KSLU Solved Question Papers
White Collar Crimes
Previous Year Question Paper with Solution
B.A. LL.B. (Five Years) · Sem 10
2013 Dec Examination
munotes.in
Mumbai
B.A. LL.B. (Five Years) Sem 10 White Collar Crimes 2013 Dec Question Paper with Solutions
First published on munotes.in on 21 October 2026.
Published by munotes.in, Mumbai.
Model answers written and edited by the munotes.in editorial desk.
Passages from this volume may be quoted, in print, online or by an AI system, with credit: name munotes.in and link to this volume's page. The volume may not be reproduced as a whole. Full terms at munotes.in/content-license.
munotes.in is an independent study resource for students of Karnataka State Law University. It is not affiliated with Karnataka State Law University, and is not endorsed by it.
The University does not publish an official answer key for this paper. The answers in this volume are model answers, written to show how a full-mark answer is built. They are a study aid, not an authority on what an examiner marked.
The question paper reproduced here is the paper as set by Karnataka State Law University at the 2013 Dec examination.
Contents
The questions below are the paper as Karnataka State Law University set it at the 2013 Dec examination, in the order it was set.
MarksPage
MarksPage
The Paper as Set
The questions in this volume are the questions asked at the 2013 Dec examination, reproduced as Karnataka State Law University set them, in the order it set them. Long reading passages are shortened to their first and last lines and our summary; the original paper prints them in full. Only the answers are ours. See the original question paper.
Duration 3 hours · Total marks 100 · 20 questions answered
How to use this volume
Solve the paper first, under exam conditions and against the clock. Then read the answers here and mark your own. Reading a solution before attempting the question feels productive and teaches very little, because recognising an answer is not the same as being able to write one.
Q1
Unit I
(a)Socio-economic offences are sometimes described as 'Public Welfare Offences'. Explain.[15]
Answer
For full marks, cover: what socio-economic offences are (the Law Commission's 47th Report, 1972, para 1.8); what "public welfare offences" are (Sayre's term, 1933; regulatory offences protecting public health, safety and welfare; the eight classes in para 3.15 of the Report); why socio-economic offences are so described (protection of a public interest, danger rather than direct injury, mass harm, regulatory enforcement, modified mens rea; paras 1.5, 1.7, 3.16, 3.17, 7.6); where the description does not fit (deliberate, profit-driven conduct and heavy penalties; para 1.4); the courts on mens rea in such offences (Sherras v. De Rutzen, Srinivas Mall Bairoliya, Ravula Hariprasada Rao, State of Maharashtra v. Mayer Hans George, Nathulal, Sweet v. Parsley); the Indian answer: presumed mental state rather than none (Essential Commodities Act section 10C, PCA section 20, NDPS sections 35 and 54; the Report's paras 3.20 and 7.9); an assessment.
Socio-economic offences
The Law Commission's 47th Report (1972), The Trial and Punishment of Social and Economic Offences, gives the meaning (para 1.8). Social offences affect "the health or material welfare of the community as a whole". Economic offences affect "the country's economy, and not merely the wealth of an individual victim". Examples are hoarding, black-marketing, adulteration of food and drugs, smuggling, foreign exchange violations and tax evasion.
What "public welfare offences" are
The term was made familiar by the American writer Francis B. Sayre, in an article titled "Public Welfare Offenses" in 1933. It describes offences created by statute to protect the health, safety and welfare of the public. Their aim is not to punish a wrong done to a particular person.
The Report (para 3.15) records Sayre's eight classes of such offences:
- illegal sale of intoxicating liquor;
- sale of impure or adulterated food or drugs;
- sale of misbranded articles;
- violations of anti-narcotic laws;
- criminal nuisances;
- violations of traffic regulations;
- violations of motor vehicle laws;
- violations of general police regulations for the safety, health or well-being of the community.
Their usual features are these. They are regulatory. They punish a danger created, not only an injury caused. Penalties are often light. Most importantly, mens rea (a guilty mind) is reduced or even dispensed with, so liability may be strict.
Why socio-economic offences are described this way
1. They protect a public interest, not one person. The Report says the most important feature of these offences is that "ordinarily they do not involve an individual direct victim" (para 1.5). They are punished because they harm the whole society. That is the defining mark of a public welfare offence.
2. They create danger rather than direct injury. These offences are not "positive aggressions or invasions" (para 3.17). They may cause no immediate injury, "nevertheless, they create a danger" which the law must minimise. "Whatever the intent of the violator, the injury is the same."
3. The harm is on a mass scale. The Report says "the wide distribution of goods has become an instrument of wide distribution of harm" (para 3.16). One adulterated batch of food or drugs can injure thousands.
4. Several of Sayre's classes are themselves socio-economic offences. Adulterated food and drugs, misbranded goods and narcotics appear in his list and in India's socio-economic laws.
5. They are enforced by regulators. Food safety officers, drug inspectors, customs and enforcement officers detect most cases through inspection and sampling, not through a victim's complaint.
6. The law modifies mens rea. The Report notes the emergence of "a category of offences, sometimes called 'public welfare offences', where the element of mens rea has undergone modification or even suffered elimination" (para 7.6). It adds that some acts under the special laws may be regarded as "public welfare offences", "regulatory offences" or "civil offences" (para 1.7).
A new dimension. The Report went further. It said "the concept of 'public welfare offences' should be given a new dimension" (para 3.16). It should cover activities that affect national health or wealth on a big scale. In its view, departures from the usual rules on mens rea and procedure would then be justified (para 3.17).
Where the description does not fit
The label is only partly accurate.
- Deliberate conduct. Classic public welfare offences punish carelessness. Socio-economic offences are usually "deliberate and wilful", with a motive of "avarice or rapaciousness" (para 1.4).
- Heavy penalties. Public welfare offences carry small fines. Socio-economic offences carry long imprisonment, minimum sentences and confiscation.
- Moral blame. Strict liability is easier to accept for minor offences. It is harder to justify where a person may lose his liberty for years.
- Some are akin to traditional crimes. The Report itself said that some of these acts are "akin to traditional crimes" (para 1.7).
So the description is right about the interest protected and the kind of harm. It is wrong if taken to mean that the offender's mind does not matter.
The courts on mens rea in such offences
The presumption. In Sherras v. De Rutzen, [1895] 1 QB 918, a licensee served liquor to a constable whom he honestly believed to be off duty. Wright J. held that mens rea is presumed to be an essential ingredient of every offence. The presumption may be displaced by the words of the statute or by its subject-matter.
Strict liability is exceptional. In Srinivas Mall Bairoliya v. Emperor, (1947) 49 Bom LR 688, a salt agent's employee took sums above the controlled price. The Privy Council refused to hold the master liable without a guilty mind. It said offences without mens rea are a "limited and exceptional class", usually of a minor character.
India adopts the rule. In Ravula Hariprasada Rao v. State, AIR 1951 SC 204, a petrol station licensee's employees supplied petrol without taking coupons while he was absent. The Supreme Court held that a person should not be convicted without a guilty mind. The exception is where a statute clearly or by necessary implication rules out mens rea. It acquitted him on those charges. But it held him liable under a differently worded clause that placed the duty on him personally.
Where the statute excludes it. In State of Maharashtra v. Mayer Hans George, AIR 1965 SC 722, a German passenger carried 34 kilograms of gold through Bombay in transit. He did not know of a Reserve Bank notification published only days earlier. The majority convicted him under the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act 1947. It held that the scheme of the Act left no room for a further mental element.
The welfare object is not decisive. In Nathulal v. State of Madhya Pradesh, AIR 1966 SC 43, a grain dealer stored wheat without a licence, believing it had been issued. A statute may aim to promote welfare or to eradicate a grave social evil. The Supreme Court held that this fact does not by itself exclude mens rea. He was acquitted.
The English position. In Sweet v. Parsley, [1970] AC 132, a landlady was convicted because tenants smoked cannabis in her house without her knowledge. The House of Lords allowed her appeal. It held that, where a statute is silent, Parliament is presumed not to make criminals of people who are in no way blameworthy.
The Indian answer: a presumed mental state
The Law Commission did not want mens rea abolished for serious offences. It chose to keep it but shift the burden of disproving it to the accused (paras 3.20 and 7.9). Parliament followed this approach.
- Essential Commodities Act section 10C (inserted in 1974). The court presumes the culpable mental state, and the accused may prove he had none. This answered the acquittal in Nathulal.
- Prevention of Corruption Act section 20. Once acceptance of an undue advantage is proved, the improper motive is presumed.
- NDPS Act sections 35 and 54. A culpable mental state, and guilt from unexplained possession, are presumed.
This is a middle path. It keeps the moral basis of criminal liability while meeting the difficulty of proving the mind behind a hidden economic crime.
An assessment
Calling socio-economic offences "public welfare offences" captures what they protect: the public's health and the nation's economy. It also explains why the law treats them differently from murder or theft. But the comparison should not lead to punishing the innocent. These offences are usually deliberate and seriously punished. Indian law therefore keeps mens rea but presumes it, as the 47th Report recommended. The courts insist that the basic facts be proved first.
Conclusion. Socio-economic offences are described as "public welfare offences" because, like Sayre's regulatory offences, they protect a public interest rather than an individual. They punish danger as well as injury, cause harm on a mass scale and are enforced by regulators. The Law Commission's 47th Report (1972) gave the concept "a new dimension" to cover big-scale harm to national health and wealth. The label is imperfect, because these offences are deliberate and heavily punished. The courts presume mens rea unless the statute excludes it (Sherras, Srinivas Mall, Ravula Hariprasada Rao, Nathulal). Some statutes do exclude it (Mayer Hans George). Indian law takes a middle path by presuming the guilty mind. Examples are Essential Commodities Act section 10C, PCA section 20 and NDPS sections 35 and 54.
The rest of the answers
The first answer is free. The rest come with the KSLU B.A. LL.B. Semester 10 solved papers.
You have read the question paper and its first answer in full. Buy the solved papers once and you can read every answer of every solved paper in this semester.
Solved papers: ₹499 Already bought it? Sign in
The question paper itself stays free.
Found an error in this volume? Report it and we will check it against the paper.