KSLU Solved Question Papers
White Collar Crimes
Previous Year Question Paper with Solution
B.A. LL.B. (Five Years) · Sem 10
2021 Oct Examination
munotes.in
Mumbai
B.A. LL.B. (Five Years) Sem 10 White Collar Crimes 2021 Oct 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 2021 Oct examination.
Contents
The questions below are the paper as Karnataka State Law University set it at the 2021 Oct examination, in the order it was set.
MarksPage
MarksPage
The Paper as Set
The questions in this volume are the questions asked at the 2021 Oct 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 · 16 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 Indian approach to socio-economic offences.[16]
Answer
For full marks, cover: what socio-economic offences are and how they differ from ordinary crimes (the Law Commission's 29th Report, 1966); the constitutional base (Articles 38, 39, 46 and 47); the stages of the Indian approach: the Santhanam Committee (1964) and the 1964 amendments, the Law Commission's 47th Report (1972), special statutes for each field; the legal techniques India uses (strict liability, presumptions and reversed burdens, liability of companies and officers, minimum sentences and limits on probation, special courts, attachment and forfeiture, preventive detention); the institutions (CVC, CBI, Enforcement Directorate, SEBI, Lokpal and Lokayuktas); the judicial approach (Nathulal, Mayer Hans George, Nimmagadda Prasad, Sanjay Chandra, Vijay Madanlal Choudhary); an assessment.
What socio-economic offences are
Socio-economic offences are offences that harm the health, welfare or economy of the community as a whole. Examples are adulteration, hoarding, black marketing, tax evasion, smuggling, money laundering, corruption and fraud on depositors. They overlap with Sutherland's white collar crime, which looks at the offender. The socio-economic label looks at the harm.
The Law Commission's 29th Report (1966) described their features:
- the motive is greed, not passion or anger;
- the victim is the community or the State, not an individual;
- they are committed in the course of a lawful trade or occupation;
- they are hard to detect, because the victim often does not know.
These features mean the ordinary rules of criminal law, built for murder and theft, do not work well. India's approach has been to adapt the law to these crimes.
The constitutional base
The Constitution commits the State to a just economic order.
- Article 38 asks the State to secure a social order in which justice, social, economic and political, informs all institutions.
- Article 39(b) and (c) ask that material resources serve the common good and that wealth not be concentrated to the common detriment.
- Article 46 asks the State to protect the weaker sections from social injustice and exploitation.
- Article 47 asks the State to raise public health and prohibit injurious drugs and intoxicants.
Socio-economic offences attack these goals, so the State treats them seriously.
The stages of the Indian approach
Stage 1: recognition (1964). The Santhanam Committee on Prevention of Corruption reported in 1964. It found corruption organised and spreading, fed by people in trade, industry and the professions. Its recommendations led to the Central Vigilance Commission and to amendments in 1964. These added the offence of possessing assets disproportionate to known income to the Prevention of Corruption Act 1947.
Stage 2: study (1966 and 1972). The Law Commission's 29th Report (1966) examined whether such offences should go into the Indian Penal Code. Its 47th Report (1972), The Trial and Punishment of Social and Economic Offences, was chaired by P.B. Gajendragadkar. It recommended dispensing with mens rea, shifting the burden of proof to the accused, higher minimum punishments and limits on judicial leniency.
Stage 3: special statutes. India chose to deal with each field by a special law rather than one general code.
| Field | Main law |
|---|---|
| Essential goods and fair prices | Essential Commodities Act 1955 |
| Food and drugs | Food Safety and Standards Act 2006; Drugs and Cosmetics Act 1940 |
| Field | Main law |
|---|---|
| Smuggling and customs | Customs Act 1962 |
| Foreign exchange | Foreign Exchange Management Act 1999 |
| Money laundering | Prevention of Money-laundering Act 2002 |
| Benami property | Prohibition of Benami Property Transactions Act 1988 |
| Securities and companies | SEBI Act 1992; Companies Act 2013 |
| Tax and black money | Income-tax Act 2025; Black Money Act 2015 |
| Absconders | Fugitive Economic Offenders Act 2018 |
| Corruption | Prevention of Corruption Act 1988 |
The legal techniques
- Strict liability. Many offences do not require proof of a guilty mind, or require the accused to prove its absence.
- Presumptions and reversed burdens. Courts presume a culpable state of mind or a corrupt motive once basic facts are proved. The accused must show a licence or a lawful source of wealth.
- Companies and officers. The company is liable, and so are the officers in charge of its business, unless they show they had no knowledge or used due diligence.
- Minimum sentences and limits on probation. Statutes fix minimum terms, and some exclude probation, such as section 16A of the Protection of Civil Rights Act for offenders above fourteen.
- Special courts and quicker trials. Special Judges under the Prevention of Corruption Act, special courts under the PMLA, and summary trials for minor offences.
- Attachment and forfeiture. The proceeds of crime can be attached and confiscated, under the PMLA, the Benami Act and section 18A of the Prevention of Corruption Act.
- Preventive detention. The Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act 1974 allows smugglers to be detained. The Prevention of Black-marketing and Maintenance of Supplies of Essential Commodities Act 1980 does the same for black marketeers.
The institutions
The Central Vigilance Commission supervises vigilance in the Union, and the CBI investigates corruption and major frauds. The Enforcement Directorate handles money laundering and foreign exchange, and SEBI regulates the securities market. The Lokpal and the State Lokayuktas inquire into corruption by Ministers and officials.
The approach in action: an example
A company sells edible oil mixed with a cheaper, harmful oil across several States, and its managers bribe a food inspector.
- The offence. Selling adulterated food is punished under the Food Safety and Standards Act 2006 and sections 274 and 275 of the BNS. The prosecution need not prove that the managers intended harm, only that they sold unsafe food.
- The company and its officers. The company is liable, and so are the officers in charge of its business unless they prove due diligence.
- The bribe. The inspector is liable under section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, and the company under section 9 unless it had adequate procedures.
- The money. Profits from the racket may be attached as proceeds of crime under the PMLA, where a scheduled offence is involved.
- The court. The bribery case goes to a special Judge, and bail is weighed with the gravity of an economic offence in mind.
Each technique answers one difficulty that would defeat an ordinary prosecution.
The judicial approach
Mens rea, but not always. In Nathulal v. State of Madhya Pradesh, AIR 1966 SC 43, a grain dealer stored wheat believing his licence had been granted. The Court held that mens rea is required unless the statute clearly excludes it, and acquitted him. In State of Maharashtra v. Mayer Hans George, AIR 1965 SC 722, a passenger carried thirty-four kilograms of gold through Bombay without knowing of a new notification. The majority convicted him, because requiring knowledge would defeat the anti-smuggling law. Together they show the Court reading each statute's purpose.
A class apart for bail. In Nimmagadda Prasad v. Central Bureau of Investigation, (2013) 7 SCC 466, investments were allegedly made in a company in return for official favours. The Court refused bail. It called economic offences "a class apart", affecting the economy of the whole country.
But liberty still matters. In Sanjay Chandra v. Central Bureau of Investigation, (2012) 1 SCC 40, accused in the 2G spectrum case had been in custody for months. The Court granted bail. It said "The object of bail is neither punitive nor preventative", and the gravity of the charge alone cannot justify detention.
Strong tools upheld. In Vijay Madanlal Choudhary v. Union of India, (2023) 12 SCC 1, the PMLA's powers of attachment, search, arrest and twin bail conditions were challenged. The Court substantially upheld them.
Assessment
Strengths. India has a law for almost every kind of socio-economic offence, with strong techniques and specialised agencies. The courts accept strictness where the statute's purpose needs it.
Weaknesses. There are too many laws and too many agencies, which leads to overlap and delay. Investigators lack financial and technical skills. Trials take years, and conviction rates are low. The powerful use the procedural safeguards to delay cases.
Conclusion. India treats socio-economic offences as a separate category of greed-driven harm to the community, as the Law Commission's 29th Report described. Its approach, shaped by the Santhanam Committee and the 47th Report, uses special statutes and modified rules. These include strict liability, reversed burdens, corporate liability, minimum sentences, special courts, attachment and preventive detention. Nathulal, Mayer Hans George, Nimmagadda Prasad, Sanjay Chandra and Vijay Madanlal Choudhary show the courts applying it with balance. Its weakness lies in enforcement, not in the law.
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.