Final Appellant University of Allahabad

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 APPELLANT

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 Abbreviations
Index of Authority
Statutes and Convention
Books and Commentaries
Papers and Articles
Cases
Statement of Jurisdiction
Question of Law
Statement of facts
Summary of Pleadings
Issue 1 : Maintainability of quashing the FIR against Manu
Sharma under section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure
ii
iii
iv
iv
iv
iv
v - vi
vii
viii
ix - x
xi - xii
1 - 14
1.A.
1.B.
Con.1
Con.2
Con.3
The court has the inherent power under section 482 to quash the FIR
There is abuse of process of the court against Manu Sharma
That there was no interference of Manu Sharma in the instant case
That Stargazer never advised Riha to kill Ish
That Police has instituted vexatious proceedings with malafide
intention against Manu Sharma
1-3
3-14
4-8
8-9
9-10
Con.4
The charges under section 302/34 against Manu Sharma are a work of
fiction
11-13
Con.5
That the charges against the appellant under section 120b are
preposterous
13-14
(2)
2.A.
If FIR against Vaibhav Sharma is liable to be quashed

Vaibhav Sharmas FIR is liable to be quashed as he is innocent in his
conduct.
15-17
15-16
2.B.
(3)
There is no disclosure of any offence

Invalidity of Government ordinance indiscriminately banning all
forms of A.I
16-17
17 - 20
3.A.
3.B.
The said ordinance is violative of Art. 14 of the constitution of India

The said ordinance is violative of Art. 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of
India.
17-18
18-20
Prayer
21
ii

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
Nag.
Nagpur
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
iii

INSTITUTE OF LAW
INDEX OF AUTHORITIES
STATUTES AND CONVENTIONS
The Constitution Of India
Indian Penal Code, 1860
Criminal Procedure Code,1973
Narcotic Drug And Psychotropic Substance Act, 1985 (Act no.61 of 1985)
BOOKS AND COMMENTARIES

Edmund R. Folsom (Criminal Defense Attorney), ACTUS REUS, MENS REA AND
STRICT LIABILITY CRIMES
Hermann Von Helmholtz, The facts of Perception(1878)

Joshua Dressler, Cases and Materials on Criminal Law 126(2007)
Maurete E. Gerstner , E. Susskind, Expert System In Law: A Jurisprudencial Approach
to Artificial Intelligence And Legal Reasoning, 49 MOD (REV. 168(1986)
N.A Padhy, Artificial Intelligence and Intelligent Systems 3, 2005, Oxford University
Press
S.N Lehmanqzi, Frankestein Unbound- Towards Legal Definition of Artitficial

Intelligence, 1981 Future 442(1981)
Steven J. Frank, Tort Adjudication and the Emergence Of Artificial Intelligence

Software,21 SUFFOLK U.L. REV, 623 (1987)
William James, The Principles Of Psychology 221(1890)
PAPER AND ARTICLES

Gabriel Hallevy The Criminal Liability Of Artificial Intelligence Entities- From
Science Fiction To Legal Social Control, 4Akron Intellectual Property Journal
171(2010)
Roger C. Schank What is AI anyway?, Vol. 8 No. 4 , AI MAG, (Winter 1987) at 59
iv

INSTITUTE OF LAW
CASES
1.
Abasaheb Hommaine v. State of Maharashtra , Criminal Application no. 766 of

2007...............................................................................................................................10
2.
Abdul Rehman v. Pinto, AIR 1951, Hyd, 11..................................................................18
3.
Baldeo Singh v. State of Bihar, AIR, 1972, SC 464.......................................................11
4.
B.A. Srinivasa Guptha v. State of Karnataka,2002, CrLJ 4540( Kant)..........................9
5.
Bhishan Singh v. State of Punjab ,AIR 1983 SC 748....................................................11
6.
Central Bureau of Investigation v. Ravi Shankar (2006) SCC 736...............................10
7.
Chiranit Lal v. Union of India, AIR 1951 SC 41, per Das J..........................................17
8.
CBI/SIT v. Nalini and Ors. (1955) 5 SCC 253 ..............................................................13
9.
Dashrathlal v. State of Gujarat, AIR 1979 SC 1342.....................................................11
10.
Esher Singh v. State of A.P, 2004(11) SCC 585.............................................................13
11.
E.P Royappa v. State of T.N, AIR 1974, SC 555...........................................................18
12.
Ghanshyam v. State of U.P, IR 1983 SC 293.................................................................11
13.
Habibullah v. Gulam Ahmad Baba, 1979......................................................................19
14.
Indian Oil Corporation v. NEPC Indian ltd. (2006) , SCC 736.....................................9
15.
Jagjit Singh v. State, AIR 1954, Hyd, 28.......................................................................18
16.
Jhump Panigrahi v. Tanu gouda, 2003 CrLJ 385...........................................................9
17.
Kedar Nath v. State of West Bengal, AIR 1979 SC 1628..............................................17
18.
Keshav Singh and Ors v. State (Delhi Adminstration), 1998(3) SCC 609 at 731.........13
19.
Kuria and Another v. State of Rajasthan, AIR 2013 SC 1085:(2012) 10 SCC 433 AIR
1977 SC 109 : (1977) 1 SCC 140..................................................................................10
20.
Krishna Govind Patil v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1963 SC

1413................................................................................................................................12
21.
Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, AIR 1978 SC 597...................................................18
22.
Mehbub Shah v. King Emperor, AIR 1945 PC 148........................................................12
23.
Manohar T. Soni v. Kamlabai Soni, 1991 CrLJ 788(MP)..............................................1
24.
Nand Kishore v. State of Maharashtra , AIR 2011 , SC 2775.......................................11
25.
Pandurang v. State of Hyderbad, AIR 1945 SC 216.....................................................12
26.
Popular Muthiah v. State Represented by Inspector of Police (2006)7 SCC 296.........10

INSTITUTE OF LAW
27.
Rana pratap v. State of Haryana AIR 1983 SC 680......................................................11
28.
Rangaswami v. State of T.N., AIR 1989 SC 1137..........................................................11
29.
R.P kapur v. State of Punjab AIR1960 SC 866.............................................................3
30.
State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal AIR 1192 SC 604.......................................................10
31.
State v. Sougent, 594 A.2d 401......................................................................................6
32.
State v. Wyatt , 482, S.E 2d 147 ( W.Va 1996)...............................................................6
33.
Sanapareddy Maheedhar v. State of Andhra pradesh, 2008 AIR SCW 11...................10
34.
Shyamal Ghosh v. State of West Bengal(2012) 7 SCC 646...........................................11
35.
Shreekantiyah Rammayya v. State of Bombay AIR 1955 SC 287.................................11
36.
Shiva Prasada AIR 1965 SC 264..................................................................................11
37.
Shyam M. Sachdev v. State of Guwahati, 1992 CrLJ 1472............................................2
38.
Shanu Films v. State of Bihar ,2007 , CrLJ 617(Patna).................................................2
39.
State of Bombay v. Nilkanth Shripat Bhave, AIR 1954 Bom 65:1954 CrLJ 58:55 Bom.
LR 838 (FB)...................................................................................................................3
40.
Som Mittal v. Govt of Karnataka (Criminal Appeal no. 206 of 2008 decided on 21st
February).......................................................................................................................10
41.
Srinivas Guptha v. State of Karnataka, 2002, CrLJ 4540 (Kant)..................................9
42.
Sudhir Shantilal Mehta v. CBI, (2009) 8 SCC 253.......................................................13
43.
State of Bombay v. F.N Babra, AIR 1951 SC 318 per Fazal Ali J................................17
44.
United States v. Jewell 532, F 2nd 697 , 700-01 (9th Cir, 1976)...................................7
45.
United States v. Landish Malting Co. 135 F.3d 484, 488 (7th Cir. 1998)......................7
46.
United States v. Youts 229 F.3d 1312, 1317 (10th Cir, 2002).........................................6
47.
United States v. Spinney , 65F.3d 231, 235 (1st Cir. 1995)............................................6
48.
United States v. Wert- Ruiz, 228 F. 3d 250, 255 ( 3rd Cir. 2000)....................................6
49.
Ved Prakash v. State of UP 2005 CrLJ 2080 at page 2081(All)....................................10
vi

INSTITUTE OF LAW
STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION
The Appellant parties humbly submit this memorandum for three petitions filed before
this Honourable Court clubbed together by the Honourable 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 Appellant 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.
vii

INSTITUTE OF LAW
QUESTIONS OF LAW
ISSUE-1
Whether appeal for quashing of the FIR against Manu Sharma under section 482 of Code
of Criminal Procedure is maintainable.
ISSUE-2
Whether FIR against Vaibhav Sharma is liable to be quashed.
ISSUE-3
Whether Government's ordinance of banning all forms of A.I is invalid.
viii

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 finalised.
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.
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 Kaushal which says' Yes Riha its me'. Chandan helped me get in touch with you.
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 recognised
Riha from his college days.
8) Manu Sharma personally took the charge of her case and an e-mail was sent to Riha
asking her to upload all the videos and audio clips of her father.
9) She received a call from an international number ,that sounded just like her father .
10) 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 , Riha was so upset
that he told his father that she would end up doing something to her. Then he advised
him to call Ish for a dinner at her home and pretend that Ish has tried to outraged her
modesty.
11) She asked Ish for dinner at her place on 14th February 2015. After dinner, she screamed
ix

INSTITUTE OF LAW
for her safety and hit with a vase on the head of Ish. And called the police. Police came
in 10 mins and found thatIsh was dead . Riha told police that how Ish tried to assault her.
12) 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 .
13)On 16th February Manu Sharma was called India for interrogation. On 17thFebruary
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 completely
autonomous .
14) 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. That program
categorically stated that users accept all risks and consequence for the use of service and
the company shall have no liability.
15) Investigating officer (Salil Sethi ) told that Ish was a dedicated Police officer and he
wants to assure that perpetrators of this heinous crime will not be set free. On 14th
February Ish's 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.
16)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 set-up to
catch drug peddlers which brought Police to his doorstep and led to registration of an IR
against Vaibhav .
17) The Central government got issued an ordinance dated 20th February , banning all
hardware or code that possessed characteristics of
'Artificial Intelligence.'
18)Manu Sharma and Vaibhav filed petitions under Section 482 of the CrPC seeking
quashing of the respective FIRs qua them. However, the Hon'ble 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
Supreme court against the order of dismissal. In a separate petition Manu Sharma also
challenged the governments move to ban all forms of AI, being violative of the
Constitution of India and other laws of the land.

INSTITUTE OF LAW
SUMMARY OF PLEADINGS
ISSUE 1
MAINTAINABILITY OF QUASHING THE FIR AGAINST MANU SHARMA
UNDER SECTION
482 OF CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
The Court has the inherent power under section 482 to quash the FIR
There is no such hard and fast rule as to when the Court will quash the FIR exercising its
inherent powers under S. 482 of the Code of The Criminal Procedure. Where it is evident
that the allegations made are so absurd or instituted with malafide intention, the Court will
resort to quashing of FIR to prevent abuse of the process of law and thereby securing the
ends of Justice
There is Abuse of
Process of the Court against Manu Sharma.
Charges instituted against Manu Sharma under S.302/34 and 120B of IPC are frivolous and
framed with a biased mindset of the police towards their colleague, as Manu Sharma had
absolutely no control over the actions of the entirely autonomous Stargazer system, which
in fact was simulating exactly the brain of a rich and powerful Nitin Kaushal. Also The
Program itself never urged killing Ish and the actions of Riha in causing death of Ish are
solely of her own creation in which the appellant is being falsely implicated.
ISSUE 2:
WHETHER FIR AGAINST VAIBHAV SHARMA IS LIABLE TO BE QUASHED
The appellant is innocent and a victim of the legal process as:
Firstly, no cognizable offence is disclosed prima facie as no actual purchase or possession
of drugs has been made.
Secondly, mens rea element of the appellant is absent in the case.
Thirdly, S.35 of NDPS Act exempts a person from any liability if it is proved that
culpable state of mind is missing in the act.
xi

INSTITUTE OF LAW
ISSUE 3
WHETHER THE GOVERNMENT ORDINANCE INDISCRIMINATELY
BANNING ALL FORMS OF A.I. VALID?
The said ordinance is violative of Art. 14 of the Constitution of India.
The said ordinance has violated the Right To Equality protected by the Art. 14 of the
petitioner as well as all those using A.I. for a judicious and beneficial cause by failing to
provide for a reasonable classification between Good and the Bad and between Very
Advanced A.I. Systems and the Less Advanced A.I. Systems like the bots and turning to
be arbitrary and unreasonable.
The said ordinance is violative of Art. 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India.
The said ordinance is hampering the scientific temper and technological development of the
society and restricting the progress and growth of the society as the A.I. Systems in some
form or the other are being used in day to day life works like that of car factories,
production and packaging units in food industries, paint manufacture and so on. Article 19
(1) (g) of Constitution of India provides Right to practice any profession or to carry on any
occupation, trade or business to all citizens subject to the exception that the business should
not be illegal. The said ordinance would bring scientific and industrial development to a
standstill as it would be taking away the right of citizens of the country to practice their
profession and business that involves use of A.I. in some form or the other for automating
their tasks, that contributed towards the development of the society.
xii

INSTITUTE OF LAW
BODY OF PLEADINGS
ISSUE 1
MAINTAINABILITY OF QUASHING THE FIR AGAINST MANU
SHARMA UNDER SECTION
482 OF CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
SUBMISSION A:
The Court has the inherent power under section 482 to quash the FIR
S.482. Saving of inherent powers of the High Court- Nothing in this Code shall be
deemed to limit or affect the inherent powers of the High Court to make such orders as may
be necessary to give effect to any order under this Code, or to prevent abuse of the process
of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice.
1.1.1 This section envisages 3 circumstances in which, the inherent jurisdiction may be
exercised, namely:
To give effect to an order under CrPC
To prevent abuse of the process of the court
To secure the ends of Justice.
The Madhya Pradesh High Court also quoted the same judgement1
1.1.2
Inherent power u/s 482 of CrPC includes power to quash FIR, investigation or
any criminal proceedings pending before the High Court or any Courts subordinate to
it and are of wide magnitude and ramification. Such powers can be exercised to secure
ends of justice, prevent abuse of the process of any Court and to make such order or
may be necessary to give effect to any order under this Code, depending upon the facts
of a given case. Court can always take note of any miscarriage of justice and prevent
the same by exercising the power u/s 482 of Cr.P.C . These power are neither limited
nor curtailed by any other provisions of the Code. The power under this section should
be exercised ex debito justititae to prevent the abuse of the process of court.
Manohar T. Soni v. Kamlabai Soni, 1991 Cr LJ 788(MP)
Page No.1

INSTITUTE OF LAW
1.1.3
This section is a sort of reminder to the High Courts that they are not merely court
in law, but also Courts of Justice and possess inherent powers to remove injustice. The
inherent power of the High Court is an alienable attribute to the position it holds with
respect to the Courts subordinate to it.
1.1.4
Though ordinarily FIRs are not quashed by the High Court at the very initial stage,
however, if the case involves miscarriage of justice by the abuse of the process of law,
Court is under an imperative obligation to interfere in order to prevent the harassment
of a citizen of India by an illegal prosecution. It would also interfere whenever there is
any exceptional and extra-ordinary reason for doing so2.
1.1.5
One of the tests to apply in order to determine whether any particular case is of
that exceptional nature or not is to see whether a bare statement of the facts of the case
would be sufficient to convince the High Court that it is a fit case for its interference at
an intermediate stage3.
1.1.6
Another test is to be applied is to see whether in the admitted circumstances of the

case it would be a mock trial if the case is allowed to proceed. Broadly speaking, the
High Court will generally interfere in the interest of the justice and to stop abuse of
process of laws. Where, in the opinion of the court, chances of an ultimate conviction
are bleak and no useful purpose is likely to be served, the Court may quash the
proceedings4. In Sec 482, CrPC for quashing of first information report and
investigation, and terminating criminal proceedings if the case of abuse of process of
law was clearly made out.
1.1.7
The authority of the Court exists for the advancement of Justice and if any attempt
is made to abuse that authority, the Court must have power to prevent it5.Under this
section the High Court can entertain application not contemplated by the Code, if it is
satisfied that an order is necessary to secure ends of justice6.
1.1.8
The Honble S.C. in R.P. Kapoor v. State of Punjab7 has very well elucidated
Shyam M. Sachdev v. State 1991 CrLJ 300 (Del.)

S.N. Chaudhary v. State of Guwahati, 1992 CrLJ 1472 (Gau)
4
Shanu Films v. State of Bihar, 2007 Cr LJ 617(Patna)
5
Sukhdev, 11 l 539
6
State of Bombay v. Nilkanth Shiripat Bhave, AIR 1954 Bom 65:1954 Cr LJ 58:55 Bom LR 838(FB)
7
R.P. Kapur v. State of Punjab, AIR 1960 S.C. 866
3
Page No.2

INSTITUTE OF LAW
that:
Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently
improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion
that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused.
Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with malafide and where the
proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wrecking vengeance on
the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge.
CONCLUSION: There is no such hard and fast rule which can be laid down in
regard to the cases in which the Court will exercise its extra ordinary jurisdiction of
quashing proceedings at any stage ; in case of extra ordinary circumstances where it is
evident that the allegations made are so absurd or instituted with malafide intention,
the Court will resort to quashing of FIR to prevent abuse of the process of law and
thereby securing the ends of Justice.
SUBMISSION B:
There is Abuse of
Process of the Court against Manu Sharma.
Lodging of FIR against Manu Sharma was itself oppressive having a collateral
although there was no interference of
purpose,
Manu while handling the program, as artificial
intelligence was completely autonomous and was independent enough to take alternative
action when initial actions failed. The Stargazer Program (hereinafter The Program)
is
the intelligent system that simulated the brain and patterns of behaviour of Rihas father,
perceived its environment and then analysed intelligently the information thus received and
acted accordingly.
Manu Sharma could never possibly have had a means to interfere in
the process of working of the Stargazer Program as it had a brain of its own and the only
control was limited to providing inputs meant to humanise it
better. Futher it is quite
evident that even the Program that acted on the intelligence of its own never advised Riha
to kill Ish and neither Riha did intend killing him, and taking in notice the statement of
Investigating Officer Sahil Sethi that Ish was a dedicated police officer and that he was
very saddened by his death; these facts make it clear on the first look
that false charges of
murder construed ....... With Sec 34 and 120B of IPC is an attempt by police to avenge Ishs
death falsely implicating Manu Sharma and thus abusing the very process of law that is
Page No.3

INSTITUTE OF LAW
instead meant to secure Justice.
Contention I : That there was no interference of Manu Sharma in the instant

case.
It is contended before the Honble Court that The Stargazer Program is
completely
autonomous in its action and that Manu Sharma was evenhanded and had no
participation at all in the incident.
A). That The Program is an A.I. which is completely autonomous in its action.
1.2.2
AI is the simulation of human behaviour and cognitive processes on a computer and

hence is the study of the nature of the whole space of intelligent minds8. AI is,
therefore, the capability of a machine to imitate intelligent behaviour9.
There are
five attributes that one would expect an intelligent entity to have10.The first is
communication11.
One can communicate with an
intelligent entity12.
The easier it is to communicate with an entity, the more
intelligent the entity seems13. The Second is Internal Knowledge14. An intelligent

entity is expected to have some knowledge about itself.
The Third is External
Knowledge15. An intelligent entity is expected to know about the outside world, to

learn about it, and utilize that information. The Fourth
is Goal Driven Behaviour16.
An intelligent entity is expected to take action in order to achieve its goals. The fifth is
Creativity17.
An intelligent entity is expected to have some degree of creativity.
In
this context, creativity means the ability to take alternate action when the initial
action fails18.
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
Most AI entities possess these five attributes by definition19. The
N.P. PADHY, ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE AND INTELLIGENT SYSTEMS 3 , 2005, OXFORD

UNIVERSITY PRESS
Id.
Roger C. Schank, What Is AI, Anyway?, Vol.8 No. 4, AI MAG., (Winter 1987), at 59.
Id. At 60
Id.
Id.
Id.
Id. At 60
Id.
Id.
Schank, supra note 10, at 60
Page No.4

INSTITUTE OF LAW
Program in the present case seems

fact, it
just to possess all of these characteristics and in
was the first real
breakthrough in artificial intelligence, and scientists the world over had hailed it as
significant as the man first discovering the wheel; therefore it was the only one its
kind and
the most advanced artificial intelligence system the humanity had yet ever
had. It was a system that very well perceived its environment, analysed knowledge it
received thereto from the blogs, social networking sites, voice and video clips of a
deceased user, identified patterns of behaviour of the target and then using its highly
advanced intelligent brain successfully imitated the personality and acted, behaved
and talked just like the target personality.
B). The Program Simulated a Real Life High Statured Nitin Kaushal
1.2.3
Now the fact that The Program initially advised Riha to have frank
conversations with Ish just exactly as would a dad
do, and later however, when her
father (The Program) realised that her daughter was so depressed that she could do
something wrong to her, the Program had no other choice but to devise a plan to help
Riha get rid of Ish in order to save her. Noting the immense wealth of Nitin Kaushal
and his high stature in society, it would not be far fetched to predict that Nitin could
have resorted to the same expedient had he been alive. This all the more emphasises
the fact that the The Program was acting strictly in the capacity of Nitin Kaushal,
imitating the brain and authority that Nitin enjoyed in his life.
C). The Program possessed the Ability to take Alternate Action when the Initial One
Failed
1.2.4
The Program had a goal driven behaviour, with the aim to help its user by being
a virtual parent to the user. In the instant case the Program focussed on making Riha
feel better and talked to her just like her father Nitin. The program on complaints of
Riha about Ish, advised her to have talks with him, however when this initial action of
it failed to bring in the results, it took a break and then within moments came up with
an alternate action thus advising Riha with a plan to get herself rid of Ish. This fact
19
Id. At 60-62
Page No.5

INSTITUTE OF LAW
further supports that The Program was an entirely autonomous highly advanced
work of Artificial Intelligence.
D). Liability Of Artificial Intelligence Systems
1.2.5 The two most important aspect to impose criminal liability upon a specific
entity(human or
corporation) are external element-actus reus and, internal
element-knowledge or general intent vis-a-vis the conduct element(mens rea)20. In the

present context, the A.I. is possessing both elements,it acted in the virtual capacity of
the father and has acted accordingly through the knowledge attained from its
environment,
i.e. ,blogs,social sites ,audio and video clips of Nitin Kaushal.
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
liability model.21. When an advanced A.I. System is capable enough to form the
necessary intent to commit an offence the Direct Liability Model shall be the best
suited one to impose criminal liability. The Direct Liability model focuses on the A.I.
Entity itself.22 Criminal liability for a specific offense is mainly comprised of actus
reus and the mens rea of that offense.23 In order to impose criminal liability on any
kind of entity, the existence of these elements in the specific entity must be proven.24
When a human or corporation fulfills the requirementsperfect of both the external
element and the internal element, criminal liability is imposed25.If an AI entity is
capable of fulfiling the reuirements of both the external element and the internal
element ,and,in fact, it actually fulfills them, there is nothing to prevent criminal
20
JOSHUA DRESSLER ,CASES AND MATERIALS ON CRIMINAL LAW 126(2007)

Id.
22
Cf, e.g., Steven J. Frank, Tort Adjudication and the Emergence of Artificial Intelligence
Software, 21 SUFFOLK U. L. REV. 623 (1987); S. N. Lehmanqzig, Frankenstein Unbound Towards
a Legal Definition of Artificial Intelligence, 1981 FUTURES 442 (1981); Maruerite E. Gerstner,
Liability Issues with Artificial Intelligence Software, 33 SANTA CLARA L. REV. 239 (1993); Richard
E. Susskind, Expert Systems in Law: A Jurisprudential Approach to Artificial Intelligence and Legal
Reasoning, 49 MOD. L. REV. 168 (1986).
23
DRESSLER,supra note 20
24
Id.
25
Id.
21
Page No.6

INSTITUTE OF LAW
liability from being imposed on that AI entity.26

Knowledge is defined as sensory reception of factual data and the understanding of
that data27
The Stargazer was equipped for such reception, the process of analysis in the AI
system was parallel to that of human understanding,it perfectly imitated the
human
cognitive processes ,which makes this AI completely autonomous in its working, and
was not at all dependent on the interference of Manu Sharma. AI was acting like Nitin
Kaushal in its virtual capacity trying to take care of his daughter .AI is fulfilling both
the elements of actus reus and mens rea to commit the offence and protect Riha from
all the perils.
E).
That there was absolutely no involvement of Manu Sharma in the present case.
1.2.6. That AI was completely automonous and independent in its working and was not
relying on Manu Sharmas interference, it was rendering advices to Riha to uplift her
mood, simultaneously providing moral support to her. Talking to Riha in her odd time
or to provide assistance whenever she needed that, fulfiling her small wishes like she
wanted Vanilla Mousse Cake on her birthday.
1.2.7
That Manu Sharma was the Developing Officer behind the Stargazer Project and the
project was still in development, he to the extent of making it behave more humanly
had the access to tweak its code to humanise it. Here, it is to be realised that The
Program was not a mere instrumental machine that would do exactly what it is told to
do, rather it was an advanced A.I. System that would receive all the information given
to it, analyse it and then act upon it using its own brain that , in this case, was the
brain of Nitin Kaushal. It would be a serious miscarriage of Justice if the developer of
an advanced A.I. Program is made laible for the acts of the intelligent Program that
was simulating the brain of Nitin Kaushal.
26
Id.
27
WILLIAM JAMES, THE PRINCIPLES OF PSYCHOLOGY 221 (1890); HERMANN VON

HELMHOLTZ, THE FACTS OF PERCEPTION (1878). In this context knowledge and awareness are
identical. See, e.g., United States v. Youts, 229 F.3d 1312, 1317 (10th Cir. 2000); State v. Sargent,
594 A.2d 401 (Vt. 1991); United States v. Spinney, 65 F.3d 231, 235 (1st Cir. 1995); State v. Wyatt,
482 S.E.2d 147 (W. Va. 1996); United States v. Wert-Ruiz, 228 F.3d 250, 255 (3rd Cir. 2000);
United States v. Jewell, 532 F.2d 697, 700-01 (9th Cir. 1976); United States v. Ladish Malting Co.,
135 F.3d 484, 488 (7th Cir. 1998).
Page No.7

INSTITUTE OF LAW
1.2.8. The facts of the case make it clear that The Program had gone a long way in
helping Riha cope up with her tragic loss; the Program was a grand success in its
venture. But the immediate termination of Program by the user, at a juncture when the
Program had proved a huge success ,was undoubtedly a matter of concern for the
minds behind the Stargazer Program and Manu Sharma being the developer of the
system was the one most affected by its termination. Naturally, driven by his
dedication towards The Program and the years of research and hardwork undertaken
to buid it up, he decided to take full control of the Program in this case and to protect
years of research turning futile, he choose to proceed with the more experimental
section of Stargazer, that in turn could have proven beneficial for Riha and as it is
clear from the evidence that her condition did improve. This was his sole motive
behind taking complete charge of the Program and then the realisation that the user is
a friend of him, just simply drove him
1.2.9
more into this case.
Ignoring all these facts involved, the act of Police in drawing charges against Manu
Sharma solely on the ground that Riha was a college friend of Manu years back and
the assumed hypothesis by the police that Manu after all these years would want to get
Riha back by eliminating Ish, is in the first glance absolutely absurd and improbable
and contrary to the facts of the case where neither Manu Sharma nor The Program
had ever displayed the intention to kill Ish.
Contention II : That Stargazer never advised Riha to kill Ish

1.2.10
It is contended before the Court that framing of charges under Sec 302 of IPC
against Manu Sharma is absolutely unfounded because
even The Program acting
in the capacity of Rihas father never advised Riha to kill Ish. The facts of the case go
as:
a.That Ish was buying unwanted gifts for Riha,his over pampering behaviour was
infuriating and mentally disturbing her .Riha mentioned his behaviour to his father(AI),
to which his father adviced to have frank conversation with him.
b.That Riha followed her fathers advice and started talking to Ish in a general way but
this had no effect on Ish, instead his overtures were growing. It was unbearable for
Page No.8

INSTITUTE OF LAW
Riha to cope with the situationwas so she told her father that shell end up doing
something to herself.
After listening this statement from Riha the call was disconnected
which
undoubtedly signifies that program was confused and took some time to think for
solution.
c.After ten minutes Riha again received a call from her father , he asked Riha to call
Ish at her place, hit him with something and run away from the house, call the police
and try to imitate in front of others that Ish has tried to outrage her modesty . This way
Ish would be put in jail and shed have her life back once and for all.
Thus the fact that The Program advising Riha to call the police after hitting him so
that Ish would be put behind the bars shows that The Program never intended that
Ish should be killed.
1.2.11
Based on these facts, it is submitted before the Court that framing of charges under
sec 302 of IPC against Manu Sharma is groundless as The Program never intended
to kill Ish.
Contention III : That Police has instituted vexatious proceedings with malafide
intention against Manu Sharma.
1.2.12 That in the present case proceeding is instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking
vengeance on the accused with a view to spite Manu Sharma due to private grudge,
this shows the biasness of Police towards their department. Ish was a police officer
and the police seem to be maligned when instituting charges of murder construed with
Sec34 and 120B of IPC because as already established that even The Program never
intended killing Ish, police accusing Manu of murder, appears on the very face that it
is an attempt to seek vengeance for Ishs death. The statement of investigating officer
Sahil Sethi:
Ish was a dedicated police officer and we are very saddened by his
murder. We want to assure the public that we shall bring the perpetrators of this
heinous crime to justice. I will not say much so as not to jeopardize the investigation,
but Manu Sharma isn t as clean as he claims to be
gives an insight into the
biasness of police towards its department and its endeavours to somehow set this
Page No.9

INSTITUTE OF LAW
liability on Manu Sharma who happens to be the perfect Rat in Polices Trap!.
1.2.13
Indian Courts have always been the guardian of justice quashing any such kinds of
vexatious proceedings instituted malafide against an innocent28.
A complaint may
also be quashed where it is a clear abuse of the process of the court, as when the
criminal proceeding is found to have been initiated with malafide /malice for wreaking
vengeance or to cause harm, or where the allegations are absurd and inherently
improbable29. The language of this provision invites liberal construction keeping in
view the objects sought to be achieved that no person should be permitted to abuse the
process of court or process of law. The penal code is intended to protect society
against crime but it certainly, should not be permitted to be used as an instrument to
frustrate the very purpose by incorrectly or illegally implicating other persons and
thus, abusing the process of court and law both. Power to quash is the discretion of
the court and may be exercised sparingly but there will be no occasion for the court to
impose on itself unspecified restrictions or limitations in exercise of such powers.
Power to quash is an ancillary or essential aspect of inherent powers of the court30.
In cases where the HC finds that there has been failure of justice or misuse of judicial
mechanism or an order was not correct, the HC may be justified in exercising
jurisdiction under section 482.31 The exercise of inherent power would be necessary
whenever it is just or equitable and it should be to ensure observance of the due
process of law, to prevent improper vexation or oppression and to do justice
between the parties and to secure a fair trial32.
1.2.14
It is asserted by the appellant that police has instituted absurd charges against the
appellant, and the said FIR being vexatiously instituted, appellant humbly submits
before the court that to prevent the penal code from being an instrument to harass the
appellant, the FIR shall be quashed in the interest of securing Justice and extricating
28
Jhumpa Panigrahi v. Tanu Gouda, 2003 CrLJ 385 (Ori.), vexatious allegations to harass the appellant,
quashed.; B.A. Srinivasa Guptha v. State of Karnataka, 2002 CrLJ 4540 (Kant),a complaint with persistent
malafide intention quashed.
29
Indian Oil Corporation vs. NEPC India Limited and Others, (2006) 6 SCC 736
30
Abasaheb Homname versus State of Maharashtra, CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 766 OF 2007
31
Ved Prakash v. State of UP 2003 CrLJ 2080 at page 2081 (All)
32
(i) State of Haryana vs. BhajanLal, AIR 1992 SC 604, (ii) Indian Oil Corporation vs. NEPC India Ltd. ,
(2006) 6 SCC 736, (iii) Central Bureau of Investigation vs. Ravi Shankar, (2006) 7 SCC 188, (iv) Popular
Muthiah vs. State represented by Inspector of Police, (2006) 7 SCC 296, (v) Sanapareddy Maheedhar vs.
State of A.P., 2008 AIR SCW 11, and (vi) Som Mittal vs. Government of Karnataka (Criminal Appeal No.
206 of 2008 decided on 21st February, 2008)
Page No.10

INSTITUTE OF LAW
the
appellant from the stigma of being suspicious in the eyes of society.
Contention IV : The Charges Under Sec. 302/34 against Manu Sharma are a work
of Fiction.
1.2.15
Sec 34 of IPC reads as When 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. The soul of section 34, IPC is the
joint liability in doing a criminal act.33 As, observed by S.C. in Ashok Kumar v. State
of Punjab34, the existence of a common intention amongst the participants in a crime
is the essential element for the application of this section. Analysing the section, two
prime ingredients of Joint Liability under Section 34 IPC are:
1) Criminal act is done by several persons.
2) Such act is done in furtherance of common intention of all.
As per the 1st essential, before a person can be convicted following the provisions of
34, that person must have done something along with other persons. Some individual
participation in the commission of the criminal act would be the requirement. Every
individual member of the entire group charged with the aid of 34 must, therefore, be
a participant in the joint act which is the result of their combined activity.35It is
asserted before the Court that in the instant case Riha was solely responsible
for the
death of Ish and she was the lone participant in the act. It is evident from the evidence
that Riha and Ish were alone in the home when Riha hit Ish with the vase thereby,
causing death of Ish. The appellant submits that there was not even a remote
participation of him in the incident as then,
and space..In the various judgements
he
was nowhere in the proximate time
of the S.C. It has been held that in case of
offences against human body physical presence somewhere near the spot is a
condition necessary, for the applicability of 34 of IPC36. Actual participation in the
33
Kuria and another v. State of Rajasthan, AIR 2013 SC 1085 : (2012) 10 SCC 433
AIR 1977 SC 109 : (1977) 1 SCC 746
35
Shyamal Ghosh v. State of West Bengal, (2012) 7 SCC 646; Nand Kishore v. State of Maharashtra, AIR
2011 SC 2775; Baldeo Singh v. State of Bihar, AIR 1972 SC 464; Rana Pratap v. State of Harayana, AIR 1983
SC 680
36
Shreekantiyah Ramayya v. State of Bombay AIR 1955 SC 287;Shiva Prasad, AIR 1965 SC 264
34
Page No.11

INSTITUTE OF LAW
commission of the offence in some way or other at the time when crime is actually
being committed is a condition is sine qua non for 34 IPC37.As per Thomas J, if no
such act is done by a person even if he has common intention with other accused for
the accomplishment of the crime, 34 cannot be invoked for connecting that person. In
other words, the accused who only keeps the common intention in his mind, but does
not do any act cannot be convicted with the of 34 of IPC. It is also necessary to
remember that mere presence of the offender at the scene of the murder without any
participation to facilitate the offence is not enough.38 Even by merely accompanying
the accused one does not become liable for the crime committed by the accused within
the meaning of S.34 of IPC.39
1.2.16
In lieu of above decided cases it is humbly submitted by the appellant that there
was no participation of the appellant in the offence as he was in no manner aiding the
commission of the offence at the time of the offence. It is further submitted that the
requirement of physical presence in the case of offences against human body for the
applicability of S.34 is also not being met in the present case because the appellant
was thousands of miles far away at the
Stargazers Headquarters in Los Angeles, at
the moment of the incident.

1.2.17
Now, the 2nd vital ingredient for the applicability of S.34 is common intention of
all. The common intention within the meaning of the section implies a
pre-arranged plan, and to convict the accused of an offence applying the section it
should be proved that the criminal act was done in pursuant to the pre-arranged plan.40
Further, it is required that there shall be a prearrangement and premeditated
concert .i.e. Prior meeting up of minds.41
1.2.18
In the case at hand, it is asserted by the appellant that there was no prior meeting
up of minds and the following points will make it evident:

A) Manu Sharma never personally interacted with Riha Kaushal.
B) The Stargazer Program itself never intended or advised killing of Ish
Evidence therefore makes it evident that Manu Sharma had never concerted or
37
38
39
40
41
Id.
Bhishan Singh v. State of Punjab, AIR 1983 SC 748; Ghanshyam v. State of U.P.,IR 1983 SC 293
Dashrathlal v. State of Gujarat, AIR 1979 SC 1342; Rangaswami v. State of T.N., AIR 1989 SC 1137
Mehbub Shah v. King Emperor, AIR 1945 PC 148; Pandurang v. State of Hyederabad, AIR 1945 SC 216
Id.
Page No.12

INSTITUTE OF LAW
arranged with Riha the plan of death of Ish.

1.2.19
It is a established rule that, Before a Court can Convict a person for any offence
read with S.34, it should come to a definite conclusion that the said person had a prior
concert with one or more other persons, named or unnamed, for committing the said
offence.42.
It is therefore humbly submitted that in the present case there was
absence of common intention of Manu Sharma in the commission of the offence in

any form whatsoever.
1.2.20
The appellant humbly pleads before the court that in absence of participation as
established above and negation of common intention in any form in the offence, and
these two ingredients being vital for the applicability of 34, the court shall hold
charges of 302/34 framed against the appellant, absolutely absurd and irrational and be
pleased to quash them down.
Contention V : That the Charges framed against the appellant under S.120B are
Preposterous .
1.2.21
S.120A of IPC defines criminal conspiracy as: When two or more persons agree
to do, or cause to be done,- 1) an illegal act, or

2) an act which is not illegal by illegal means, such an agreement is designated a
criminal conspiracy:
Provided that no agreement except an agreement to commit an offence shall amount to
a criminal conspiracy unless some act besides the agreement is done by one or more
parties to such agreement in pursuance thereof.
The gist of the offence is the bare engagement and association to break the law,
whether any act be done in pursuance thereof by the conspirators or not.43 Meeting
of minds is essential. Mere knowledge or discussion is not sufficient.44 It is
intention to commit the crime and joining hands with persons having the same
intention. Not only the intentions but there has to be a agreement to carry out the
object of the intention,which is an offence. It would not be enough for the offence of
conspiracy when some the accused merely entertained a wish, howsoever horrendous
42
43
44
Krishna Govind Patil v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1963 SC 1413

Mohammad Ismail, (1936) Nag 152
Sudhir Shantilal Mehta v. CBI, (2009) 8 SCC 1
Page No.13

INSTITUTE OF LAW
it may be, that offence be committed.45

1.2.22
Appellant, in the present case has never agreed to the commission of any offence.
appellant has never interacted with Riha Kaushal and as already established above he
had absolutely no control over the actions of the intelligent Stargazer system. This
rules out any possibility of a agreement between Manu sharma and Riha Kaushal.
Further even the intention, the sole presence of which cannot make appellant liable for
120B46 was too missing, as again established above. In the absence of an agreement,
the possibility of which is absolutely non-existent in the present case, a mere thought
to commit a crime does not constitute an offence.47 A few bits here
and a few bits
there on which the prosecution relies cannot be held to be adequate for connecting the
accused with the commission of the crime of criminal conspiracy. It has to be shown
that all the means adopted and illegal acts done were in furtherance of the object of
conspiracy hatched.48
1.2.23
In light of above contention it is humbly submitted that prosecution of appellant
under S.120B IPC is unambiguously out of the question and therefore it is pleaded
before the court to dismiss charges against Manu Sharma for criminal conspiracy
under Sec120B of IPC.
CONCLUSION: Charges instituted against Manu Sharma under S.302/34 and 120B
of IPC are frivolous and framed with a biased mindset of the police towards
their colleague, as Manu Sharma had absolutely no control over the actions of
the entirely autonomous Stargazer system, which in fact was simulating exactly
the brain of a rich and powerful Nitin Kaushal. Also The Program itself never
urged killing Ish and the actions of Riha in causing death of Ish are solely of her
own creation in which the appellant is being falsely implicated.
45
State through Superintendent of Police, CBI/SIT v. Nalini and others,(1995) 5 SCC 253 mere Knowledge,
or even discussion, of thge plan is not,per se enough;Russell on Crimes(12th EDn. Vol.1)quoted in Kehar
Singh and Ors. v. State(Delhi Administration),1998 (3) SCC 609 at 731.
46
Supra note 45
47
R. Venkatakrishnan
48
Esher Singh v. State of A.P., 2004 (11) SCC 585
Page No.14

INSTITUTE OF LAW
ISSUE 2:
IF FIR AGAINST VAIBHAV SHARMA IS LIABLE TO BE QUASHED
SUBMISSION A:
Vaibhav Sharmas FIR is liable to be quashed as he is innocent in his conduct.
2.1.1.
That to impose criminal liability upon any person two main elements must
exist,i.e., criminal conduct( actus reus) while other is- internal or mental
element,i.e., knowledge or general intent vis-a-vis
the conduct element(mens rea).
If one element is missing, no criminal liability can be imposed.49 Here, Vaibhav

Sharma has only designed that bot for his convenience so that he can get coke easily
on discounted price.Neither his conduct was such that he intended to commit such
crime nor he has knowledge that his actions would go against State police.
2.1.2. That here Vaibhav Sharma has neither fulfilled the condition of actus reus nor that of
mens rea so he cannot be held responsible for any criminal act.
2.1.3.Most criminal offences are defined to require not just the commission of a prohibited
act, but also that the act must be committed while the person has a certain culpable
state of mind.
In the days when Latin terms pervaded Anglo-American law, the bad
act was referred to as the actus reus and the culpable state of mind was referred to as
the mens rea. A person might have a bad state of mind, but if the person does not act
upon his or her bad thoughts and impulses, there is no crime. Any criminalizing of
bad thoughts alone would create thought crimes.
Conversely, a person might commit
an act that results in harm, but if the act is not accompanied by a certain mens rea, no
crime is committed. This acknowledges that bad results sometimes flow from
accidents and other unwitting conduct that should not be stigmatized and punished as
criminal.
For the most part, then, crimes are defined to require the convergence of a
prohibited act and a culpable state of mind.50

2.1.4. Vaibhav Sharma had no culpable state of mind at the same time he never had
any intention to order coke (drug) and therefore it is submitted that FIR
lodged against him is not in the process of securing justice but rather an
49
Supra 20
EDMUND R. FOLSOM( Criminal Defense Attorney), ACTUS REUS,MENS REA AND STIRCT
LIABILITY CRIMES
50
Page No.15

INSTITUTE OF LAW
expedient to set culpability upon an innocent teenager.

SUBMISSION B:
There is no disclosure of any offence
2.2.1
In the present case police has instituted FIR against Vaibhav merely on the ground
that products were ordered from the decoy website set up by police to catch drug
peddlers. Even at the very first instance, the fact that the website was a fake website
and therefore no drug was really purchased establishes that no offence is committed as
there is no actual purchase of any kind of drug. The botwas acting under false
impression created by police that site was selling coke at discounted rates under
mistaken belief bot ordered it, for which Vaibhav Sharma became liable, although
his conduct was beyond criticism.
2.2.2
The Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act 1985 (hereinafter

NDPS Act)
provides for penalising the acts of engagement in drugs (here relating
to coca plant)51 . However the purpose of the act being to control and regulate the
narcotic drugs52 and S.35 requires the prerequisite of culpable mind for holding
a person liable under the act.53 It has already been unambiguously established
above in the submission A that the appellant in the present case was a teenager who
had no intention in any form whatsoever of ordering drugs and thus the FIR lodged
against him would do no justice if entertained, but would result in abuse of process
of law stigmatizing the social status and dignity of a brilliant teenage student.
CONCLUSION: The appellant is innocent and a victim of the legal process as:
Firstly, no cognizable offence is disclosed prima facie as no actual purchase or
possession of drugs has been made.
Secondly, mens rea element of the appellant is absent in the case.
51
The Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (Act No. 61 of 1985) 8,16
Id. Preamble to the Act : An Act to consolidate and amend the law relating to narcotic drugs, to make
stringent provisions for the control and regulation of operations relating to narcotic drugs and psychotropic
substances 1[, to provide for the forfeiture of property derived from, or used in, illicit traffic in narcotic drugs
and psychotropic substances, to implement the provisions of the International Convention on Narcotic Drugs
and Psychotropic Substances]and for matters connected therewith.
52
53
Id. S.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 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.
Page No.16

INSTITUTE OF LAW
Thirdly, S.35 of NDPS Act exempts a person from any liability if it is proved that
culpable state of mind is missing in the act.
ISSUE 3
WHETHER THE GOVERNMENT ORDINANCE
INDISCRIMINATELY BANNING ALL FORMS OF A.I. VALID?
The Constitution of India expressly confers upon the courts the power of judicial review.
The courts, as regards the fundamental rights, have been assigned the role of sentinel on the
qui vive under Article 13 of the Constitution.54 In Minerva Mills Ltd. & Ors. v. Union of
India & Ors. this Court mandated without ambiguity, that it is the Constitution which is
supreme in India and not the Parliament. In Mardia Chemicals case the Court held
17(2)
of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security

Interest Act, 2002 to be unreasonable, arbitrary and violative of Art. 14 of the Constitution.
Therewith, it is contended before the Court that the said Ordinance passed by Government
is unreasonable, arbitrary and violative of
Art. 14 and Art. 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of
India.
SUBMSSION A :
The said ordinance is violative of Art. 14 of the Constitution of India.
3.1.1
Art. 14 of the Indian Constitution provides to all persons the Equality before the
law.55 The equality of laws guaranteed by Art. 14 does not mean that all laws must be
general in character. It does not mean that the same laws should apply to all persons. It
does not mean that every law must have universal application for, all persons are not,
by nature, attainment or circumstances in the same position. The varying needs of
different classes of people often require separate treatment.56 In fact, identical
54
The Constitution Of India, Article 13

13. (1) All laws in force in the territory of India immediately before the commencement of this Constitution,
in so far as they are inconsistent with the provisions of this Part, shall, to the extent of such inconsistency, be
void.
(2) The State shall not make any law which takes away or abridges the rights conferred by this Part and any
law made in contravention of this clause shall, to the extent of the contravention, be void.
55
Art. 14 Equality Before Law
The State shall not deny to any person equality before the law or the equal protection of the laws within the
territory of India
56
Chiranjit Lal v. Union Of India, AIR 1951 SC 41, per Das J.; State of Bombay v. F.N. Balsara, AIR 1951
Page No.17

INSTITUTE OF LAW
treatment in unequal circumstances would amount to inequality.57 So, a

reasonable classification is not only permitted but is necessary if society is to
progress.58.
3.1.2
In the present case, in haste,
Government has irrationally and indiscriminately
passed the ordinance banning every kind of A.I. Systems. The Government in fact has
found an easy expedient to save itself from the proceedings and investigations to be
initiated in matters of cases involving the use of A.I. Systems by the way of banning
all forms of A.I. and therefore also going detrimental to the scientific development of
society. Blindly banning all forms of A.I. is
inconsistent with Art. 14 of the
Constitution because:
1)
It places
the cases where
A.I. is put into good and beneficial use, at equal
footing with those using A.I. for propounding criminal acts under the veil of A.I.
Systems.
2)
It places the very advanced A.I. Systems at par with the ordinarily used and not
so advanced A.I. Systems like the very widely used bots used for automating the
tiring and strenuous tasks requiring immense human labour.
3) It is against the new concept of equality i.e. Protection against Arbitrariness
propounded by Court in various cases59,
as the said ordinance is indiscriminate,
putting a blind eye to the above two existing classes and thus arbitrary and grossly
unreasonable.
3.1.3
The Petitioner humbly submits that the said ordinance is hampering the
scientific temper and technological development of the society and restricting the
progress and growth of the society. It has violated the Right To Equality
protected by the Art. 14 of the petitioner as well as all those using A.I. for a
judicious and beneficial cause by failing to provide for a reasonable classification
and turning to be arbitrary and unreasonable.
SC 318, per Fazal Ali, J.; Kedar Nath v. State of West Bengal, AIR 1953 SC 404
57
Abdul Rehman v. Pinto, AIR 1951 Hyd. 11
58
Jagjit Singh v. State, AIR 1954 Hyd 28.
59
E.P. Royappa v. State of Tamil Nadu, AIR 1974 SC 555; Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, AIR 1978 SC
597; R.D. Shetty v. Airport Authority of India, AIR 1979 SC 1628
Page No.18

INSTITUTE OF LAW
SUBMSSION B:
The said ordinance is violative of Art. 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India.
3.1.4.
Article 19 (1) (g) of Constitution of India provides Right to practice any
profession or to carry on any occupation, trade or business to all citizens subject

to Art.19 (6) which enumerates the nature of restriction that can be imposed by
the state upon the above right of the citizens. Sub clause (g) of Article 19 (1)
confers a general and vast right available to all persons to do any particular type
of business of their choice but that business should not be illegal.
Any restriction imposed by the state by any law on the right guaranteed under Article
19(1) (g) can be challenged on the ground either that the restriction is unreasonable, or
that the restriction is in excess of the right, or that even activities which are not
pernicious or that the procedure laid down for curbing any activity is unjust, arbitrary
or unreasonable.60
3.1.5. Reasonable means which stems from the reason. A restriction should not be
capricious and arbitrary and there shall have to be a sufficient nexus between the
restriction and object sought to be achieved and the object must not, itself, be
repugnant to the Constitution of India61. In the instant case the ordinance passed by
central government is not reasonable as it violating or infringing the prospectivity of
trade, profession, occupation or business dealing in artificial intelligence of all persons
living in India and at the same time relates to the cases of appellant.
3.1.6. That it involves the exercise of balancing the interest of the individual with that of
the public interest i.e. individualism v. collectivism. Mere reporting of two cases had
made the Central Government to take such harsh steps and take such erroneous actions
against people at large who even are not dealing in such advanced technological AI
but dealing in lower level or form of AI who are mere replacements or substitute of
manual labour to increase the efficiency of the production or relay of output.
3.1.7. The government of Uttar Pradesh prohibited grant of license to a trader within a
radius of 5 kms of a regular diesel outlet. The constitutional validity of the said order
60
61
Rameshwaral Haralka v. Union of India.: AIR 1970 Cal. 520

Habibullah v Gulam Ahamed Baba 1979 Kashmir Law Journal 309
Page No.19

INSTITUTE OF LAW
was challenged in Daulat Ram Gupta v. State of UP62 the court held that the order is
liable to be quashed being violative Of article 19(1)(g) of the constitution and
the
said order is arbitrary based on unwarranted assumption. The control order does not
prohibit either expressly or by necessary implication the grant of retail dealer license
to a person within 5
kms of
the radius of the regular diesel outlet. Imposing ban
against grant of license or carrying on business on the general assumption is not

justified. In Lalbabu Prasad v. State of Bihar63 the government of Bihar cancelled
the coal trading
license of the petitioner on the ground
carrying the same
that
his father was
business. The court found the order of cancellation of license
void. Debarring a member of the same family to carry on the same trade cannot be a
reasonable restriction.
CONCLUSORY NOTE:
That in todays era most of the assembly line work like that of car factories,
production and packaging units in food industries,paint manufacture and so on
and so forth, there are countless functions which
are being done by the direct or
indirect interference of the AI. We are not definitely living in 18th-19th Cent. in
which all work is going to be done manually. Due to scientific and technological
development humans need more efficiency in the outcome but at the same time
expenditure of time should be less. AI in every field of life has made our life very
simple and easy. Banning every type of AI throughout the country would effect us
economically and socially. This Ordinance
is banning commercial research, sale
or dissemination in any other form of hardware or code that possessed

characteristics of Artificial Intelligence including, but not limited to programs
which are considered bots in common parlance. Such banning is completely
unreasonable and restrictive in nature and thus violative of Art. 14 and Art.19 of
the Constitution and is also opposed to Art. 51A(h) of the Constitution that
dutybounds citizens of the country to develop the scientific temper, humanism and
the spirit of enquiry and reform.
62
AIR 1996 All. 30.

AIR 1989 Pat. 69.
63
Page No.20

INSTITUTE OF LAW
PRAYER
In the light of arguments advanced and authorities cited, the Appellant/Petitioner

humbly submits that the Honble Court may be pleased to adjudge and declare that:
1. Appellant 1 has absolutely no involvement in the present matter and FIR

against him be quashed.
2. Appellant 2 is innocent and FIR against him be quashed.
3. Hold that the said ordinance is constitutionally invalid and violative of
Article 14 and Art.19(1)(g) of the Indian constitution.
Any other order as it deems fit in the interest of equity, justice and good
conscience.
For This Act of Kindness, the Appellant/Petitioner Shall Duty Bound

Forever Pray.
Sd/(Counsel for the Appellant/Petitioner)
Page No.21

Final Appellant University of Allahabad

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Final Appellant University of Allahabad

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

TC-01

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

BEFORE THE HONOURABLE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Criminal Appeal No. 32 of 2015,

Manu Sharma v. U.T. of Chandigarh

Vaibhav Sharma v. State of Punjab

Manu Sharma v. Union of India

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT

THE 5TH NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION,CHECKMATE 2015 ARMY

If FIR against Vaibhav Sharma is liable to be quashed

There is no disclosure of any offence

The said ordinance is violative of Art. 14 of the constitution of India

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT

THE 5TH NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION,CHECKMATE 2015 ARMY

All India Reporter

Criminal Law Journal

First Information Report

Narcotic Drug & Psychotropic

Supreme Court Cases

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT

THE 5TH NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION,CHECKMATE 2015 ARMY

BOOKS AND COMMENTARIES

Hermann Von Helmholtz, The facts of Perception(1878)

S.N Lehmanqzi, Frankestein Unbound- Towards Legal Definition of Artitficial

Steven J. Frank, Tort Adjudication and the Emergence Of Artificial Intelligence

William James, The Principles Of Psychology 221(1890)

PAPER AND ARTICLES

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT

THE 5TH NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION,CHECKMATE 2015 ARMY

Abasaheb Hommaine v. State of Maharashtra , Criminal Application no. 766 of

Abdul Rehman v. Pinto, AIR 1951, Hyd, 11..................................................................18

Baldeo Singh v. State of Bihar, AIR, 1972, SC 464.......................................................11

B.A. Srinivasa Guptha v. State of Karnataka,2002, CrLJ 4540( Kant)..........................9

Bhishan Singh v. State of Punjab ,AIR 1983 SC 748....................................................11

Central Bureau of Investigation v. Ravi Shankar (2006) SCC 736...............................10

CBI/SIT v. Nalini and Ors. (1955) 5 SCC 253 ..............................................................13

Dashrathlal v. State of Gujarat, AIR 1979 SC 1342.....................................................11

Esher Singh v. State of A.P, 2004(11) SCC 585.............................................................13

E.P Royappa v. State of T.N, AIR 1974, SC 555...........................................................18

Ghanshyam v. State of U.P, IR 1983 SC 293.................................................................11

Habibullah v. Gulam Ahmad Baba, 1979......................................................................19

Indian Oil Corporation v. NEPC Indian ltd. (2006) , SCC 736.....................................9

Jagjit Singh v. State, AIR 1954, Hyd, 28.......................................................................18

Jhump Panigrahi v. Tanu gouda, 2003 CrLJ 385...........................................................9

Kedar Nath v. State of West Bengal, AIR 1979 SC 1628..............................................17

Krishna Govind Patil v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1963 SC

Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, AIR 1978 SC 597...................................................18

Mehbub Shah v. King Emperor, AIR 1945 PC 148........................................................12

Manohar T. Soni v. Kamlabai Soni, 1991 CrLJ 788(MP)..............................................1

Nand Kishore v. State of Maharashtra , AIR 2011 , SC 2775.......................................11

Pandurang v. State of Hyderbad, AIR 1945 SC 216.....................................................12

Popular Muthiah v. State Represented by Inspector of Police (2006)7 SCC 296.........10

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT

THE 5TH NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION,CHECKMATE 2015 ARMY

Rana pratap v. State of Haryana AIR 1983 SC 680......................................................11

Rangaswami v. State of T.N., AIR 1989 SC 1137..........................................................11

R.P kapur v. State of Punjab AIR1960 SC 866.............................................................3

State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal AIR 1192 SC 604.......................................................10

State v. Sougent, 594 A.2d 401......................................................................................6

State v. Wyatt , 482, S.E 2d 147 ( W.Va 1996)...............................................................6

Sanapareddy Maheedhar v. State of Andhra pradesh, 2008 AIR SCW 11...................10

Shyamal Ghosh v. State of West Bengal(2012) 7 SCC 646...........................................11

Shreekantiyah Rammayya v. State of Bombay AIR 1955 SC 287.................................11

Shiva Prasada AIR 1965 SC 264..................................................................................11