- MEMORANDUM FOR PETITIONER

Subham Mohanty
1883159

Moot Court and Internship (Clinic-III) LW5084, KIIT School of Law

BEFORE
THE HON’BLE SUPREME COURT OF UNITED STATES OF INDUS
UNDER ARTICLE 32 AND 136 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF UNITED STATES OF
INDUS

IN THE MATTER OF
ARTICLE 32 AND 136 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF UNITED STATES OF INDUS,

SECTION 20(b) (ii) (c), SECTION 25 AND SECTION 27 (a) OF NARCOTIC DRUGS
AND PSYCHOTROPIC SUBSTANCE ACT, 1985

ARAV SAHOO………………………………………………………………..PETITIONER

v.
THE STATE OF ADISHA …………………………………………………RESPONDENT 1
NARCOTICS CONTROL BUREAU…………………………………….RESPONDENT 2
THE SENIOR INSPECTOR OF POLICE, ADISHA……………………..RESPONDENT 3

-
 MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER

TABLE OF CONTENT

CONTENT Page no.

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES 2

6
STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

7
STATEMENT OF FACT

STATEMENT OF ISSUES 9

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS 10

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED 13

22
PRAYER

1
 MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

INDIAN CASES :-
● Gurpreet Singh v. State of Punjab, AIR 2022
● Joginder Kumar v. State of UP, AIR 1994
● Rhea Chakroborty v. UOI, AIR 2020
● Prem Chand v. State of HP, AIR 2021
● State of HP v. Prem Chand, AIR 2015
● Sunder Singh v. The State of HP, AIR 2017
● Amar Pratap Singh v. State of Punjab
● Harish Chandra v. State of UP, AIR 2021
● Pappu Kumar Sah & Anr v. The State of Bihar, AIR 2018
● Chhotu v. State of UP, AIR 2021
● Avtera Singh v. State of Punjab, AIR 2011
● Diwakar Singh v. State of Bihar, AIR 2016

STATUTES :-
● Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substance Act, 1985
● Indian Penal Code, 1860
● Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
● Indian Constitution

BOOKS :-
● Dr. K. P Singh, “ Practical Approach to Narcotic Drugs & Psychotropic Substance
Act, 1985
● Bidyut Kumar Banerjee, “Law Relating to Narcotic Drugs & Psychotropic
Substance”, 2023
● Barar’s Digest on NDPS Act, 1985, 2022
● Dr J. N Pandey, “ Constitutional Law of India”, Central Law Agency, 2021

2
 MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER

Research Papers : -
● Satyakam Mohapatra, “ Current Status of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic
Substances (NDPS ) Act”, 2013
● Namisha Choudhary, “ Drug Abuse and the Failure of the NDPS Act to Curb the
Issue : A Socio - Legal Analysis” 2021
● Dr. Sandra Joseph, “Drug Demand Reduction Programme in India - A Qualitative
Research Analysis” 2019

3
 MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER

LIST OF ABBREVIATION

ABBREVIATIONS FULL FORMS

& And

V. Verses

Sec Section

Hon’ble Honourable

Mad. Madras

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic

NDPS Substance

Ors. Others

SC Supreme Court

AIR All India Reporter

IPC Indian Penal Code

Anr. Another's

UP Uttar Pradesh

Del Delhi

4
 MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER

CCTV Closed - Circuit Television

Para Paragraph

SCC Supreme Court Cases

UOI Union Of India

5
 MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

In accordance with Articles 32 and 136 of the United States of Indus Constitution, the petitioner
has petitioned the Hon'ble Supreme Court of the United States of Indus. The present case may be
heard by the Supreme Court of the United States of Indus.

Article 32 of the Constitution:

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

Article 136 of the Constitution :

Special leave to appeal by the Supreme Court
(1) Notwithstanding anything in this Chapter, the Supreme Court may, in its discretion, grant
special leave to appeal from any judgement, decree, determination, sentence or order in any cause
or matter passed or made by any court or tribunal in the territory of India.
(2) Nothing in clause (1) shall apply to any judgement, determination, sentence or order passed or
made by any court or tribunal constituted by or under any law relating to the Armed forces.

6
 MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER

STATEMENT OF FACTS

INTRODUCTION

1. One of the largest democracies is the Indus States. The constitution's preamble declares the
USI sovereign. socialist, secular, democratic, republic where the Constitution is supreme.
Indus states include Adisha.
2. Arav Sahoo, 58, of Badlapur, Adisha, was arrested in 2017 for breaking the NDPS Act and
accused with violating Section 20 (b) (ii) (c), Section 25 and Section 27, however he was
cleared of all charges in 2018.
3. Arav Sahoo, a farmer, runs a fishing and poultry farm in his home with numerous staff. To
secure the business, he installed closed-circuit cameras (CCTV).

BACKGROUND

4. Around 3PM on 18 July 2019, two people were standing on their ZTM bike and Xonda
Activ Scooty at Falgiri Adisha with one plastic sack each, while four more stood nearby
with plastic sacks.

5. Police questioned the motorcycle and scooter riders about the laden plastic sacks. They
hesitated before admitting that the plastic sachets contained ganja. When queried about the
ganja, everyone there said Arav sahoo, who was with them, was sponsoring it. Ganja
weighed 298.20 Kilograms on a battery-powered digital scale. When asked about their
ganja, they couldn't present a licence.

7
 MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER

6. before the executive magistrate. The executive magistrate, police, and independent
witnesses ordered the alleged accused to open the plastic sacks, which revealed cannabis
plant fruits and flowers, locally known as Ganja, a banned item under the NDPS Act. The
staff search found just mobile phones, voter IDs, and driving licences, with no
incriminating items.

7. Arav Sahoo, a prosperous businessman, owns several chicken farms in his hometown. He
lives near these farms. Arav Sahoo was arrested on 17.07.2019 at 11:00 p.m. from his home
in Badlapur, Adisha, by the investigating officer of Falgiri, Adisha, 180 kilometres from
the scene of the incident, which was recorded by CCTV in his house. The investigating
officer noted in the chargesheet that Arav Sahoo and the other accused were arrested from
Falgiri, Adisha, at 3:00 p.m. on 18.07.2019. The charge sheet includes this.

DISPUTE

8. Following Arav Sahoo's conviction by the Judicial Magistrate of Special Court, Falgiri,
the High Court of Adisha affirmed the verdict of the Judicial Magistrate of Special Court,
Falgiri. And both the courts rejected the plea of electronic evidence during the trail and
appeal.
9. The appeal that was submitted by Arav Sahoo has now been accepted by the Supreme
Court of the United States of Indus.

8
 MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER

STATEMENT OF ISSUES

ISSUE I : WHETHER OR NOT ARAV SAHOO WAS LIABLE UNDER SECTION 20 (b)
(ii) (c ), SECTION 25 AND SECTION 27 OF NDPS ACT, 1985 ?

ISSUE II : WHETHER THERE IS ANY DIRECT CONNECTION BETWEEN ARAV

SAHOO AND THE OTHER ACCUSED PERSONS?

ISSUE III : IS THE REJECTION OF PLEA OF ELECTRONIC EVIDENCE VALID? IS

THERE ANY RELEVANCY OF THE PREVIOUS CONVICTION OF ARAV SAHOO IN
THE PRESENT CASE?

ISSUE IV : WHAT ARE THE BASIC GROUNDS ON WHICH SUPREME COURT

ACCEPTED THE APPEAL OF ARAV SAHOO ?

9
 MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER

STATEMENT OF ARGUMENTS

ISSUE I : WHETHER OR NOT ARAV SAHOO WAS LIABLE UNDER SECTION 20 (b)
(ii) (c ), SECTION 25 AND SECTION 27 OF NDPS ACT, 1985 ?

1. It is humbly submitted before the Supreme Court of Indus that the Petitioner is not liable
under Section 20 (b) ( ii) ( c), Section 25 and Section 27 of the NDPS Act. The Petitioner
is not directly connected with the other accused. The police are not able to find any direct
link and admissible evidence which makes the Petitioner liable for the offence. The
Petitioner is not liable for contravention in relation to cannabis plants, and not liable for
allowing premises, etc to be used for commission for an offence under the same act. There
was nothing to show that the finance of drugs was allegedly facilitated by the Petitioner.
He cannot be said to have financed any illicit traffic of drugs. This shows that his custody
for investigation purposes was not required.

ISSUE II : WHETHER THERE IS ANY DIRECT CONNECTION BETWEEN ARAV

SAHOO AND THE OTHER ACCUSED PERSONS?

2.1 It is humbly submitted that, No, the Police did not find any direct link between the
Petitioner and the other accused, this case is considered as a false case under NDPS
Act. In the case of Gurpreet Singh v. State of Punjab,1 learned counsel for the petitioner
has submitted that the case is a false implication, on account of political consideration.
The commission has recommended filing of the cancellation report of the FIR to the

1
AIR 2022 CRR 255

10
 MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER

trial court at the earliest. Thus, the allegations on Petitioners are a part of a false case
by the police department.

ISSUE III : IS THE REJECTION OF PLEA OF ELECTRONIC EVIDENCE VALID? IS

THERE ANY RELEVANCY OF THE PREVIOUS CONVICTION OF ARAV SAHOO
IN THE PRESENT CASE?

1. It is humbly submitted that the CCTV footage of the Petitioner’s place is prime evidence in
this matter. Which is completely ignored by the police and even by the trial court. Thus the
rejection of Plea electronic evidence is invalid and shows a lack of fair investigation. Under
section 65B (1) any information contained in an electronic record, which has been stored,
recorded or copied as a computer output, shall also be deemed as a ‘document’ and shall be
admissible as evidence without further proof or production of the originals, if the conditions
mentioned are satisfied.

2. Under the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, Section 40 defines that, the existence of any
judgement, will be relevant even in a second trial. Here the rule of ‘res judicata’ applies. It
simply means that if any judgement which prevents the court from giving attention to such
a suit or petition then it will be a relevant fact. In the previous judgement in 2017, the
Petitioner was acquitted of all charges in NDPS Act. Thus, the arrest of the petitioner is
illegal. In the case of Joginder Kumar v. State of U.P,2 The SC held that because the police
have the power to make an arrest does not mean that an arrest should be made. Given the
paramountcy of liberty in our constitutional scheme, the power of arrest should be
exercised only as a necessity. It would thus, incumbent on the police to exercise great
circumspection before resorting to the drastic power of arrest.

2
AIR 1994 SC 1349

11
 MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER

ISSUE IV: WHAT ARE THE BASIC GROUNDS ON WHICH SUPREME COURT
ACCEPTED THE APPEAL OF ARAV SAHOO?

1.It is humbly submitted that the present petition is allowed by the Apex Court and the
petitioner is directed to be released on regular bail on his furnishing bail/surety bonds to the
satisfaction of the trial court / duty magistrate, subject to him not being required in any other
case. The petitioner shall also abide by the following conditions: -
● The Petitioner will not tamper with the evidence during the trial.
● The Petitioner will not pressurise/ intimidate the prosecution witnesses.
● The Petitioner will appear before the trial court on the date fixed, unless personal
presence is exempted.
● The Petitioner shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of which he is
suspected.
● The Petitioner shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or
promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him
from disclosing such facts to court or to any police officer or tamper with the
evidence.

In case of breach of any of the above conditions, the prosecution shall be at liberty to move an
application for cancellation of bail before this court.

12
 MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER

ARGUMENT ADVANCED

ISSUE I : WHETHER OR NOT ARAV SAHOO WAS LIABLE UNDER SECTION 20 (b)
(ii) (c ), SECTION 25 AND SECTION 27 OF NDPS ACT, 1985 ?

1. The petitioner respectfully submits that the petitioner is not responsible under Section
20(b)(ii)(c), Section 25, and Section 27 of the NDPS Act to the Supreme Court of India.
There is no direct relationship between the Petitioner and the other Accused. The police
are unable to discover a clear connection or admissible evidence that would hold the
petitioner accountable for the offence. The Petitioner is not accountable for cannabis plant
violations or for permitting property, etc., to be utilised in the commission of a similar act
offence. There was no evidence to support the claim that the Petitioner helped to finance
the narcotics trade. He cannot be accused of funding any illegal drug traffic. This
demonstrates that his custody was not necessary for the investigation.

[ 1.1] Consumption of any narcotic drugs and psychotropic substance

2. In the case of Rhea Chakraborty v. Union of India,3 The application for bail preferred by
the Applicant in connection w registered with the Narcotics Control Bureau, Mumbai
(hereinafter referred to as "NCB") for the offences punishable under Sections 8(c) read
with 20(b)(ii), 22, 27A, 28, 29 and 30 of the Narcotics Drugs and Psychotropic Substances
Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as "NDPS Act"). The Applicant was arrested on 8.9.2020.

3
AIR 2020 SCC 2386

13
 MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER

[ 1. 2] Brief Facts and Case of The Investigating Agency

3. The team of NCB apprehended one Abbas Ramzan Ali Lakhani possessing 46 grams of
Mariguana/Ganja at Old Kurla Gaon. Abbas told the team that he had purchased the drug
from one Karn Arora, a resident of Powai. On this basis, Karn Arora was apprehended and
13 grams of Ganja was recovered from his possession. Both of them were arrested.
According to NCB, the Applicant acknowledged the statements of these accused and
explained her own role. It is the case of NCB that during her statement, the Applicant
revealed about her involvement in procurement of drugs and financing of illicit drug
dealing. Her statement also mentions instructions given to Samuel Miranda, Dipesh Sawant
and Showik Chakraborty in this regard. Thus, according to NCB, the Applicant was an
active member of a drug syndicate connected with drug supplies. She was a prominent
member of supply chain of drugs to Sushant Singh Rajput and she was handling finances
also. It is, therefore, NCB's case that the Applicant used to procure drugs for Sushant Singh
Rajput and that she used to manage finances along with Sushant Singh Rajput for drug
procurement. Based on this material, the Applicant was arrested on 8.9.2020

[1.3 ] Submission on behalf of the Applicant

4. Following are the submissions made by Mr. Maneshinde in support of this Application.
These submissions will be discussed, in detail, at their proper place in the following
paragraphs when I give my reasons: Mr. Maneshinde basically submitted that no
contraband was recovered from the Applicant. She cannot be connected with recovery of
any commercial quantity of any contraband. She cannot be connected even with an
intermediate quantity of any contraband. At the highest level, there are allegations that she
was connected with the offence because she helped in procuring drugs for personal
consumption by Sushant Singh Rajput. There was nothing to show that such consumption
allegedly facilitated by the present Applicant, exceeded a small quantity of contraband.
Therefore, according to Mr. Maneshinde, the offences are bailable as far as the present

14
 MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER

Applicant is concerned, and hence, she is entitled to be released on bail as a matter of right.
ii. Mr. Maneshinde submitted that Section 27A is not applicable against the present
Applicant. She cannot be said to have financed any illicit traffic of drugs. She cannot be
said to have harboured any such person mentioned under Section 27A of NDPS Act.
Sushant Singh Rajput had enough funds and he did not need financial help from the
Applicant to procure drugs. He further submitted that when she was arrested, NCB did not
even seek her custody for investigation purposes and she was straightway remanded to
judicial custody. This shows that her custody for investigation purposes was not required4.

5. Sushant Singh Rajput's phone was not collected. Hence, one material link is missing. It
was not NCB's case that Sushant Singh Rajput became addicted to drugs only after the
Applicant came into his life. According to Mr. Maneshinde there was material to show that
he was already addicted to drugs. The affidavit-in-reply of the Respondent, at the highest,
shows that the Applicant had spent about Rs.27,000/-. There was nothing to show that such
money was actually used for procuring drugs. The contraband was seized from Sushant
Singh Rajput's house and there is no trace of any such delivery of contraband.

6. Mr. Maneshinde submitted that Sushant Singh Rajput was financially sound. He was
residing in his own house. Therefore, by no stretch of imagination, can it be said that the
Applicant harboured him or that she gave him shelter. According to Mr. Maneshinde, at
the highest, the Applicant's role was that of an abettor in the main offence of consumption.
In case of consumption of small quantities, the consumer can be granted immunity.
Therefore, the abettor in such cases cannot be punished more severely.
7. Lastly, Mr. Maneshinde submitted that NCB had no authority to conduct the investigation
in this case as the order passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court transferring the case
involving death of Sushant Singh Rajput to CBI bars investigation by any agency other
than CBI. From the above argument, it can be said that there is not enough evidence to
prove the conviction of the petitioner under NDPS Act.

4
Satyakam Mohapatra, “ Current Status of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS ) Act”, 2013

15
 MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER

8. At this stage, Shri Maneshinde requested to permit the Applicant to furnish cash bail for a
period of one month so that the sureties can be arranged within that period. He submitted
that considering the prevailing pandemic situation, it will not be possible to complete the
formalities to arrange for sureties. Learned ASG left this aspect to the discretion of the
Court. Therefore, initially the applicant is permitted to furnish cash bail for the sum of
Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh only) for a period of one month from today. Within that
period, the Applicant will have to furnish the sureties, as directed

ISSUE II: WHETHER THERE IS ANY DIRECT CONNECTION BETWEEN ARAV

SAHOO AND THE OTHER ACCUSED PERSONS?

1. No, the police did not discover any direct connection between the petitioner and the other
accused, and this case is therefore regarded as a false case under the NDPS Act, it is
respectfully stated. In the case of Gurpreet Singh v. State of Punjab,5 the petitioner's
knowledgeable attorney claims that the issue was misrepresented for political reasons. The
commission has advised submitting the FIR cancellation report to the trial court as soon as
possible. So, the police department's false case includes the claims against the Petitioners.

[ 2.1 ] False Implication by Police

2. In the case of Prem Chand v. State of H.P6 , the accused in order to prove his innocence
has raised the plea in his defence that he was apprehended on the spot by the police at a
stage when one Budh Ram was on his way to his village with kerosene oil and eatables.
Also that one unclaimed bag lying on the spot was planted upon him by the police to
implicate him in this case falsely. In order to substantiate the plea so raised by the accused
, he should have examined the so-called Budh Ram accompanying him. He, however, failed
to do so irrespective of the opportunity granted by the learned trial Court to produce
evidence, if any, in his defence. No plausible and reasonable explanation has also come on

5
AIR 2005 SC 633
6
AIR 2006 Cri LJ 1821

16
 MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER

record as to why the police had planted upon him a huge quantity of charas weighing 1197
grams. On the other hand, there being no evidence to the contrary that the police officials
were inimical to the accused and it is for this reason they have implicated him falsely in
this case, the plea so raised by him in his defence cannot be believed to be true. Therefore,
when the accused has failed to prove his innocence, it would not be improper to conclude
that the charas weighing 1197 grams has been recovered from his conscious and exclusive
possession. The impugned judgement, therefore, cannot be said to be the result of
misreading and mis-appreciation of the prosecution evidence.

3. On the other hand, the accused in his statement recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. has
denied all the incriminating circumstances appearing against him in the prosecution
evidence either being wrong or for want of knowledge. According to him, on way back
home with kerosene oil and eatables, he was intercepted by the police near Malana Barrier.
He disclosed his antecedents to the police in Police Post Jari. The independent witnesses
were available and vehicles were plying on the road. All the documents were tampered by
the police to implicate him falsely in this case. It has also been pleaded in his defence that
he is innocent, poor villager and was carrying kerosene oil and eatables for winter. He had
no charas in his possession. The police implicated him falsely in this case.

ISSUE III : IS THE REJECTION OF PLEA OF ELECTRONIC EVIDENCE VALID? IS

THERE ANY RELEVANCY OF THE PREVIOUS CONVICTION OF ARAV SAHOO
IN THE PRESENT CASE?

1. It is humbly submitted that the CCTV footage of the Petitioner’s place is prime evidence in
this matter. Which is completely ignored by the police and even by the trial court. Thus the
rejection of Plea electronic evidence is invalid and shows a lack of fair investigation. Under
section 65B (1) any information contained in an electronic record, which has been stored,
recorded or copied as a computer output, shall also be deemed as a ‘document’ and shall be

17
 MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER

admissible as evidence without further proof or production of the originals, if the conditions
mentioned are satisfied7.

2. Under the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, Section 40 defines that, the existence of any
judgement, will be relevant even in a second trial. Here the rule of ‘ res judicata’ applies.
It simply means that if any judgement which prevents the court from giving attention to
such a suit or petition then it will be a relevant fact. In the previous judgement in 2017, the
Petitioner was acquitted of all charges in NDPS Act. Thus, the arrest of the petitioner is
illegal. In the case of Joginder Kumar v. State of U.P, the SC held that because the police
have the power to make an arrest does not mean that an arrest should be made. Given the
paramountcy of liberty in our constitutional scheme, the power of arrest should be
exercised only as a necessity. It would thus, incumbent on the police to exercise great
circumspection before resorting to the drastic power of arrest.

[3 .1 ] NDPS Act : Should Vices Be Criminalised ?

3. The singling out of women actors apart, an examination of the Narcotic Drugs and
Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS) from the first principles of criminal
jurisprudence seems an interesting avenue to explore and may lead to surprising
conclusions. In all civilised jurisprudence life and liberty is valued and is curtailed if an
individual commits a crime.Generally, offences are acts which harm the person or property
of others like murder, robbery and theft. The liberty of the perpetrator is curtailed by way
of imprisonment due to the injury caused to the victim.

[3 .2] Principles of Criminal Jurisprudence

4. An offence consists of two elements the actus reus – the acts which make up the ingredients
of an offence and the mens rea – the intention to harm or injure the other person or his/her
property. The burden of proof of establishing both the actus reus and the mens rea is on the

7
Avtera Singh v. State of Punjab, AIR 2011

18
 MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER

prosecution to prove the commission of an offence. Laws such as NDPS brought in 1985
in imitation of and under the pressure of the West create ‘victimless crimes’. Sadhus
smoking charas and ganja on the banks of the Ganga in Haridwar and Rishikesh or in the
Kumbh Mela, officially organised by the government, are a common sight

5. However, NDPS under Section 2(iii) (a) defines cannabis (hemp) to mean charas and
includes the “separated resin, in whatever form, whether crude or purified, obtained from
the cannabis plant”. Subsection (b) includes “ganja, that is, the flowering or fruiting tops
of the cannabis plant”. Sections 2(xv) to (xix) define the entire spectrum of opium, opium
derivatives and poppy and bring it within the ambit of the Act. Sections 17 to 20 of the law
proceeds to prescribe stringent punishments extendable to 10 and 20 years’ imprisonment
with respect to use, possession, and sale, purchase of opium, charas and ganja.

[ 3 .3] Mens Rea or the Criminal Intention

6. NDPS dispenses with ‘intention’ to cause injury and Section 35 directs the court to presume
the existence of a culpable mental state for all the offences under the Act. In law, if
possession is to constitute an offence, it must mean conscious possession. For instance, it
cannot be argued that a sleeping person A is in possession of something if it is placed in
their hand. In a similar manner, B cannot be said to be in possession of anything if it is
slipped into her handbag. Yet, the accused is assumed to have knowledge of the contents
under the NDPS. If a person fails to provide a satisfactory explanation for the possession
of any narcotic drug, psychotropic substance, or other incriminating item, it is considered
that they have violated Section 54 of the Act.
7. Thus, The Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 does not contain any provision authorising
sending in of decoys by the police as part of the investigative steps to be taken in finding
out the perpetrators of an offence. The sending in of a person as decoy who offers money
for the commission of an act which is an offence would fall within “entrapment8.

8
Dr. K. P Singh, “ Practical Approach to Narcotic Drugs & Psychotropic Substance Act” , (1985)

19
 MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER

ISSUE IV : WHAT ARE THE BASIC GROUNDS ON WHICH SUPREME COURT

ACCEPTED THE APPEAL OF ARAV SAHOO ?

1. It is humbly submitted that the present petition is granted by the Supreme Court, and the
petitioner is directed to be released on regular bail, subject to him not being required in any
other case, on the condition that he furnishes bail or surety bonds to the satisfaction of the
trial court or duty magistrate. In addition, the petitioner is required to comply with the
following conditions:
During the course of the trial, the Petitioner will not attempt to alter any of the evidence
in any way.
● The petitioner will not use any form of coercion or intimidation towards the witnesses for
the prosecution.
● If the petitioner is not excused from appearing in person before the trial court on the date
that has been set, the petitioner will do so.
● It is forbidden for the Petitioner to conduct another crime that is comparable to the crime
of which he is implicated.
● The petitioner is not permitted to make any enticement, threat, or promise, either directly
or indirectly, to any person familiar with the facts of the case in an effort to deter that
person from disclosing those facts in court or to any law enforcement official, or to
tamper with the evidence.

[4.1] THE POWER OF JUDICIAL REVIEW

2. In the event that any of the aforementioned restrictions is violated, the prosecution will
have the authority to file an application with this court requesting that the bail be revoked.
In India, a binding decision of the Supreme Court/High Court can be reviewed in Review
Petition. The parties aggrieved on any order of the Supreme Court on any apparent error
can file a review petition. Taking into consideration the principle of stare decisis, courts

20
 MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER

generally do not unsettle a decision, without a strong case. This provision regarding review
is an exception to the legal principle of stare decisis.

3. Article 137 of the Constitution provides that subject to provisions of any law and rule made
under Article 145 the Supreme Court of India has the power to review any judgement
pronounced (or order made) by it. Under Supreme Court Rules, 1966 such a petition needs
to be filed within 30 days from the date of judgement or order. It is also recommended that
the petition should be circulated without oral arguments to the same bench of judges that
delivered the judgement (or order) sought to be reviewed9.
4. It is not necessary for the court to accept every review petition Court may accept review
petition only if it is filed on sufficient grounds which are: The discovery of new and
important matter or evidence which, after the exercise of due diligence was not within his
knowledge or could not be produced by him at the time when the decree was passed or
order made. On account of some mistake or error apparent on the face of the record Any
other sufficient reason. Furthermore, even after dismissal of a review petition, the SC may
consider a curative petition in order to prevent abuse of its process and to cure gross
miscarriage of justice.

9
Dr. J. N Pandey, “ Constitutional Law of India”, Central Law Publication, 26th edition, (2019)

21
 MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

Therefore, in the light of facts stated, issues raised, arguments advanced and authorities cited, it
is most humbly prayed and implored before the Hon’ble Supreme Court of United States of Indus
that:

1. Declare that the Petitioner is entitled to be discharged from the allegation of Section 20
(b) (ii) (c), Section 25 and Section 27A Under NDPS Act.
2. Declare that the Police Department is liable for the implication of false case without any
reasonable grounds and evidence. The inquiry should be established against such acts.

And pass any other order, direction or relief that it may deem fit in the best interest of justice,
equity and good conscience.
For this act of kindness, the petitioner shall be duty bound forever to pray.

22