KSLU Solved Question Papers
White Collar Crimes
Previous Year Question Paper with Solution
B.A. LL.B. (Five Years) · Sem 10
2018 Jun Examination
munotes.in
Mumbai
B.A. LL.B. (Five Years) Sem 10 White Collar Crimes 2018 Jun 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 2018 Jun examination.
Contents
The questions below are the paper as Karnataka State Law University set it at the 2018 Jun examination, in the order it was set.
MarksPage
MarksPage
The Paper as Set
The questions in this volume are the questions asked at the 2018 Jun 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 · 13 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.
Q1Explain the basic principles of traditional, criminal jurisprudence.[16]
Answer
For full marks, cover: where traditional criminal jurisprudence comes from (the classical school of Beccaria; the liberal idea of protecting the individual against the State; the common law) and the kind of crime it assumed; its principles in three groups: substantive (crime as a public wrong; legality, Article 20(1); actus reus and mens rea; individual responsibility; strict construction), procedural and evidentiary (presumption of innocence and proof beyond reasonable doubt; no compelled self-incrimination, Article 20(3); no double jeopardy, Article 20(2) and section 337 BNSS; fair and speedy trial and legal aid, Articles 21 and 39A), and penal (proportionate punishment; individualised sentencing and reform); each with an Indian provision and a case (Rao Shiv Bahadur Singh, Nathulal, State of Bombay v. Kathi Kalu Oghad, Hussainara Khatoon, Bachan Singh, Mohammad Giasuddin); how these principles meet white collar crime.
Origins
Traditional criminal jurisprudence is the body of principles that grew in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. It owes much to Cesare Beccaria and the classical school. They argued that punishment must be fixed by law in advance, proportionate to the crime, and imposed only after a fair trial. It also draws on the English common law, which India inherited through the Penal Code and the Codes of procedure and evidence. Its model crime was a visible act of violence or dishonesty by one person against another. Its central concern was to protect the individual against the power of the State.
A. Substantive principles
1. Crime is a public wrong. A crime injures society, so the State prosecutes it. The victim is a witness rather than a party, and most crimes cannot be settled privately.
2. Legality: no crime and no punishment without law. The maxim is nullum crimen, nulla poena sine lege. An act is a crime only if a law in force made it so when it was done. Article 20(1) forbids conviction under an ex post facto law and a heavier penalty than the law then allowed.
In Rao Shiv Bahadur Singh v. State of Vindhya Pradesh, AIR 1953 SC 394, a former Minister and a Secretary were convicted of taking illegal gratification in 1949. They relied on Article 20(1). The Supreme Court held that Article 20 bars conviction or penalty under an ex post facto law, even a pre-Constitution one in pending cases. But it does not bar trial under a new procedure or before a new court.
3. A guilty act and a guilty mind. The maxim actus non facit reum nisi mens sit rea requires both a prohibited act and a blameworthy state of mind. That state of mind may be intention, knowledge or negligence.
In Nathulal v. State of Madhya Pradesh, AIR 1966 SC 43, a dealer stored wheat without a licence, believing it had been granted after he applied and paid the fee. The Supreme Court held that mens rea is an essential ingredient of an offence unless the statute clearly or by necessary implication excludes it. As he acted in good faith, he was acquitted.
4. Individual responsibility. A person is punished for his own act and mind, and not for what someone else did. Vicarious criminal liability is the exception. It arises only through doctrines such as common intention and abetment, or by express statute.
5. Strict construction. Penal statutes are read strictly. Where a penal provision is ambiguous, the reading that favours the accused is preferred.
B. Procedural and evidentiary principles
6. Presumption of innocence. The accused is presumed innocent until proved guilty. The prosecution must prove every element beyond reasonable doubt, and the benefit of doubt goes to the accused.
7. No compelled self-incrimination. Article 20(3) says no person accused of an offence shall be compelled to be a witness against himself.
In State of Bombay v. Kathi Kalu Oghad, AIR 1961 SC 1808, accused persons argued that taking their specimen handwriting, signatures and fingerprints violated Article 20(3). An eleven-judge Bench held that it does not, because these are not "testimony" of personal knowledge. A statement leading to discovery is also admissible unless it was obtained by compulsion. So the protection covers compelled personal testimony, not physical evidence.
8. No double jeopardy. Article 20(2) says no person shall be prosecuted and punished for the same offence more than once. Section 337 of the BNSS (formerly section 300 CrPC) bars a second trial for the same offence after conviction or acquittal.
9. Fair and speedy trial, with legal aid. Under Article 21, liberty may be taken only by a fair, just and reasonable procedure. Article 39A directs free legal aid.
In Hussainara Khatoon v. Home Secretary, State of Bihar, AIR 1979 SC 1360, thousands of undertrials in Bihar's jails had been held longer than the maximum sentence for their offences. The Supreme Court held that speedy trial is implicit in Article 21. It ordered their release and directed legal aid for those who could not afford a lawyer.
C. Principles of punishment
10. Proportionate punishment. Punishment must fit the gravity of the offence and the guilt of the offender. Excessive punishment is unjust.
In Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab, (1980) 2 SCC 684, the death penalty for murder was challenged. A Constitution Bench upheld it, but held that life imprisonment is the rule and death the exception. Death may be imposed only in the "rarest of rare cases", when the alternative is unquestionably foreclosed.
11. Individualised sentencing and reform. The sentence should consider the offender as well as the offence.
In Mohammad Giasuddin v. State of Andhra Pradesh, (1977) 3 SCC 287, a young graduate had cheated unemployed men by promising them jobs, and got three years. The Supreme Court stressed that sentencing must look at the criminal and his circumstances, not only the crime. "Criminality is a curable deviance", and punishment should aim at reforming him.
The principles at work: an ordinary theft trial
Suppose R is accused of stealing a bicycle.
- The State prosecutes, because theft is a public wrong. The owner is the main witness.
- Theft must be an offence under a law in force on the day he took the bicycle. He cannot get a heavier sentence than that law allowed on that day.
- The prosecution must prove that he took the bicycle (the act) dishonestly (the mind). If he honestly believed it was his own, he is not guilty.
- He is presumed innocent, need not answer police questions that incriminate him, and his confession to the police is excluded.
- If acquitted, he cannot be tried again for the same theft.
- If convicted, his sentence should fit the theft and his circumstances, such as his age and record.
The principles work well here, because the act, the victim and the intention are all visible. The difficulty arises with white collar crime.
How these principles meet white collar crime
These principles assume a known victim, a visible act and a provable intention. White collar crime offers none of these. The act looks lawful, the intention is buried in documents, the offender may be a company, and the victims are diffuse. Proof beyond reasonable doubt against a powerful accused who controls the records is very hard.
So modern statutes adjust the principles. They use strict liability, presumptions and reversed burdens, liability of companies and their officers, minimum sentences and attachment of proceeds. The courts accept these adjustments only within the limits of Articles 20 and 21, insisting that basic facts be proved before any presumption arises.
Conclusion. Traditional criminal jurisprudence rests on three groups of principles. The substantive ones are crime as a public wrong, legality (Rao Shiv Bahadur Singh) and a guilty act with a guilty mind (Nathulal). Individual responsibility and strict construction complete them. The procedural ones are the presumption of innocence, freedom from compelled self-incrimination (Kathi Kalu Oghad), no double jeopardy, and fair and speedy trial (Hussainara Khatoon). The penal ones are proportionality (Bachan Singh) and reform (Mohammad Giasuddin). They protect the individual well, but they must be adjusted to reach white collar crime.
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.