by the State, of any trade, business, industry
or service, whether to the exclusion, complete or partial, of citizens or otherwise
MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

19

THE 5TH NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION,CHECKMATE 2015 ARMY


INSTITUTE OF LAW

State of W.B.70 the appellants challenged the validity of the West Bengal State Health
Service Act,1990 on the ground that it imposes unreasonable restriction on their right to
carry on any occupation, trade or business u/a 19(1)(g) of the Constitution. Section 9 of the
Act prohibited private practice by teachers, doctors of W.B. Medical Education Service and
not by the doctors of W.B. Health Service.When these services were separated the doctors
were given to join either the WBMES or WBHS. It was held that the restrictions imposed by
S.9 is reasonable and in the interest of the general public. The restriction is not on the
freedom to practice the medical profession. This applies to those doctors who voluntarily
joins the Government Service are bound by the terms and conditions of service and will
have no right to private practice.
3.3.3.

That the expession in the interest of general public, in Art.19(6) is of wide import

comprehending public order, public health, public security, morals, economic welfare of the
community and the objects mentioned in Part IV of the Constitution. Nobody can dispute a
law providing for basic ameneties for the dignity of human labour as a social welfare
measure.71
3.3.4 That the word restriction includes prohibition also. In Narendra Kumar v. U.O.I,72
the Non-Ferrous Metal Order, 1958, which completely excluded the dealers in a trade of
imported copper, was held valid as imposing reasonable restriction in the interest of general
public. The Court said that prohibition was only a kind of restriction provided it satisfied the
test of reasonableness.
Submission: The Counsel for the respondent submits before the Court that the said
ordinance is not in violation of Art.19 (1)(g) of the Indian Constitution and that it imposes a
reasonable restriction as development in AI is the major threat to humankind and no one is
aware of the capability of what actions can be taken by AI Systems and Bots for the benefit
of humans or for the deteriotation of humans.Taking the cognizance of the offence which is
committed by the AI in the present case ban on all sorts of AI Systems is valid and
reasonable and in the interest of general public.

70

71
72

(1993) SCC 724


Municipal Corporation, Ahmedabad v. Jan Mohd. Usmanbhai, (1986) 2 SCC 20
AIR 1960 SC 430; Krishna Kumar v. State of J. And K., AIR 1967 SC 1368
MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

20

THE 5TH NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION,CHECKMATE 2015 ARMY


INSTITUTE OF LAW

CONCLUSION:
That the said ordinance is banning commercial research, sale or dissemination in any
other form of hardware or code that possessed characteristics of Artificial Intelligence
This was done to discourage citizens from committing crimes and then blaming them on
machines that couldnt be prosecuted and punished under law. The step taken by the
Central Government is completely a preventive measure and is in the interest of the
general public which cannot be certainly denied in any case, as it is for the benefit of all.
In regard with this argument Counsel for the Respondent submits that the said
ordinance shall be validated and hence applied.

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

21

THE 5TH NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION,CHECKMATE 2015 ARMY


INSTITUTE OF LAW

PRAYER

In the light of arguments advanced and authorities cited, the Respondent humbly submits that
the Honble Court may be pleased to adjudge and declare that:

1. Appellant 1 has involvement in the present matter and appeal for quashing FIR
qua him be dismissed.
2. Appellant 2 is culpable and appeal for quashing FIR against him be dismissed.
3. Hold that the said ordinance is valid and constitutional.

Any other order as it deems fit in the interest of equity, justice and good
conscience.

For This Act of Kindness, the Respondent Shall Duty Bound Forever Pray.

Sd/(Counsel for the Respondent)

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

22