3RD GD GOENKA International Virtual Law and Technology Moot Court Competition

TEAM CODE- IVLTM-310

BEFORE THE HON’BLE SUPREME COURT OF NEPTUNE VERSE

Mr. ATLEE

DIRECTOR MADAM CURA PERVASIVE (APPELLANTS)

DIRECTOR Mr. SHANE BITKINSIN

V.

THE STATE OF NEPTUNE VERSE (RESPONDENT)

The Case Concerning Appeal Against The Decision Of Special Court And High Court
In Respect To The Conviction Of Mr. Atlee and the Directors Madam Cura Pervasive
and Mr. Shane Bitkinsin

MEMORANDUM ON THE BEHALF OF THE APPELLANTS

3RD GD GOENKA International Virtual Law and Technology Moot Court Competition, 2022.

TEAM CODE- IVLTM-310

BEFORE THE HON’BLE SUPREME COURT OF NEPTUNE VERSE

Mr. ATLEE

DIRECTOR MADAM CURA PERVASIVE (APPELLANTS)

DIRECTOR Mr. SHANE BITKINSIN

V.

THE STATE OF NEPTUNE VERSE (RESPONDENT)

The Case Concerning Appeal Against The Decision Of Special Court And High Court
In Respect To The Conviction Of Mr. Atlee and the Directors Madam Cura Pervasive
and Mr. Shane Bitkinsin

MEMORANDUM ON THE BEHALF OF THE APPELLANTS

Page 2 of 27
3RD GD GOENKA International Virtual Law and Technology Moot Court Competition, 2022.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF ABBREVATIONS..................................................................................................4

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES ...............................................................................................5-7

 STATUTORY COMPILATIONS………………………………………………….....5
 BOOKS…………………………………………………………………………….......5
 DICTIONARIES……………………………………………………………………...6
 WEBSITES……………………………………………………………………………6
 TABLE OF CASES……………………………………………………………….......7

STATEMENTS OF JURISDICTION...................................................................................8

SYNOPSES OF FACTS.....................................................................................................9-11

ISSUES RAISED……............................................................................................................12

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS.....................................................................................13-14

ARGUMENT ADVANCED ...........................................................................................14-25

I. WHETHER THE APPEAL AGAINST THE DECISION IS MAINTAINABLE

OR NOT??...........................................................................10-14
II. WHETHER THENJURSIDICTION OF NEPTUNE VERSE IS APPLICABLE
ON Mr. ATLEE AND THE DIRECTORS OF THE
COMPANY?.....................................................15-17
III. WHETHER THE ACTIONS OF Mr. ATLEE AND THE DIRECTORS HAVE
THREATENED THE UNITY, INTEGRITY, SECURITY AND
SOVEREIGNITY OF NEPTUNE VERSE?............................................

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

Page 3 of 27
3RD GD GOENKA International Virtual Law and Technology Moot Court Competition, 2022.

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

 Edn. = Edition
 Ors = Others
 Anr = Another
 Govt. = Government
 Ltd. = Limited
 Mr. = Mister
 VS. = versus
 IPC- The Indian Penal Code, 1860
 CrPC- The Criminal Procedure Code, 1973
 Sec. -Section

Page 4 of 27
3RD GD GOENKA International Virtual Law and Technology Moot Court Competition, 2022.

INDEX OF AUTHORITY

 STATUTORY COMPILATIONS

 The Constitution of India, 1950.

 The Information Technology Act, 2000
 The Indian Penal Code, 1860.
 The Criminal Procedure Code, 1973.
 The Indian Evidence Act, 1872
 The Companies Act, 2013
 The Mines & Minerals (Development & Regulation) Act, 1957.

 LIST OF BOOKS

 LAW OF CRIMES AND CRIMINOLOGY, 1stedn., R. P. Kathuria, Vinod Publications,

Vinod Nijhawan Publications Pvt. Ltd., Kashmere Gate, New Delhi.
 THE INDIAN PENAL CODE, 34thedn.Ratanlal and Dhirajlal, Lexis Nexis, Lexis Nexis,
Gurgoan, Haryana.
 THE INDIAN PENAL CODE, 12th edn., P.S.A. Pillai’s Criminal law, Lexis Nexis
 THE INDIAN PENAL CODE, 6th edn., by K D Gaur Criminal Law, Universal Law
Publication.
 TECHNOLOGY LAWS DECODED BOOK by N. S. Nappina, 2017
 INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY LAW AND PRACTICE by Vakul Sharma, 2005
 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW OF INDIA by Narender Kumar, Allahabad Law Agency,
Edition 2021.
 BOOK ON CONSTITUTIONAL LAW by V.N Shukla edited by M.P Singh
 PRINCIPLES OF LAW OF EVIDENCE by Avtar Singh, 12th Edition.
 COMPANY LAW AND ITS PRINCIPLES by Avtar Singh.
 LAW OF MINES AND MINERALS by P. SESHAGIRI RAO Edition 2018.

Page 5 of 27
3RD GD GOENKA International Virtual Law and Technology Moot Court Competition, 2022.

 DICTIONARIES

 Aiyer P.R., Advanced Law Lexicon, (3rd ed., 2005).

 Garner B.A,. Black’s law Dictionary, (9th ed., 2009).
 Oxford Advanced Learners Dictionary, (7th ed., 2008).

 WEBSITES

 www.indiankanoon.com
 www.manupatra.com
 www.legalcitation.com
 www.scconline.com\
 www.lawfinderlive.com.
 www.casemine.com
www.firstpost.com

Page 6 of 27
3RD GD GOENKA International Virtual Law and Technology Moot Court Competition, 2022.

TABLE OF CASES

 Ram Krishna Dalmia v/s Justice S R Tendolkar

 E.P. Royappa v/s State Of Tamil Naidu

 Saroj Malik v/s Cyber Appealent
 Saraswati Keshav Mandave &ors.v/s Chandrabhan Baliram Kale
 Mobarik Ali v/s The State of Bombay
 M.S.Reddy v/s State Inspector of Police ,A.C.B
 Savithri vv/s Karthyayani Amma
 Shiela Sebestian v/s Jawaharaj
 Maneka Gandhi v/s Union of India.
 Ravinder Singh v/s State of Punjab.

Page 7 of 27
3RD GD GOENKA International Virtual Law and Technology Moot Court Competition, 2022.

STATEMENT OF JURSIDICTION

The Hon’ble Supreme Court has the jurisdiction to try this matter as specified in the Article
134 read along with Article 134A (b) of the constitution of Neptune Verse.

Article 134

134. Appellate jurisdiction of Supreme Court in regard to criminal matters. –

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-has on appeal
reversed an order of acquittal of an accused person and sentenced him to death; or 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 death; or certifies under
Article 134A that the case is a fit one for appeal to the Supreme Court

Page 8 of 27
3RD GD GOENKA International Virtual Law and Technology Moot Court Competition, 2022.

Read with Article 134A (b)

134A. Certificate for appeal to the Supreme Court. –

Every High Court, passing or making a judgment, decree, final order, or sentence, referred
to in clause (1) of Article 132 or clause (1) of Article 133, or clause (1) of Article 134-

(b) shall, if an oral application is made, by or on behalf of the party aggrieved, immediately
after the passing or making of such judgment, decree, final order or sentence, determine, as
soon as may be after such passing or making, the question whether a certificate of the nature
referred to in clause (1) of Article 132, or clause (1) of Article 133 or, as the case may be,
sub-clause j of clause (1) of Article 134, may be given in respect of that case.

STATEMENT OF FACTS

There is a country called Neptune Verse. This country is a sovereign country and has got its
own sovereign laws the capital of the country is Magic Town. This country has got the
highest number of deposits of mineral iron ore in the world. Neptune Verse is a developing
country. The country, to support its large population, has been setting up various mines, with
some regions Being fully supported by the mining activities in the relevant area. Both public
and private players have been setting up mines to extract different types of ores. One such
minerals, which is heavily mind in the country, is gold. In one of the locations of Gold
Neptune Verse Mining Limited, being at Dubanshi, the company has come across massive
reserves of gold. On 15th May, 2022, one of the major terminals of Gold Neptune Verse
Mining Ltd, Which is controlling various excavation operations at Dubanshi site, suddenly
became a victim of premeditated attack. When the Network Systems Operator opened their
systems in the morning they realised that the systems were showing the red background

Page 9 of 27
3RD GD GOENKA International Virtual Law and Technology Moot Court Competition, 2022.

notice. In the said red background notice, it had been written in the garbled language and font
that the computer system of Dubanshi excavation site of Gold Neptune Verse Mining Ltd has
been targeted by ransomware attack and therefore all the files, folders and electronic data and
records of Gold Neptune Verse mining limited which were resident on the said computer
systems had been encrypted. The message further stated to pay a ransom of 1000 Bitcoins on
a stipulated address of the darknet. The last backup of the main systems was taken on 15th
February, 2022. However, since then, because of oversight or inadvertence, the backup could
not be taken. Due to this attack and no backup, gold mining operations at the Dubanshi site
came to a grinding halt. The company filed a police complaint at the police station od
Dubanshi by Network System Administer of the company, responsible for computer
networks located on the Dubanshi site, on 25th May 2022. Consequently a case is registered
under section 66 read with section 43, 66B, 66C, 66D, 66F, of the Neptune Verse Computer
Technology and Misuse Act, 2022 read with sections 408, 420, 465, 468 and 469 of the
Neptune Verse Penal Code. The police found out that the attack originated from outside the
territorial boundaries of the Neptune Verse. It was routed through the computer of Zoonis Pvt
Ltd and is being used by Mr. Atlee, an employee at Zoonis Pvt Ltd. Mr. Atlee lives in Magic
Town and is a taxpayer of the country. Consequently, on the basis of the Said information the
police arrested Mr Atlee 30th may 2022 and also accused the two directors of Zoonis Pvt
limited, being Madam Cura Pervasive and Mr. Shane Bitkinson who were based in USA.
Zoonis Pvt Ltd responded by quickly suspending Mr Atlee and engaged in negotiations with
the Neptune Verse government, in order to clear the name of its directors. The company
promised all cooperation in the investigation of the ransomware attack. The computer
malware off the attack originated from an African country. The company Gold Neptune
Verse mining limited was advised not to pay any ransom. Experts have said that it will take
the company at least nine months completely restore the data. On 10th June, 2022 the special
court convicts Mr. Atlee, as well as the directors of Zoonis Pvt Ltd Through a summary trial
for various offences under section 66 read with section 43, 66B, 66C, 66D, 66F, of the
Neptune Verse Computer Technology and Misuse Act, 2022 read with sections 408, 420,
465, 468 and 469 of the Neptune Verse Penal Code. Mr. Atlee and the Directors of the
Zoonis Pvt Ltd appeal against their conviction to the High Court of Dubanshi. The High
Court rejects the appeals and upholds the convictions of Mr Atlee and the directors of Zoonis
Pvt limited.The food are filed petition before the Supreme Court of Neptune Verse
challenging their convictions in the seat matter. The petition was filed based on the
arguments that the conviction is without any foundation bsince they have got no connection
Page 10 of 27
3RD GD GOENKA International Virtual Law and Technology Moot Court Competition, 2022.

with the crime in question. They contend that the electronic evidence was collected without
following the due process of law and legally, not much incriminating electronic evidence has
been duly produced to support the case of their involvement in the matter. The directors of
Zoonis Pvt Ltd, being Madam Cura Pervasive and Mr. Shane Bitkinson argue that since they
are not citizens of Neptune Verse, the laws of Neptune Verse are simply not applicable to
them. The prosecution, on the other hand, is arguing before the Supreme Court of Neptune
Verse that the conviction of the three accused people needs to be upheld because it is in
national interest, even if certain provisions of the law have not been followed.The
prosecution further says that as Mr. Atlee is living within the territorial boundaries Of
Neptune Verse, he is amenable to the laws of Neptune Verse and since he has aided, assisted
and abetted, by use of his allocated computer in the various elements Constituting
ransomware attack against the gold excavation site of Dubanshi, his Conviction for various
offences laid down under the Neptune Verse Computer Technology and Misuse Act, 2022
and the Neptune Verse Penal Code needs to be Upheld. The prosecution also argues that as
per Neptune Verse law, the directors in Charge of a company are liable when such an attack
take place from the use of their Computer systems. The prosecution is particularly referring
to the cyber terrorism Elements of the alleged actions of Mr. Atlee, orchestrated with the aim
of causing terror, Fear and panic in the hearts of not just the members of excavation industry
but the entire Neptune Verse gold economy stakeholders ecosystem. Further, the alleged
activities of the Appellants as per the prosecution, have been done with the intent to threaten
the unity, integrity, security and sovereignty of Neptune Verse. The Supreme Court of
Neptune Verse has clubbed all the three petitions of the Petitioners and is now hearing the
said clubbed matters. Verse as a country has got all laws which are exactly the Same as those
prevailing in India.

Page 11 of 27
3RD GD GOENKA International Virtual Law and Technology Moot Court Competition, 2022.

ISSUES RAISED

ISSUE 1: WHETHER THE APPEAL AGAINST THE DECISION IS

MAINTAINABLE OR NOT?

ISSUE 2: WHETHER THENJURSIDICTION OF NEPTUNE VERSE IS

APPLICABLE ON Mr. ATLEE AND THE DIRECTORS OF THE COMPANY?

Page 12 of 27
3RD GD GOENKA International Virtual Law and Technology Moot Court Competition, 2022.

ISSUE 3: WHETHER THE ACTIONS OF Mr. ATLEE AND THE DIRECTORS

HAVE THREATENED THE UNITY, INTEGRITY, SECURITY AND
SOVEREIGNITY OF NEPTUNE VERSE?

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS

ISSUE 1

WHETHER THE APPEAL AGAINST THE DECISION WAS MAINTAINABLE OR

NOT?

After the decision in against of Mr. Atlee and both the directors by Special Court and High
Court, appeal should be maintainable in Supreme Court because they have Constitutional
right for appeal and they are not Citizens of Neptune verse and directors have no personal
connection with Mr. Atlee because he is random employee of Zoonis Pvt Ltd Company. They
also have no personal gain with this attack. Appeal also should maintainable because
evidence not properly collected as per due process of law then they have right for appeal.

ISSUE 2:

Page 13 of 27
3RD GD GOENKA International Virtual Law and Technology Moot Court Competition, 2022.

WHETHER THENJURSIDICTION OF NEPTUNE VERSE IS APPLICABLE ON Mr.

ATLEE AND THE DIRECTORS OF THE COMPANY?

The jurisdiction of Neptune verse not applies on Mr. Atlee and both the Directors of Zoonis
Pvt Ltd because evidence not collected by due Process of Law and during investigation
foundation of evidence against Mr. Atlee and both directors not properly. The jurisdiction
will not apply because for being liable of offence of forgery, a Person must be Physically
involved and there should be direct evidence against Mr. Atlee and Both the Directors but
there is no evidence regarding this and they are not Citizens of Neptune Verse.

ISSUE 3:

WHETHER THE ACTIONS OF Mr. ATLEE AND THE DIRECTORS HAVE

THREATENED THE UNITY, INTEGRITY, SECURITY AND SOVEREIGNITY OF
NEPTUNE VERSE?

The action by Mr. Atlee is not threaten the Unity, Integrity, Security and Sovereignty of
Neptune Verse because the investigation not proper by due process of law and the system of
Government’s Company Gold Mining Pvt Ltd was very Crucial in Nature. This also not
harms national security because there is no personal gain in the said case. Zoonis Pvt Ltd is
being a very reputed Company so there is no chance to indulge in this type of attack.

ARGUMENTS ADVANVCED

ISSUE 1: WHETHER THE APPEAL AGAINST THE DECISION IS

MAINTAINABLE OR NOT?

Mr. Atlee and the directors of Zoonis Pvt Ltd, being Madam Cura pervasive and Mr. Shane
Bitkinson appeal against their conviction to the high court of Dubanshi after the Special court
convicts Mr. Atlee as well directors of Company. But in High Court Decision they also
Found guilty. After that they appeal in Supreme Court and the appeal should maintainable
because:

1 Under the Article 1331. They have constitutional right that Appellate jurisdiction of
Supreme Court in appeals from High Courts in regard to civil matters.

1
Article 133 Indian Constitution

Page 14 of 27
 3RD GD GOENKA International Virtual Law and Technology Moot Court Competition, 2022.

 (1) An appeal shall lie to the Supreme Court from any judgment, decree or final order in a
civil proceeding of a High Court in the territory of India if the High Court certifies under
article 134A-
(a) that the case involves a substantial question of law of general importance; and
(b) that in the opinion of the High Court the said question needs to be decided by the
Supreme Court.
 (2) Notwithstanding anything in article 132, any party appealing to the Supreme Court
under clause (1) may urge as one of the grounds in such appeal that a substantial question
of law as to the interpretation of this Constitution has been wrongly decided.
 (3) Notwithstanding anything in this article, no appeal shall, unless Parliament by law
otherwise provides, lie to the Supreme Court from the judgment, decree or final order of
one Judge of a High Court.

2. Article 142 guarantees equality to all person including Citizens and Corporations

and Foreigners Its provisions have come up for discussion in the SC in a number of cases and
the case of Ram Krishna Dalmia vs Justice S R Tendolkar3 reiterated its meaning and
scope as follows. Article 14 permits classification, so long as it is 'reasonable', but
forbids Class legislation. A classification of groups of people is considered reasonable when:

1. The classification is based upon intelligible differentia that distinguishes persons or

things that are grouped from others that are left out of the group, and,
2. The differential has a rational relation with the objective of the act.

In addition, the classification must be non-arbitrary. The Supreme Court in E. P. Royappa
vs. State of Tamil Nadu4 provided guidance on arbitrariness of an act:

"Equality is a dynamic concept with many aspects and dimensions and it cannot be
‘cribbed, cabined and confined’ within the traditional and doctrinaire limits. From the
positivistic point of view, equality is antithetic to arbitrariness. In fact, equality and
arbitrariness are sworn enemies… Where an act is arbitrary, it is implicit that it is unequal
both according to political logic and constitutional law and is therefore violative of Article
14."

2
Article 14 of Indian Constitution
3
1958 AIR 538
4
1974 AIR 555

Page 15 of 27
3RD GD GOENKA International Virtual Law and Technology Moot Court Competition, 2022.

If Jurisdiction apply on Director instead of, they are not citizen of country, then they have
also right to appeal as like not a Citizen of Country and that’s why we can appeal will
maintainable.

3. Section 65B(4) in The Indian Evidence Act, 1872

(4) In any proceedings where it is desired to give a statement in evidence by virtue
of this section, a certificate doing any of the following things, that is to say,—
(a) identifying the electronic record containing the statement and describing the
manner in which it was produced;
(b) giving such particulars of any device involved in the production of that
electronic record as may be appropriate for the purpose of showing that the
electronic record was produced by a computer;
(c) dealing with any of the matters to which the conditions mentioned in sub-
official position in relation to the operation of the relevant device or the
management of the relevant activities (whichever is appropriate) shall be evidence
of any matter stated in the certificate; and for the purposes of this sub-section it
shall be sufficient for a matter to be stated to the best of the knowledge and belief of
the person stating it.

Certificate under Section 65B (4)5 is a mandatory requirement for production of

electronic evidence - Oral evidence in the place of such certificate cannot possibly
suffice (Para 20-21). In case of Atlee and Directors contention is that the electronic
evidence was collected without following the due process of law and legally and
chain process of collecting evidence is discontinued.
Case Law: Ravinder Singh @ Kaku vs State of Punjab6
The Supreme Court observed that the certificate under Section 65B(4) of Evidence
Act is mandatory to produce electronic evidence and that the oral evidence in the
place of such certificate cannot possibly suffice. In this case, the Trial Court convicted
three accused in a kidnap cum murder case and sentenced them to death. Allowing the
appeal filed by two accused, the High Court acquitted them. The conviction of one
accused was upheld, though the death sentence was set aside. This accused
approached the Apex court challenging the judgment of High Court.
5
The Evidence Act, 1872 s. 65B(4)
6
(SC) 461

Page 16 of 27
3RD GD GOENKA International Virtual Law and Technology Moot Court Competition, 2022.

4. Directors Suspend Mr. Atlee from Company and Co-operate totally with Government.
Their no connection with Atlee and he is random employee of Zoonis PVT Ltd
Company and Mr. Atlee and Both Directors not at all citizens of Neptune Inverse.
Directors have no any personal gain from this hacking. So, they can appeal in SC for
justice. Mr. Atlee is a taxpayer and as a taxpayer he can appeal in SC under The
Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) is the first appellate authority. Section
246A7 specifies the orders against which an appeal can be filed before the
Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals).
5. Section 438: Where a person without the permission of owner or any other person-in-
charge damage the computer, or Computer System, or Computer Network, the he
shall be liable for Penalty and Compensation to such person so affected. Section 43(b)
in The Information Technology Act, 2000 (b) downloads, copies or extracts any data,
computer data base or information from such computer, computer system or computer
network including information or data held or stored in any removable storage
medium;

6. Data theft is defined in Section 43 (b) of the Information Technology Act, 2000 (IT
Act) as follows: “If any person without permission of the owner or any other person
who is in charge of a computer, computer system of computer network, downloads,
copies or extracts any data, computer database or information from such computer,
computer system or computer network. It is the term used when any information in
the form of data is illegally copied or taken from a business or other individual
without his knowledge or consent.”

Case Law: Saroj Malik v. Cyber Appellate9

In this case the respondent has illegally made the identity theft of the trade name of the
appellant and that domain name has been unfully obtained by the respondent that legitimately
belongs to the appellant. Learned counsel for the appellant has referred section 43(b) of It Act
which relates to data theft. In view of the facts and material adduced by the appeallent, Since
the respondent has violated Section 43(B) of the IT Act, 2000 by copying the domain name
is question, the respondent is liable to be proceeded under Section 43(b) of the IT Act. In this
7
The Income Tax Act, 1861 s, 264A
8
The IT Act. 2000
9
AIR 517, 2017

Page 17 of 27
3RD GD GOENKA International Virtual Law and Technology Moot Court Competition, 2022.

case domain name and the copy right of the appellant has been infringed by the respondent, It
shall restore the same in favour of the Appellant.

ISSUE 2: WHETHER THENJURSIDICTION OF NEPTUNE VERSE IS

APPLICABLE ON Mr. ATLEE AND THE DIRECTORS OF THE COMPANY?

Section 60 – Oral Evidence must be Direct. This is the cardinal principle of any evidence to
be admissible in the court. If any oral evidence needs to be admissible, all the conditions
under Section 6010 of the Indian Evidence Act must be fulfilled. Real evidence must, in all
cases, whatever, be direct; that is to say;

If it refers to a fact which could be seen, it must be the evidence of a witness who says he
saw it;

If it refers to a fact which could be heard, it must be the evidence of a witness who says he
heard it;

If it refers to a fact which could be perceived by any other sense or in any other manner, it
must be the evidence of a witness who says he perceived it by that sense or in that manner;
10
The Indian Evidence Act, 1872, Sec. 60

Page 18 of 27
3RD GD GOENKA International Virtual Law and Technology Moot Court Competition, 2022.

If it refers to opinions or to the grounds in which that opinion is held, it must be the
evidence of the person who holds that opinion on those grounds -

Provided that the opinion of experts expressed in any treatise commonly offered for sale, and
the grounds on which such opinions are held, may be proved by the production of such
treatise if the author is dead or cannot be found or has become incapable of giving evidence
or cannot be called as a witness without an amount of delay or expense which the Court
regards as unreasonable.

Provided also that, if oral evidence refers to the existence or condition of any material thing
other than a document, the Court may, if it thinks fit, require the production of such material
thing for its inspection.

In the case of Atlee and Director, they arguing that the conviction is without any
foundation and not much incriminating electronic evidence has been duly produced to
support the case of their involvement in the matter. Since they have got no connection
with the crime in question. Since they have no connection with the crime. Hence,
jurisdiction not applicable on appeal lent.

Case Law: Sarswati Keshav Mandave & Others vs. Chandrabhan Baliram Kale 11 In the
case of the Supreme Court (cited supra) there was no direct evidence available
but there were aforesaid circumstances showing that Gopal Das had admitted that he had
adopted Shyamlal as his son and he had treated Shyamlal as his son for more than 54 years.

The Apex Court held that it was ancient adoption and in view of the facts of that case the
Court ought not to have direct evidence for proving the factum of adoption. There cannot be
dispute that in view of such peculiar circumstance it was not proper on the part of the Court
to insist for direct evidence on the factum of adoption.

2. Section 65B(4) in The Indian Evidence Act, 187212

(4) In any proceedings where it is desired to give a statement in evidence by virtue of this
section, a certificate doing any of the following things, that is to say,—

11
SCC 522, 2016
12
The Indian Evidence Act, 1872, s 65B(4)

Page 19 of 27
3RD GD GOENKA International Virtual Law and Technology Moot Court Competition, 2022.

(a) identifying the electronic record containing the statement and describing the manner in
which it was produced;
(b) giving such particulars of any device involved in the production of that electronic record
as may be appropriate for the purpose of showing that the electronic record was produced by
a computer;
(c) dealing with any of the matters to which the conditions mentioned in sub-section (2)
relate, and purporting to be signed by a person occupying a responsible official position in
relation to the operation of the relevant device or the management of the relevant activities
(whichever is appropriate) shall be evidence of any matter stated in the certificate; and for the
purposes of this sub-section it shall be sufficient for a matter to be stated to the best of the
knowledge and belief of the person stating it.
Certificate under Section 65B(4) is a mandatory requirement for production of electronic
evidence - Oral evidence in the place of such certificate cannot possibly suffice (Para 20-21).

In case of Atlee and Directors contention is that the electronic evidence was collected without
following the due process of law and legally and chain process of collecting evidence is
discontinued.

In the case of Ravinder Singh @ Kaku vs State of Punjab 13,The Supreme Court observed
that the certificate under Section 65B(4) of Evidence Act is mandatory to produce electronic
evidence and that the oral evidence in the place of such certificate cannot possibly suffice. In
this case, the Trial Court convicted three accused in a kidnap cum murder case and sentenced
them to death. Allowing the appeal filed by two accused, the High Court acquitted them. The
conviction of one accused was upheld, though the death sentence was set aside. This accused
approached the Apex court challenging the judgment of High Court.

3. Punishment of offences committed within India. —Every person shall be liable to

punishment under this Code and not otherwise for every act or omission contrary to the
provisions thereof, of which he shall be guilty within India.

According to Sec 2 IPC, ‘every person’, irrespective of his nationality, caste, color, status or
creed shall be held liable if he commits any offence within the territory of India.
The term ‘every person’ as mentioned in Sec 2 Indian Penal Code 14has a wider ambit as

13
(SC) 461, 2021
14
Sec 2, The Indian Penal code, 1860

Page 20 of 27
3RD GD GOENKA International Virtual Law and Technology Moot Court Competition, 2022.

compared to the term ‘ not only citizens’. This term also includes the Indian citizens as well
as the foreign nationals. The act also is also applicable to any association or a body of persons
whether it is incorporated or not.

In this present case the directors of Zoonis Pvt Ltd, being Madam Cura Pervasive and Mr.
Shane Bitkinson argue that since they are not citizens of Neptune verse, the laws of Neptune
verse are simply not applicable to them and jurisdiction not apply on them.

Case Law: In the case of Mobarik Ali v. The State of Bombay,15 a person who was a
Pakistani national induced a person residing in Bombay through telegram, telephone
conversations, letters and to send him money. When the case came in front of the court, the
Pakistani national pleaded that he cannot be made liable for the offence of cheating since he
was not physically present within the territory of India. The court rejected the contention and
held that the basis of jurisdiction under Section 2 of the Act is not the corporeal presence of
the offender but the locality where the offence is committed and since the offender committed
the offence in Bombay it is immaterial that at the time of commission of offence, he was not
present within the territory of India.

4. Section 43:

Section 43(b) in The Information Technology Act, 200016

Where a person without the permission of owner or any other person-in-charge damage the
computer, or Computer System, or Computer Network, the he shall be liable for Penalty and
Compensation to such person so affected.

(b) downloads, copies or extracts any data, computer data base or information from such
computer, computer system or computer network including information or data held or stored
in any removable storage medium;

Data theft is defined in Section 43 (b) of the Information Technology Act, 2000 (IT Act) as
follows: “If any person without permission of the owner or any other person who is in charge
of a computer, computer system of computer network, downloads, copies or extracts any
data, computer database or information from such computer, computer system or computer

15
1957 AIR 857
16
The Information Technology Act, 2000, s 43(b)

Page 21 of 27
3RD GD GOENKA International Virtual Law and Technology Moot Court Competition, 2022.

network. It is the term used when any information in the form of data is illegally copied or
taken from a business or other individual without his knowledge or consent.” 

Case Law: Saroj Malik v. Cyber Appellate June 30, 201117

In this case the respondent has illegally made the identity theft of the trade name of the
appellant and that domain name has been unduly obtained by the respondent that legitimately
belongs to the appellant. Learned counsel for the appellant has referred section 43(b) of It Act
which relates to data theft. In view of the facts and material adduced by the appellant, Since
the respondent has violated Section 43(B) of the IT Act, 2000 by copying the domain name
is question, the respondent is liable to be proceeded under Section ^^-C of the IT Act. In this
case domain name and the copy right of the appellant has been infringed by the respondent, It
shall restore the same in favour of the Appellant.

5. Burden of proof. Section 101 of IPC18

Whoever desires any Court to give judgment as to any legal right or liability dependent on the
existence of facts which he asserts, must prove that those facts exist. When a person is bound
to prove the existence of any fact, it is said that the burden of proof lies on that person.

Example:

(a) A desires a Court to give judgment that B shall be punished for a crime which A says
B has committed. A must prove that B has committed the crime.

In this case Burden of Proof on defendant/government and for proving liability of Atlee
and Directors they have to prove Atlee and Director guilty.

Case law: In the case of M.S. Reddy v. State Inspector of Police, A.C.B., Nellore19, it was
held that the initial burden of proof is on the prosecution. It cannot take advantage of the
weaknesses and inconsistencies of the defence. It must base its proof on its own evidence that
it has acquired. In another case of Savithri v. Karthyayani Amma, there were suspicious

17
AIR 517, 2017
18
The Indian Penal Code, 1860 s. 101
19
1993 CriLJ 558

Page 22 of 27
3RD GD GOENKA International Virtual Law and Technology Moot Court Competition, 2022.

circumstances regarding the execution of a will along with an allegation of coercion. The
court held that the burden of proof was on the party who alleged coercion.

6. Mr. Atlee was Random Employee of That company and Directors no personnel connection
with him and no personal gain , they also suspend him and fully cooperate with government,
So, Jurisdiction should not applicable on Directors.

7. In Case Shiela Sebestian v. Jawaharaj20 Court held that a person is liable for offence of
forgery when a person is physically involved in offence otherwise accused is not liable for
offence of forgery.

In case of Atlee, this is not proven that Atlee was physically involved in this offence hence,
jurisdiction not applicable on them.

ISSUE 3: WHETHER THE ACTIONS OF Mr. ATLEE AND THE DIRECTORS

HAVE THREATENED THE UNITY, INTEGRITY, SECURITY AND
SOVEREIGNITY OF NEPTUNE VERSE?

Article 21 in The Constitution Of India21

Protection of life and personal liberty:  No person shall be deprived of his life or personal
liberty except according to the procedure established by law. Due process of law doctrine not
only checks if there is a law to deprive the life and personal liberty of a person but also see if
the law made is fair, just and not arbitrary. If SC finds that any law as not fair, it will declare
it as null and void. This doctrine provides for more fair treatment of individual rights.

Under due process, it is the legal requirement that the state must respect all of the legal rights
that are owed to a person and laws that states enact must conform to the laws of the land like
– fairness, fundamental rights, liberty etc. It also gives the judiciary to access fundamental
fairness, justice, and liberty of any legislation.

20
AIR 2018
21
Article 21 of Indian Constitution

Page 23 of 27
3RD GD GOENKA International Virtual Law and Technology Moot Court Competition, 2022.

The difference in layman’s terms is as below: Due Process of Law = Procedure

Established by Law + The procedure should be fair and just and not arbitrary.

In this Present Case If this is the matter of National Interest then investigation should
be by Process of Law.

Case Law

In Maneka Gandhi vs Union of India22 SC held that – ‘procedure established by law’

within the meaning of Article 21 must be ‘right and just and fair’ and ‘not arbitrary,
fanciful or oppressive’ otherwise, it would be no procedure at all and the requirement of
Article 21 would not be satisfied. Thus, the ‘procedure established by law’ has acquired
the same significance in India as the ‘due process of law’ clause in America.

2. If this is the matter of National Unity, economy then the Gold Mining Pvt Ltd also
should had taken Backup and their system should not be crucial. So, they also responsible
for this incident.

Cyber attacks need a proper communication network that was missing in this case as the attack
originated from outside the territorial boundaries of Neptune verse. To fill that communication gap
the tacker use the computer of Zoonis Pvt limited being used by Mr Atlee. It can also be interpreted
that a good communication for the attack was only there because the company Zoonis Pvt limited
already had a good networking with other companies. The attackers while choosing the company as
a medium to route cyber the attack. Kept in mind network expansion of the company to easily route
the attack of the Dubanshi site. And also the easy access of network is important for the cyber
attack; that easy access was provided by the computer of Mr Atlee to the cyber attackers because
maybe the password or security of computer of Mr. Atlee was not that strong. So here it can be
interpreted that Zoonis private limited was chosen as a target due to good network expansion and
Mr. Atlee was just a random target who had been working sincerely at Zoonis private limited from
last many years. The company being a reputed company of Neptune Verse cannot indulge in any act
that could harm the sovereignty, unity, integrity, national and economic security of the country
Neptune Verse and Mr. Atlee being a faithful and trustworthy employee of Zoonis Pvt limited cannot
go against the principles of the company and would not ‘aid, abett or assist' in any kind of work
harming the reputation of its company. It should also be noted that there is no personal gain of the

22
1978 AIR 597

Page 24 of 27
3RD GD GOENKA International Virtual Law and Technology Moot Court Competition, 2022.

appellants in the said case. Sheila Sebastian vs V.R Jawahraj 23 . The argue presented before the
honourable Supreme Court of Neptune verse by Mr Atlee and the directors of Zoonis Pvt limited,
being being Madam Cura Pervasive and Mr. Shane Bitkinson, are arguing that the ‘Conviction is
without any foundation since they have got no connection with the crime in question. They contend
that the electronic evidence was collected without following the due process of law and legally, not
much incriminating electronic evidence has been duly produced to support the case of their
involvement in the matter.’ And the prosecution argued before the honorable Supreme Court of
Neptune verse that the conviction of the three accused people needs to be upheld because it is in
national interest, even if certain provisions of the law have not been followed. The first information
report stage itself with the line that merely because someone is a beneficiary, it cannot be a
plausible presumption of guilt. It’s an attractive argument, especially in the wake of the Supreme
Court finding in the Sheila Sebastian case that “however strong the suspicion may be, it cannot take
the place of proof.” The court went on to add that even “coincidence, grave doubt cannot take the
place of proof. The standard of proof in a criminal trial is proof beyond reasonable doubt because
the right to personal liberty of a citizen can never be taken away by the standard of preponderance
of probability.” V. Kalyanaswamy (D) Vs. L. Bakthavatsalam (D) by L.Rs. and Ors 24. In the case of V.
Kalyanaswamy Vs. L. Bakthavatsalam, the hon'ble Supreme Court while dealing with a will, held that
while the burden to prove the will and to satisfy the conscience of the court that there are no
suspicious circumstances or if there are any, to explain them, is on the propounder of the will, the
burden to prove that the will is procured by coercion, undue influence or fraud is on the
respondents who have alleged the same.

23
(AIR 2018) SC2434 Supra
24
(MANU/ SC/0528/2020

Page 25 of 27
3RD GD GOENKA International Virtual Law and Technology Moot Court Competition, 2022.

PRAYER

In light of the issues raised, arguments advanced and authorities cited, the counsel for the

Appellants humbly prays that the Hon’ble Court be pleased to adjudge, hold and declare:

That, the Appellant shall not be held liable for the offenses mentioned and hence shall
be acquitted.

And pass any order that this Hon’ble court may deem fit in the interest of equity, justice and
good conscience.

AND FOR THIS ACT OF KINDNESS, THE COUNCEL FOR THE PETITONER
SHALL BE DUTY BOUND FOREVER PRAY.

S/d

Page 26 of 27
3RD GD GOENKA International Virtual Law and Technology Moot Court Competition, 2022.

(Council on The Behalf of Appellants)

Page 27 of 27