HAVELI INSTITUE OF LEGAL STUDIES AND RESEARCH 2022

TEAM CODE: ______

BEFORE,

THE HON’BLE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION NO. 5 & 6 OF 2022

[UNDER ARTICLE 136 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA]

▬ IN THE MATTER OF ▬

RONNIE HOODA

BILAL MASID…………………………..……….……………………… …PETITIONER

VERSUS

STATE OF PUNJAB…………………………….…………………………. RESPONDENT

AND

WRIT PETITION NO. 03 OF 2022

[UNDER ARTICLE 32 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA]

BILAL MASID…………………………..……….……………………… …PETITIONER

VERSUS

UNION OF INDIA.…………………………….…………………………. RESPONDENT

▬WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT▬

MEMORIAL DRAWN AND FILED BY THE COUNSELS FOR THE RESPONDENT

HAVELI INSTITUE OF LEGAL STUDIES AND RESEARCH 2022

▬ MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT ▬

▬ DRAWN AND FILED BY THE COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENT ▬
 HAVELI INSTITUE OF LEGAL STUDIES AND RESEARCH 2022

TABLE OF CONTENTS

TABLE OF CONTENTS……………………………………………………………… ......()

INDEX OF ABBREVIATION………………………………………………………….. ...()
INDEX OF AUTHORITIES…………………………………………………………….. ..()
STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION…………………………………………………….....()
STATEMENT OF FACTS…………………………………………………………….()
STATEMENT OF ISSUES …………………………………………………..………….()
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS………………………………………………………….()
ARGUMENT ADVANCED…………………………………………………………...........()

1. WHETHER ACQUITTAL OF RONNIE HOODA IN A DIFFERENT JURISDICTION WOULD ACT AS

AN ABSOLUTE BAR AGAINST HIS TRIAL IN INDIA.

2. WHETHER THE TRANSACTION BY RONNIE AND BILAL IN THE INSTANT CASE HAS RESULTED
IN COMMISSION OF ECONOMIC OFFENCE UNDER INDIAN LAWS.
3. WHETHER FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS OF BILAL MASID HAVE BEEN VIOLATED BY THE

ACTION OF POLICE AUTHORITIES.

PRAYER…………………………………………………………………………………

▬ MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT ▬

▬ DRAWN AND FILED BY THE COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENT ▬
 HAVELI INSTITUE OF LEGAL STUDIES AND RESEARCH 2022

ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS

 ART. : ARTICLE
 ED. : EDITION
 I.E. : THAT IS

 PP./P. : PAGE

 V. : VERSUS

 VOL. : VOLUME
 & : AND
 ¶ : PARAGRAPH
 § : SECTION
 AIR : ALL INDIA REPORTER
 ED. : EDTION
 SEC : SECTION

 LTD. : LIMITED
 ORS. : OTHERS
 SC : SUPREME COURT
 SCC : SUPREME COURT CASES
 VIZ. : VIDELICET
 U.O.I. : UNION OF INDIA
 GOVT. : GOVERNMENT

▬ MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT ▬

▬ DRAWN AND FILED BY THE COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENT ▬
 HAVELI INSTITUE OF LEGAL STUDIES AND RESEARCH 2022

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES
LIST OF STATUTES/REGULATION
1. The Constitution of India 1950.
2. Indian Penal Code 1860.
3. The Code of Criminal Procedure 1973.
4. Prevention of Money Laundering Act 2002.
5. Foreign Exchange Management Act 1999.
6. Banking and Regulation Act 1949.
7. The Finance Act 1994.
BOOKS AND COMMENTARIES
1. A.B. KAFALTIYA, INTERPRETATION OF STATUTES
2. ANDREW ASHWORTH, PRINCIPLES OF CRIMINAL LAW
3. M.P. JAIN & S.N. JAIN, PRINCIPLES OF ADMINISTRATIVE LAW
4. M.R. REDDI, ANTI-CORRUPTION LAWS AND DEPARTMENTAL ENQUIRIES
5. PATRICK BIRKINSHAW, FREEDOM OF INFORMATION: THE LAW, THE PRACTICE AND
THE IDEAL
6. S.C. SARKAR, THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
7. S.P. SATHE, RIGHT TO INFORMATION
8. S.P.SATHE, ADMINISTRATIVE LAW
9. SMITH AND HOGAN’S CRIMINAL LAW 29 (DAVID ORMEROD ED., 13TH EDN., 2011)

DICTIONARIES
1. BRYAN A. GARNER, ‘BLACK’S LAW DICTIONARY’, 9TH ED., 2009, WEST GROUP.
2. GREENBERG DANIEL, ‘SHROUDS JUDICIAL DICTIONARY OF WORDS AND PHRASES’, 7
TH ED. SWEET AND MAXWELL CO.
3. RAMANATHA AIYAR P., ‘CONCISE LAW DICTIONARY’, 3RD ED., REP. 2006, WADHWA,
NAGPUR.

ELECTRONIC MEDIUM
1. http://www.legalservices.com (visited on …………….(15-09-22, 16-09-22, 18-09-22)
2. http://www.livelaw.com (visited on…………………..(15-09-22, 17-09-22, 22-09-22)
3. http://www.scconline.com (visited on………………...(15-09-22, 19-09-22, 23-09-22)
4. http://www.manupatra.com (visited on…………………………..(16-09-22, 17-09-22)

▬ MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT ▬

▬ DRAWN AND FILED BY THE COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENT ▬
 HAVELI INSTITUE OF LEGAL STUDIES AND RESEARCH 2022

5. http://www.indiankanoon.com (visited on……………………..…(15-09-22,19-09-22)

6. http://www.aironline.in (visited on……………………………..(15-09-22 - 25-09-22)
C ASES
1. R. V. WELLARD, (1978) 3 ALL ER 161 : (1978) 1 WLR 921…………………….
2. NATHA SINGH, (1883) PR NO. 11 OF 1883…………………………………….
3. PODDA NARAYAN V. STATE OF A.P., AIR 1975 SC1252 : (1974)4 SCC 153………..
4. ISMAIL SAYADSAHEB, (1993) 35 BOM LR 886 : 57 BOM 537 FB………………….
5. KUMUDINI PADHI V. PRASANTA KUMAR MONDAL,. 1989 CR LJ 1861 (ORI)………….
6. DUTTA V. STATE OF ORISSA, 1985 CR LJ 1842 (ORI)…………………………………
7. BIBBE V. RAMKALI , AIR 1982 ALL 246 ( 250)…………………………………..
8. SEIKH YUSUF V. STATE OF W.B., 1989 CR LJ (NOC) 62 (CAL)……………………..
9. BANSHI LAL V. STATE, 1998 CR LJ 297 (RAJ)……………………………………….
10. STATE OF H.P. V. MT. KALA, AIR 1957 HP 42 : 1957 C R LJ 847…………………
11. MUNSHI RAM V. STATE OF RAJISTHAN, 1983 CR LR (RAJ) 274………………………
12. PURNA CHANDRA JENA V. STATE OF ORISSA , (1985) 2 CRIMES 418 ( ORI)
…………… 13. STATE OF M.P. V. KAMRUDDIN , AIR NAG 74 :1956 CR LJ
263……………………
14. PETER V. EMPEROR, AIR 1927 LAH 496 : 102 IC 209…………………………….
15. HARBHAROSA MOHAMMAD V. JHAPURAN BIBI, AIR 1930 CAL 665 : 51 CAL LJ 476..
16. OROOS FATIMA ALIAS NISHA V. S.S.P. ALIGARH, 1993 CR LJ I (ALL)
17.STATE (DELHI ADMIN) V. PANNA LAL, 1993 CR LJ 852 ( DEL)……………………..
18. DAVINDER SINGH V. STATE (DELHI ADMINISTRATION), ( 1989) 1 CRIMES 753 (DEL)
… 19. JITMIHAN LOHAR V. STATE, 1998 CR LJ 2482 (ORI)
…………………………………. 20. SAMIR SAHA V. STATE, 1998 CR LJ 1360 (GAU)
……………………………………..
21. SAMIR SAHA V. STATE, 1998 CR LJ 1360 (GAU)……………………………………..
22. MAHESH KUMAR V. STATE, 1998 CR LJ 1597 (RAJ)…………………………………..
23. DEWAN SINGH V. THE STATE, 1998 CR LJ 3905 (DEL.)
……………………………….. 24. KULDEEP K. MAHATO V. STATE OF BIHAR, 1998 CR
LJ 4033 (SC)……………………… 25. BAGULA NAIK V. STATE OF BIHAR , 1998 CR LJ
2077 (ORI)……………………………..

▬ MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT ▬

▬ DRAWN AND FILED BY THE COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENT ▬
 HAVELI INSTITUE OF LEGAL STUDIES AND RESEARCH 2022

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION
The Counsels for the respondent have appeared before the Hon’ble Supreme Court of
India in response to the Special Leave Petition No. 5 & 6 of 2022 filed by the Petitioner
under Art.136 of the Constitution of India and Writ Petition No. 3 of 2022 filed by the
Bilal Masid before the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India under Article 32 of the
Constitution of India.

The counsels for the Petitioner most humbly and respectfully submit to the jurisdiction of this
Hon’ble Court and submits the memorandum that sets forth the facts and the laws.

▬ MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT ▬

▬ DRAWN AND FILED BY THE COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENT ▬
 HAVELI INSTITUE OF LEGAL STUDIES AND RESEARCH 2022

STATEMENT OF FACTS

BACKGROUND
Ronnie Hooda aged 30 years fell in love with Ragini Sikand aged 24 years. Their
relationship culminated on an online meeting platform. Owing to Ragini's
predilection towards Ronnie she had dug her heels in and despite the family
opposition decided to get married with Ronnie within two weeks. Ronnie having a
charming personality had an encounter with a wealthy oil baron, Sheik Al
Murtaza Arzai who was on his way home to Dubai. Their interaction turned out to be
a serendipity as Ronnie being a serial entrepreneur was searching for a venture capital
market and Sheikh Al Murtaza Arzai was looking to diversify his holdings. After a
brief conversation Arzai invited Ronnie to visit him at his villa where they could talk
business.

THE TRAP
Ragini and Ronnie visited Al Murtaza residence after three days of visiting Dubai,
where they had been told that since the family had a traditional attitude, Ragini would
not be privy to business discussions, and Arzais wives would show her in the
process. Ronnie and Arzai begin business negotiations concerning Arzai proposed
investment into a mobile payment get a way that Ronnie was building. To start the
project a sum of 7000 Dirhams was also immediately transferred to Ronnie 's account
by Arzai. After negotiations, when Ronnie decided to leave with his wife, he was
informed by that he had become delusional about having a wife. Not only that the cab
driver who drove Ronnie to the villa had the same opinion. Infuriated yet scared
Ronnie went back to the hotel to collect his and Ragini's passports where he was yet
again told that there were no records of him having checked in with any women and
that he was staying in a business suite. On entering the suite, he found that all his
goods had been moved to the room excluding his camera and wife's clothes. The sole
piece of evidence that he had to prove, that he was right were the few pictures on his
smartphone with his wife.

LODGING OF FIRST CASE

During this turmoil Ragini''s family had been trying to reach her on telephone but to

▬ MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT ▬

▬ DRAWN AND FILED BY THE COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENT ▬
 HAVELI INSTITUE OF LEGAL STUDIES AND RESEARCH 2022

no avail, fearing for the safety of their daughter, Rohini's father Bisham Singh
Commissioner of Central excise, flew to Dubai to trace her whereabouts. After
meeting with Ronnie at the hotel and listening to what had happened, Mr. Singh did
not believe a word of what he told him and was convinced that we were indulging
in human trafficking and had sold his dear daughter off. Mr. Singh instantly
went to the local police station in Dubai and lodged a case against Ronnie, where they
contacted the Chandigarh police in India to enquire into Roonies antecedents and
meanwhile also followed up with the immigration and customs bureau to verify
whether Ragini had indeed come into the UAE.

THE INVESTIGATION

The prosecution claimed that Ronnie had performed a sham marriage with Ragini in
order to force her into coming to Dubai with him where he proceeded to sell her to
Sheikh Arzai for a sum of 7000 dirhams , however defense contended that he was
being victimized by the system and would never do such a heinous crime , to
corroborate the same witnesses from hotel staff were examined and they testified that
Ronnie and Ragini looked very much like a couple in deep love. Photographs of
Ragni and Ronnie have a good time were also produced not only that the immigration
bureau filed an affidavit stating that they had a record of Ronnie and Rohini entering
Dubai together as husband and wife on 5 Jan 2019. After detailed arguments, court
finally acquitted Ronnie and directed the police to conduct an investigation into
Sheikh activities, a knowing that he was a person who had enough cloud to bribe
witnesses and hotel staff to further his ends his role in the entire episode seemed
dubious.

ARREST AT DUBAI

When Ronnie flew back to India on 21st December 2021, he was arrested by a special
detail of Chandigarh police at the Indira Gandhi international airport and was taken
for questioning. All of this was done on the basis of FIR no 920 had been registered
at the behest of the girl's mother Sumeda Sikand on December 16 2021 under section
363 366 367 368 369 370 371 of the Indian penal code and also under section 5 and 8
of the immoral traffic prevention act 1956.In the lights of happened events Ronnie
applied for a bail conditioned he approached To pay for his legal formalities Ronnie
approached Bilal, a currency broker and transferred 5000 Dirhams to him for which

▬ MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT ▬

▬ DRAWN AND FILED BY THE COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENT ▬
 HAVELI INSTITUE OF LEGAL STUDIES AND RESEARCH 2022

he received Rs 36 lakhs in cash.

FURTHER CHARGES

As soon as the Chandigarh police became conscious of the transaction which was
entered into by Ronnie with Bilal the police arrested both for dealing in Dirhams, they
contended that such activity was in contravention of the foreign trade and exchange
laws and various RBI regulations. not only that, but it also amounted to an offence
under the prevention of money laundering act. pursuing investigation for the same, Bilal
shop was sealed, and a special team ceased all the electronic machinery and other
documents found there. post the raid and arrests FIR number 923 of 2019, dated
January 1st, 2019, were filed under section 4 of prevention of money laundering act
2002 and sections 347 and 13 of the foreign exchange management acts 1999.

▬ MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT ▬

▬ DRAWN AND FILED BY THE COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENT ▬
 HAVELI INSTITUE OF LEGAL STUDIES AND RESEARCH 2022

STATEMENT OF ISSUES

I.
Whether acquittal of Ronnie Hooda in a different jurisdiction would act as an absolute bar against
his trial in India.

II.
Whether the transaction by Ronnie and Bilal in the instant case has resulted in commission of
economic offence under Indian Laws.

III.
Whether Fundamental Rights of Bilal Masid have been violated by the action of police authorities .

▬ MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT ▬

▬ DRAWN AND FILED BY THE COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENT ▬
 HAVELI INSTITUE OF LEGAL STUDIES AND RESEARCH 2022

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS

1. Whether acquittal of Ronnie Hooda in a different jurisdiction would act as an

absolute bar against his trial in India.

It is humbly submitted that the competent court trying Ronnie’s case in India for
the same charges that he had already faced in Dubai would not amount to
double jeopardy. It is well established that double jeopardy is not a principle of
international law. It does not apply between different countries, unless having
been contractually agreed on between those countries and since there is no
contractual agreement between India and UAE pertaining to the matter of
double jeopardy, the same would not apply in the case at hand. No provision
under Indian statutory law expressively mentions any protection against double
jeopardy in cross border offences.
2. Whether the transaction by Ronnie and Bilal in the instant case has
resulted in commission of economic offence under Indian Laws.
It is respectfully submitted that the act of Ronnie to transact in Dirhams with
unauthorized dealers in UAE and India is a violation of PMLA, 2002 and also a
violation of export regulations under FEMA, 1999. The deeds of Ronnie are
punishable under the India Statutory laws. Ronnie is liable to be punished
under Section 4 of Prevention of Money Laundering Act 2002 and Foreign
Exchange Management Act, 1999.

3. Whether Fundamental Rights of Bilal Masid have been violated by the

action of police authorities.

It is humbly submitted that the Constitution of India has recognized right to

trade as a Fundamental right under Article 19(1)(g) of the constitution which
allows citizens to practice any profession, or to carry on any occupation, trade
or business.”

However, this right is not absolute, and it is subject to reasonable restriction.

One such reasonable restriction is any occupation which has been restricted to
practice by the Government as by any Act passed by the Parliament. That means
the right to trade can be restricted if it is violative of any of the law of the land.

▬ MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT ▬

▬ DRAWN AND FILED BY THE COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENT ▬
 HAVELI INSTITUE OF LEGAL STUDIES AND RESEARCH 2022

▬ MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT ▬

▬ DRAWN AND FILED BY THE COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENT ▬