KSLU Solved Question Papers
White Collar Crimes
Previous Year Question Paper with Solution
B.A. LL.B. (Five Years) · Sem 10
2023 Mar Examination
munotes.in
Mumbai
B.A. LL.B. (Five Years) Sem 10 White Collar Crimes 2023 Mar 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 2023 Mar examination.
Contents
The questions below are the paper as Karnataka State Law University set it at the 2023 Mar examination, in the order it was set.
MarksPage
MarksPage
The Paper as Set
The questions in this volume are the questions asked at the 2023 Mar 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 80 · 20 questions answered
Instructions printed on the paper
- N.B. (1) Answer all five Units. (2) One essay type question and short note/problem is compulsory from each Unit. (3) Figures to the right indicate marks. (4) Answer should be written either in English or Kannada completely.
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)What is white collar crime ? Explain how the judiciary has changed its attitude towards white collar crimes.[10]
Answer
For full marks, cover: Sutherland's definition and why white collar offenders were long treated gently; the judiciary's change, phase by phase: from insisting on mens rea to accepting strict liability (Nathulal, Mayer Hans George); from deference to supervising investigations (Vineet Narain, Subramanian Swamy); from ordinary bail to "a class apart" balanced by liberty (Nimmagadda Prasad, Sanjay Chandra); from immunity to accountability for the powerful (Sita Soren, K. Veeraswami); from private loss to public health (Swami Achyutanand Tirth); the limits of the change.
What white collar crime is
Edwin H. Sutherland defined white collar crime in 1939 as "a crime committed by a person of respectability and high social status in the course of his occupation". Examples are bribery, tax evasion, adulteration, bank fraud and abuse of office. For a long time courts treated such offenders gently. They were respectable, first offenders, and their victims were faceless. Over the last sixty years Indian courts have changed that attitude.
Phase 1: from mens rea to strict liability
Early caution. In Nathulal v. State of Madhya Pradesh, AIR 1966 SC 43, a grain dealer stored wheat without a licence. He had applied, paid the fee, and been told a licence would follow. The Court held that mens rea is essential unless the statute clearly excludes it. Since he acted in good faith, he was acquitted.
Strictness for economic offences. But in State of Maharashtra v. Mayer Hans George, AIR 1965 SC 722, a German passenger was found with thirty-four kilograms of gold while in transit at Bombay. He did not know of the Reserve Bank notification that made it an offence. The majority convicted him. Requiring knowledge would defeat the law against smuggling. The Court thus accepted that economic statutes may dispense with a guilty mind.
Phase 2: from deference to supervision
Continuing mandamus. In Vineet Narain v. Union of India, AIR 1998 SC 889, the CBI had sat on the Jain hawala diaries naming senior politicians and officials. The Court monitored the investigation itself, an approach called continuing mandamus. It also gave directions to free the CBI from political control.
No protection by rank. In Dr. Subramanian Swamy v. Director, Central Bureau of Investigation, decided on 6 May 2014, section 6A of the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act protected senior officers from investigation without approval. A Constitution Bench struck it down. The seriousness of corruption does not depend on the rank of the official.
Phase 3: bail, between gravity and liberty
A class apart. In Nimmagadda Prasad v. Central Bureau of Investigation, (2013) 7 SCC 466, investments in a company were allegedly made in return for official favours. The Court refused bail and said economic offences "constitute a class apart". They involve deep conspiracies and huge loss of public funds.
But bail is not punishment. 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, holding that "The object of bail is neither punitive nor preventative". The gravity of the charge alone cannot justify detention before trial.
Phase 4: no one above the law
Judges. In K. Veeraswami v. Union of India, (1991) 3 SCR 189, the Court held that a judge of a superior court is a public servant who can be prosecuted for corruption. It required only prior consultation with the Chief Justice of India.
Legislators. In Sita Soren v. Union of India, 2024 INSC 161, a legislator took a bribe to vote in a Rajya Sabha election. A seven-judge Bench held that Articles 105 and 194 give no immunity for bribery. It overruled the majority view in P.V. Narasimha Rao of 1998.
Phase 5: from private loss to public harm
In Swami Achyutanand Tirth v. Union of India, (2016) 9 SCC 699, milk was being adulterated with urea, detergent and caustic soda. The Court treated it as a threat to the public's right to life. It directed laboratories, sampling drives and committees, and urged States to adopt heavier penalties.
The limits of the change
The courts' new strictness meets old problems. Trials still take years, conviction rates are low, and the powerful use every procedural remedy. Sentences in the few convictions are often light. Courts can direct and supervise, but they cannot investigate or prosecute themselves.
Conclusion. White collar crime is Sutherland's crime of the respectable at work. The judiciary has moved from leniency to firmness. It accepted strict liability (Mayer Hans George), supervised investigations (Vineet Narain), and treated economic offences as "a class apart" for bail (Nimmagadda Prasad) while protecting liberty (Sanjay Chandra). It also denied immunity to judges and legislators (Veeraswami, Sita Soren). Its success still depends on swift trials.
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.