MOOT COURT COMPETITION CITY LAW COLLEGE JANKI PURAM

BEORE THE HON’BLE SUPREME COURT OF STAN

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO: OF 2023

IN THE MATTER OF:

TANVIR AHMAD & ANR ………...………PETITIONER

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

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

JUSTICES OF THE SUPREME COURT OF STAN

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE

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

2
 TABLE OF CASES

Arun Kumar v. State of Uttar Pradesh 12

Biahr Legal Support society v. Chief Justice of India 12

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

State of Maharashtra v. Dhansingh Rajput 15

Haryana v. Raj Kumar (2019) 16

State of Maharashtra v. Ajay D. Doshi 16

State of Kerala v. V.J. Alex 16

State of Rajasthan v. Anwar Pasha 16

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

3
BOOKS
1.Textbook on Indian Penal Code, KD Gaur( 7th edition of 2022)
2. Indian Penal Code, Ratanlal and Dhirajlal(36th ed. Of 2022)
3. Indian Penal Code, S.N Mishra(22nd ed. Of 2018)
4. Criminal Law, PSA Pillai (14th ed. Of 2019)
5. J.N Pandey Constitution Law Of India, 58th Edition , 2021
LEGISLATIONS, ORDINANCES, NOTIFICATIONS, CIRCULARS
1. Information and Technology Act, 2000
2. Imperial Legislative Council, Indian Penal Code, 6th October, 1860
3. Imperial Legislative Council, Indian Evidence Act, 15th March, 1872
4. The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
5. The Supreme Court (Enlargement of Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction) Act, 1970
WEB SOURCES
1. www.manupatrafast.com(MANUPATRA) last visited: 10.04.2023
2. www.judis.nic.in(SUPREME COURT OF INDIA OFFICIAL), last visited: 12.04.2023
3. www.scconline.com(SCC ONLINE) last visited: 3.02.2023
4.https://www.scobserver.in (Supreme Court Observer) last visited: 15.04.2023
5.https://www.casemine.com(Casemine) last visited: 13.02.2023
6. https://www.legalserviceindia.com (Legal Service India), last visited: 13.04.2023

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

SSRO Stanian Space research org

Ld learned

UPC Unique Participation Code

IPC Indian Penal Code

SPC Stanian Penal Code

IT Act Information Technology Act

5
 STATEMENT OF JUDRICTION

The petitioners have invoked the criminal appellate jurisdiction of the Hon’ble apex court of
Stan under Article 134 of the Constitution of Stan and Section 2 of the Supreme Court
(Enlargement of the criminal jurisdiction Act,1970)

Enlarged appellate jurisdiction of Supreme Court in regard to criminal matters.

Without prejudice to the powers conferred on the Supreme Court by clause (1) of article 134
of the Constitution, an appeal shall lie to the Supreme Court from any judgment, final order or
sentence in a criminal proceeding of a High Court in the territory of India if the High Court—

(a) has on appeal reversed an order of acquittal of an accused person and sentenced him to
imprisonment for life or to imprisonment for a period of not less than ten years;

(b)has withdrawn for trial before itself any case from any court subordinate to its authority
and has in such trial convicted the accused person and sentenced him to imprisonment for life
or to imprisonment for a period of not less than ten years.

6
 STATEMENT OF FACTS

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

8
 ISSUES RAISED

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

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

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

9
 SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

11
 ARGUMENTS ADVANCED

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

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

1
AIR 1989 SC 1445
2
AIR 1987 (38)

12
ISSUE 2: Whether the verdict passed by the Hon’ble High Court of Periyana is
erroneous?

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

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

3
119 (2005) DLT 596

13
It is humbly submitted before the Hon'ble Apex Court that both Tanvir Ahmed and Ramendra
Singhal should be held liable under Section 66F of the Information Technology Act, 2000 and
Section 441 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

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

Section 441 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 states

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

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

The liability of Tanvir Ahmed and Ramendra Singhal under Sections 66, 66F of the Information
Technology Act, 2000 and Section 441 of the Stanian Penal Code can be established by
examining the legal provisions and relevant real cases in detail. Section 66 of the Information
Technology Act, 2000 Which states “Computer related offences. If any person, dishonestly or
fraudulently, does any act referred to in section 43, he shall be punishable with imprisonment
for a term which may extend to three years or with fine which may extend to five lakh rupees
or with both. (a) the word "dishonestly" shall have the meaning assigned to it in section 24 of

14
the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860); (b) the word "fraudulently" shall have the meaning
assigned to it in section 25 of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860).]” This section deals with
unauthorized access to computer systems or networks. It is argued that Tanvir Ahmed and
Ramendra Singhal intentionally accessed government servers without proper authorization,
which constitutes a violation of Section 66. The term "unauthorized access" refers to the act of
intentionally gaining access to a computer system or network without the permission of the
owner or without being authorized by law to do so.

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

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

Section 66F of the Information Technology Act, 2000 Which states that “Punishment for cyber
terrorism. (1) Whoever,-- (A) with intent to threaten the unity, integrity, security or sovereignty
of India or to strike terror in the people or any section of the people by-- (i) denying or cause
the denial of access to any person authorised to access computer resource; or (ii) attempting
to penetrate or access a computer resource without authorisation or exceeding authorised
access; or (iii) introducing or causing to introduce any computer contaminant, and by means of
such conduct causes or is likely to cause death or injuries to persons or damage to or destruction
of property or disrupts or knowing that it is likely to cause damage or disruption of supplies or
services essential to the life of the community or adversely affect the critical information
infrastructure specified under section 70; or (B) knowingly or intentionally penetrates or
accesses a computer resource without authorisation or exceeding authorised access, and by
means of such conduct obtains access to information, data or computer data base that is
restricted for reasons of the security of the State or foreign relations; or any restricted
information, data or computer data base, with reasons to believe that such information, data or

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

15
computer data base so obtained may be used to cause or likely to cause injury to the interests
of the sovereignty and integrity of India, the security of the State, friendly relations with foreign
States, public order, decency or morality, or in relation to contempt of court, defamation or
incitement to an offence, or to the advantage of any foreign nation, group of individuals or
otherwise, commits the offence of cyber terrorism. (2) Whoever commits or conspires to
commit cyber terrorism shall be punishable with imprisonment which may extend to
imprisonment for life” This section deals with cyber terrorism, which involves using computers
or computer networks for unlawful activities that pose a threat to the sovereignty, integrity, or
security of India. It is argued that Tanvir Ahmed and Ramendra Singhal introduced a self-
programmed virus into the government servers, causing disruption and damage to the systems,
and thus engaged in cyber terrorism as per Section 66F. In the case of State of Rajasthan v.
Anwar Pasha (2018)6, the accused had created and spread a virus to disrupt computer systems,
causing damage to data and affecting the normal functioning of the systems. The court held
that the accused was liable under Section 66F of the Information Technology Act, 2000 for
engaging in cyber terrorism. Similarly, in the case of State of Maharashtra v. Ajay D. Doshi
(2012)7, the accused was held liable under Section 66F for creating and spreading a virus to
disrupt computer systems. The prosecution can argue that Tanvir Ahmed and Ramendra
Singhal's act of introducing a virus into the government servers, as alleged, constitutes a clear
violation of Section 66F of the Information Technology Act, 2000, as it involved using a
computer system for unlawful activities that posed a threat to the sovereignty, integrity, or
security of India.

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

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

16
without lawful authority or permission. In the case of State of Kerala v. V.J. Alex (2019)8, the
accused had gained unauthorized access to a computer system and extracted data without
proper authorization. The court held that the accused was liable under Section 441 of the
Stanian Penal Code for criminal trespass. Similarly, in the case of State of Tamil Nadu v. M.
Sundar (20179), the accused was held liable under Section 441 for unauthorized access to a
computer system.

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

17
 PRAYER

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

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

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

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

AND/OR

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

Sd/-

(Counsel For Respondent)

18