Key differences between IPC and CrPC

As citizens of India, it is important to be well versed with the laws of our country, more so, when it comes to society at large. The criminal laws impact not just individuals but the entire society. The Indian Penal Code (IPC) and the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) are two of the most important legislation governing crimes in India. Besides these, the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 is the third legislation under criminal law in India.

The Indian Penal Code (IPC)

The Indian Penal Code is the official criminal code of India, which was drafted way back in 1860. It’s objective is to provide a general penal code for the country. It has 511 sections across 23 chapters, providing the list of crimes along with their definitions and punishments. The IPC has been amended several times and is now supplemented by other Acts. Its jurisdiction extends to the whole of India except the State of Jammu and Kashmir.

Here is the detailed overview of the important provisions of the CrPC –

• Chapter 1 – Introduction (Section 1 – 5)
• Chapter 2 – General Explanations (Section 6 – 52A)
• Chapter 3 – Of punishments (Section 53 -75)
• Chapter 4 – General Exceptions (Section 76 – 106)
• Chapter 5 – Of Abetment (Section 107 – 120)
• Chapter 5A – Of Criminal Conspiracy (Section 120A and 120B)
• Chapter 6 – Of offenses against the State (Section 121 – 130)
• Chapter 7 – Of offences relating to the army, navy and air force (Section 131 – 140)
• Chapter 8 – Of offences against the public tranquillity (Section 141 – 160)
• Chapter 9A – Of offences relating to elections (Section 171A – Section 171I)
• Chapter 10 – Of contempts of the lawful authority of public servants (Section 172 – 190)
• Chapter 11 – Of false evidence and offences against public justice (Section 191 – 229)
• Chapter 12 – Of offences relating to coin and government stamps (Section 230 – 263A)
• Chapter 13 – Of offences relating To weights and measures (Section 264 – 267)
• Chapter 14 – Of Offences Affecting The Public Health, Safety, Convenience, Decency And Morals (Section 268 – 294A)
• Chapter 15 – Of Offences Relating To Religion (Section 295 – 298)
• Chapter 16 – Of Offences Affecting The Human Body (Section 299 – 377)
• Chapter 17 – Of Offences Against Property (Section 378 – 462)
• Chapter 18 – Of Offences Relating To Documents And To Property Marks (Section 463 – 489E)
• Chapter 19 – Of The Criminal Breach Of Contracts Of Service (Section 490 – 492)
• Chapter 20 – Of Offences Relating To Marriage (Section 493 – 498)
• Chapter 20A – Of Cruelty By Husband Or Relatives Of Husband (Section 498A)
• Chapter 21 – Of Defamation (Section 499 – 502)
• Chapter 22 – Of Criminal Intimidation, Insult And Annoyance (Section 503 – 510)
• Chapter 23 – Of Attempts To Commit Offences (Section 511)

The Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) –

The Code of Criminal Procedure is the main legislation on the procedure for the regulation of criminal law in India. The CrPC details the procedure for the investigation of the crime, presenting criminals before the court of law, collection of evidence, determination of guilt or innocence of the accused, imposition of penalties or punishments etc. It further lays down the hierarchy of the courts competent to try criminal lawsuits. In descending order it is the High Court at the top followed by Sessions Court, First Class Judicial Magistrate, Second Class Judicial Magistrate and Executive Magistrate. There is a limit affixed for sentences which these courts can pass against the accused. The Supreme Court is the apex court, and it has the ultimate power. The code was enacted in 1973. At present, the CrPC contains 484 sections cut across 37 chapters. It also has two schedules and 56 forms.

Here is the detailed overview of the important provisions of the CrPC –

• Chapter 1 – Preliminary (Section 1 – 5)
• Chapter 2 – Constitution of Criminal Courts and Offices (Section 6 – 25)
• Chapter 3 – Power of Courts (Section 26 – 35)
• Chapter 4 – Powers of Superior Officers of Police (Section 36 – 40)
• Chapter 5 – Arrest of Persons (Section 41 – 60)
• Chapter 6 – Processes to compel Appearance (Section 61 – 90)
• Chapter 13 – Jurisdiction of the Criminal Courts in inquiries and trials (Section 177 – 189)
• Chapter 14 – Conditions requisite for initiation of proceeding (Section 190 – 199)
• Chapter 15 – Complaints to Magistrates (Section 200 – 203)
• Chapter 16 – Commencement of proceedings before magistrates (Section 204 – 210)
• Chapter 17 – The Charge (Section 211 – 224)
• Chapter 18 – Trail before a court of session (Section 225 -237)
• Chapter 19 – Trial of warrant-cases by magistrates (Section 238 – 250)
• Chapter 20 – Trial of summons-cases by magistrates (Section 251 – 259)
• Chapter 21 – Summary Trials (Section 260 – 265)
• Chapter 22 – Attendance of persons confined or detained in prisons (Section 266 – 271)
• Chapter 23 – Evidence in inquiries and trials (Section 272 – 299)
• Chapter 24 – General provisions as to inquiries and trials (Section 300 – 327)
• Chapter 25 – Provisions as to accused persons of unsound mind (Section 328 – 339)
• Chapter 26 – Provisions as to offences affecting the administration of justice ( Section 340 – 352)
• Chapter 27 – The Judgement (Section 353 – 365)
• Chapter 28 – Submission of death sentences for confirmation (Section 366 – 371)
• Chapter 29 – Appeals (Section 372 – 394)
• Chapter 30 – Reference and Revision (Section 395 – 405)
• Chapter 31 – Transfer of criminal cases (Section 406 – 412)
• Chapter 32 – Execution, Suspension, Remission and Commutation of Sentences (Section 413 – 435)
• Chapter 33 – Provisions as to bail and bonds (Section 436 – 450)
• Chapter 34 – Disposal of Property (Section 451 – 459)
• Chapter 35 – Irregular Proceedings (Section 460 – 466)
• Chapter 36 – Limitation for taking cognizance of certain offences (Section 467 – 473)
• Chapter 37 – Miscellaneous (Section 474 – 484)

Major Difference between IPC and CrPC –

1.  The IPC provides a substantive list of all crimes and lays down the punishment for each one of them. For example, Section 378 defines Theft as “Whoever, intending to take dishonestly any moveable property out of the possession of any person without that per­son’s consent, moves that property in order to such taking, is said to commit theft.” The punishment for the offence of theft is spelt out under Section 379 in the following words, “Whoever commits theft shall be pun­ished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both.” On the other hand, CrPC is a procedural law, and it lays down the ways or methods to be followed in a criminal case. So if a person is charged with ‘theft’, it is the CrPC which provides further details as to how the investigation would be carried out, how evidence will be collected etc. So CrPC concerns itself with the procedural aspect of the crime.
2. The primary purpose of IPC is to provide a general penal code for India which prescribes punishments to wrong-doers. The primary goal of CrPC is to consolidate the criminal law in the country.
3. The Indian Penal Code is a substantive law whereas, the Code of Criminal Procedure is procedural law.

CONCLUSION –

The Indian Penal Code, Code of Criminal Procedure and the Indian Evidence Act are the three primary legislation governing criminal law in India. They continue to play an important role in the court of law for the effective administration of justice. Besides, there are other legislations such as the Prohibition of Child Trafficking Act, the Juvenile Justice Act, which supplement the three main legislation. Both the IPC and the CrPC are pan-India in nature and extend to the whole of the State. Jammu and Kashmir are beyond their jurisdiction. IPC is the only substantive law here, and the Indian Evidence Act and the CrPC are the procedural laws.

Section 304 a – Death by Negligence : Law and Legality

Indian Penal Code: Section 304A

India’s criminal system follows the Indian Penal Code in matters of dealing with crime. The framework of IPC governs crime with justice and punishment. Owing to the influence of English Law, the original Indian Penal Code had provisions for culpable homicide under Section 299. Section 299 deals with any act or bodily injury caused by any person with an intention of causing death. Section 304 of IPC deals with the provision of culpable homicide not amounting to murder. This section involves crimes perpetrated with the knowledge of causing death but without any intention of doing the same.

The original Penal Code did not have any provision for dealing with death caused by negligence.  In 1870,  Act 27 of the Indian Penal Code added Section 304 a and b as an amendment. The following article is going to discuss Section 304 (a) under IPC in detail.

Section 304(a) states as follows:

“Whoever causes the death of any person by doing any rash or negligent act not amounting to culpable homicide shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or both.”

Any act under Section 304(a) is a bailable offence under the IPC. In such a case, the Court allows the defendant to make bail by paying a surety amount along with a bail bond at the police station. This offence is also compoundable which means that the plaintiff and the defendant can reach an agreement between themselves through their counsel and avoid trial. This often occurs in cases involving powerful Companies who would settle instead of going through a public trial.

Negligent Homicide: The Parameters of Law

The law sets parameters but also keeps spaces open for interpretation because each case has a different context.  Section 304(a) uses the words “rash or negligent act” as the deciding elements to charge any person under this section Therefore it is important to understand these terms and its various connotations.

Firstly, the Act being mentioned above should be causa causans,i.e, the primary cause of death and not merely causa sine qua non,i.e, an indirect act. Therefore, the relationship between the act and the death or injury resulted by it should be direct for the plaintiff to win the case.

Secondly,  there is a difference in the responsibility of the defendant vis-i vis the plaintiff between a negligent act and a rash act. A negligent act is a breach of duty that causes harm/damage to another person unintentionally. On the contrary, a rash act is the culmination of overhasty decisions and recklessness on the part of the defendant.

Thirdly,  a rash act is generally a criminal act. A negligent act could be civil or criminal depending on the gravity and the nature of the crime along with the degree of intention or lack thereof in a particular case.

Types of Negligence

There could be many ways of partaking in criminal negligence. There are two major criteria that come to the forefront while discussing Criminal Negligence:

Medical Negligence

Medical negligence is a breach of duty on the part of the defendant who has a legal as well as a moral duty to look after his/her patient. The act of “Negligence” is open to interpretation based on the actions of the defendant in each case. A medical practitioner is liable for negligence if he/she deviates from “the standard treatment” recommended for taking care of his/her patient causing death or injury of the patient. A medical practitioner can be a doctor as well as a nurse. Medical negligence cases can be civil as well if the hospital as a whole is held accountable for malpractice. For instance, using faulty equipment or expired medicines in the hospital.

Motor Vehicle Accidents

The incident of a motor vehicle crash leading to the death of people will not be enough to charge someone under Section 304(a) for negligent driving. The charge of criminally negligent driving requires the driver to be solely or entirely responsible for the accident because of their negligence or rashness. This, however, requires interpretation on part of the court; taking into account the level of rashness and deliberation in an action that led to an accident. The court has to take into account that if one decides to drive under influence, they are aware of the consequences of their decision. The court also has to take into account the degree of damage done by undertaking that reckless decision.

Corporate Negligence

In matters of corporate negligence, a Company is liable under Section 304(a) if it takes any action that injures their consumers, creates an unsafe environment for their employees or cheats their shareholders.  Some of the crimes that come under corporate negligence cases are:

• air and water pollution caused by industries;
• adulteration of food by food companies;
• involving themselves in different lobbies for their own profit by exchanging money with political parties;
• releasing confidential information without permission;
• recording personal conversations and breaching privacy;
• harming or cheating the shareholders’ out of their profit.

The burden of Proof and Defense against Section 304(a)

In claims of negligence, it is extremely important to prove that there was indeed a breach of duty. In many cases of medical negligence, the professional might make a decision based on the complicated nature of the case presented to him/her. The burden of proof lies with the doctor to prove that they behaved in a reasonable way only in the interest of the patient.

The other arguments on which the defendant relies are as follows:

• contributory negligence: proving there was negligence on the part of the plaintiff;
• inevitable accident: proving that the death or injury caused was inevitable depending on the circumstances of the action;
• dangerous recreational activity: proving that the plaintiff’s injury is a result of partaking in a dangerous recreational activity like drugs. In such a case, the defendant will not be liable for any damages.
• illegal activity– proving that both the plaintiff and the defendant were engaged in an illegal business when the plaintiff was injured. This renders the case void.

In civil negligence cases, the burden of proof lies with the plaintiff to prove that there was a breach of duty by the Company/Corporate. The breach of duty has to directly damage the plaintiff. In the case of powerful Companies, the plaintiffs should be ready to show concrete proof, including reliable testimonies and documents to reach a favourable verdict.

Section 304a IPC: Judgements

Some of the landmark judgements in cases related to Section 304(a) IPC:

 Jacob Mathew v State of Punjab [ANR 2005]

The plaintiffs, in this case, were the family of Jivan Lal who was admitted and died in CMC Hospital, Ludhiana. The two doctors who attended the deceased were Jacob Matthew and Allen Joseph. The doctors had to face the charge of criminal negligence. The plaintiffs claimed negligence on the doctor’s part while procuring oxygen cylinder for their father. The defence argued that the patient was at the last stage of cancer. He was not supposed to be admitted to any hospital in lieu of his degrading health.

The Supreme Court argued in favour of the doctors stating that the plaintiff must prove that the medical professionals acted “in disregard of the life and safety of the patient.” A medical professional cannot be held liable if they are following the accepted procedure of medical practice. They cannot be reprimanded for not using an alternative method that might or might not have brought the desired result. They can only be charged in either of the two conditions

• if they do not possess the skill to match their profession.
• if they did not show reasonable competence while discharging their duty; the standard set here would be of an ordinary competent person.

Somabhai Mangalbhai Dabhi vs State of Gujarat [1988]

The Session Judge convicted the accused of the death of a 10-year-old girl. He was charged under section 304 (a) of IPC for the negligent driving of a motor bus. The defence claimed that the girl entered the road out of nowhere. There was insufficient evidence of the girl coming out of nowhere and also the fact that the driver was driving on the wrong side. Therefore, the sessions court sentenced the accused with two years of Rigorous Imprisonment (RI) along with 500 rupees fine. The Supreme court did allow probation after regarding the context of the case.

Conclusion

The provision of Section 304(a) under the IPC is important to offer a measure of justice to the claimants. It might give them some closure or at the very least compensate them if there has been a breach of duty that led to irreversible damage or loss of life/property.

304A IPC BAILABLE304A IPC JUDGMENTS304A IPC PUNISHMENT

Section 499 IPC – Criminal Defamation

Criminal defamation, as defined in section 499 IPC, is one of the most controversial provisions under the Indian Penal Code, 1860. Time and again, we see defamations news popping up on our televisions and newspapers. Defamation is civil wrong under the tort law as well as a criminal offense under the IPC. We all are well aware that the right to speech is a fundamental right under the Constitution; therefore, the offense of defamation is debated on this issue. But the Supreme Court has held in several cases that the offense of defamation under Section 499 does not violate Article 19 of the Constitution.

“Freedom of speech and expression is not absolute. The concept of social interest has to be kept in mind when considering the reasonableness of a restriction”. [1]

What is Defamation?

Section 499 says that whoever, by words either spoken or intended to be read, or by signs or by visible representations, makes or publishes any imputation concerning any person intending to harm, or knowing or having reason to believe that such imputation will harm, the reputation of such person, is said, except in the cases hereinafter expected, to defame that person.

Explanation 1.—It may amount to defamation to impute anything to a deceased person, if the imputation would harm the reputation of that person if living, and is intended to be hurtful to the feelings of his family or other near relatives.

Explanation 2.—It may amount to defamation to make an imputation concerning a company or an association or collection of persons as such.

Explanation 3.—An imputation in the form of an alternative or expressed ironically, may amount to defamation.

Explanation 4.—No imputation is said to harm a person’s reputa­tion, unless that imputation directly or indirectly, in the estimation of others, lowers the moral or intellectual character of that person, or lowers the character of that person in respect of his caste or of his calling, or lowers the credit of that person, or causes it to be believed that the body of that person is in a loathsome state, or a state generally considered as disgrace­ful. [2]

Therefore from the above provision, it is evident that defamation is done not only through words spoken but also written. It may be done by signs or visible representation that is directed towards a particular person to cause harm to a person’s reputation. There are four exceptions provided under the provision.

Explanation of Criminal Defamation

Right to speech and expression is one of the important Fundamental rights; therefore, when it is made, limited necessary points need to be considered. Defamation is made an offense under the criminal law, and certain explanations are attached to it to make the understanding clear.

1. Deceased person- usually no defamation is caused to a person who is dead, but, it may amount to defamation if the statement to act done to defame that person causes harm or is derogatory to his family or any of his family members.
2. Corporate body- Although it was controversial as to whether the corporate body can file a defamation suit. The SC strike out the balance between Art. 19 and the right of corporate bodies to file criminal defamation case for alleged damage to reputation.[3]
3. Indirect statement- Sometimes, even an ironically passed statement may also amount to defamation.
4. Lowering intellectual- if a statement is passed by a person to lower the person reputation, then it would be defamatory.

Defamation in English Law

Defamation in English law is classified under two categories-

1. Libel- representation made in some permanent form. For eg.- publication in a newspaper or any other writing form.
2. Slander-statement made in some transcient form. For eg.- by spoken words.

In India, there is no such classification of the offense of defamation. The Madras and Bombay High court has also held that there is no need to make such classification under the Indian criminal law.[4]

Exceptions of Defamation

1. Justification of truth- Law, will not guide a person or favor a person to receive compensation for something true. In a case, the defendant published a defamatory statement against, but the statements were true, so it was not considered as an offense.[5]
2. Fair comment- making fair comments in the public interest is not defamation.
3. Privilege- Giving special status to certain persons protects them from the offense under section 499. These privileges are absolute as well as qualified.

Conclusion

Defamation is one of the most controversial offense. Right to Speech is a fundamental right guaranteed under our Constitution, but the right is not absolute, and it is restricted. The offense of defamation is a form of this restriction made on the Fundamental Right. A person cannot speak or publish any derogatory remarks for any other person.

[1] Subramanian Swamy v. Union of India, Ministry of Law &ors. (2014) SC 184.

[2] Indian Penal Code, 1860, s. 499.

[3] Priya Pillai v. Union of India & Anr. (2015) SC 132.

[4] Hirabai Jehangir v. Dinshawdulji (1927) Bom 22.

[5] Radheshayam Tiwari v. Eknath (1895) Bom 285.

You Will Never Thought That Knowing 5 Top White Collar Crime Cases In India You Never Know Could Be So Beneficial!

What is White Collar Crime?

White–collar crime or a corporate crime refers to financially motivated, nonviolent crime committed by government and businesses professionals. Below are some of the top 5 white collar crime cases in India.

1. Harshad Mehta Securities Fraud (1988-1995)  

Protagonist – Harshad Mehta 

Harshad Mehta was a stockbroker, and he established his security firm in 1990, “ Grow More Research & Asset Management Limited”. He was a reputed name in the stock market, and is considered the ‘Sultan of Dalal Street’, investors blindly followed Mehta’s footsteps.[1] He took a loan of huge amount from the bank and purchased the scrips at high prices, thereby creating a false market. He misused his status and manipulated the stock prices of certain scrips for his gain.[2] This resulted in unnatural pumping of money in the stock markets causing an abnormal rise in the price of these shares. This act of Harshad Mehta though being immoral was not illegal. The problem arose when Mehta obtained capital to invest in the stock market by misappropriating bank’s money. This misappropriation of money falls in the purview of money laundering. He earned approximately ₹ 5000 crores.[3] The then renowned journalist Sucheta Dalal exposed this scam. This unabated selling caused the market to loose ₹ 0.1 million in a day. This was the biggest ever crash which the Indian stock market had ever experienced. To curtail such transaction various changes were brought in SEBI rules and regulations.

2. Satyam Scandal: biggest ever corporate accounting fraud

Protagonist – B. Ramalingam Raju

This scam came into light on 7^th January, 20009 by way of confession letter written by B. Ramalingam Raju (Founder and chairman of Satyam Computers Services Limited) published in Times of India. The letter confessed about manipulating his books of account by overstating the assets and understating liabilities.[4]

The books of accounts are the reflection of the company’s financial standing. They act as an important tool on which investors can rely on before investing their money. Accounts books were manipulated to cheat investors and shareholders.

The whole scam cost approximately ₹14,000 crore and is considered to be an important factor which contributed to the recession of 2009.[5]

In this scandal, SEBI hit back strongly, holding Ramalinga Raju and nine major associates and guilty of insider trading, indulging in fraudulent and unfair trade practices. SEBI directed accused to pay approximately ₹3000 crore within 45 days and also debarred them from accessing the security markets in any way for 14 years.[6] SEBI managed to lash back strongly to ensure such a scam never happened again.

3. Ketan Parekh Security Scam

Protagonist – Ketan Parekh  

Parekh was involved in circular trading and stock manipulation through 1999-2001. He borrowed from banks like Global trust Bank and Madhavpura Mercantile Co-operative bank and manipulated a host of stocks known as K-10 stocks.[7] The scandal amount was approximately ₹ 1,250 Crore. He has spent only one year in jail, but he has been debarred from trading in the Indian Stock market till 2017.

Although his name continues to haunt the street as he has been accused of playing from backstage. An Intelligence Bureau Report alleged Parekh and his associates to be engaged in circular and insider trading through front entities.

4. Saradha chit fund case

Protagonist- Sudipta Sen  

Saradha Group financial Scandal was a major financial scam and alleged political scandal caused by the collapse of Ponzi scheme run by Saradha Group, a consortium of 200 private companies that were believed to be running collective investment schemes popularly and wrongly referred to as Chit Fund.[8] This group collected around ₹200 to ₹300 billion from over 1.7 million depositors, promising a multiplied hefty sum in return in the form of cash or real estate and other assets.[9]

At least 10 Saradha group entities were alleged for committing fraud through public money-pooling activities. Amidst continuing public protest against the group’s alleged fraudulent activities, SEBI barred Saradha Realty India and its managing director Sudipta Sen from the securities market till it winds up all the Collective Investment Schemes (CIS) and makes the refund, as the same amounts to CIS Violation.[10]

The central government through income tax department and Enforcement Directorate launched a multi-agency probe to investigate the Saradha Scam and similar Ponzi scheme. Later, in May 2014 Supreme Court of India, alleging possible international money laundering, severe regulatory failures an alleged political nexus, referred this case to CBI, India’s federal investigation agency.[11] Many prominent personalities were arrested for their involvement in the scam including two Members of Parliament- Kunal Ghosh, Srinjoy Bose, former West Bengal director general of police- Rajat Majumdar, a top football club official Debabrata Sarkar, Sports and Transport minister in the Trinamool Congress government Madan Mitra.

This scam is often compared to the Sanchayita investment scam, a multi-crore rupees scam that occurred in West Bengal in the 1970s, complaints related to the same have to lead to the formation of Prize Chits and Money Circulation Schemes (Banning) Act, 1968.[12]

5. Punjab National Bank Fraud

Protagonist- Nirav Modi  

Nirav Modi is a diamantaire, elite jewelry designer and India’s 85^th richest person.

Bank said that Modi and the companies linked to him colluded with its officials to get guarantees or Letter of Undertaking to help fund buyer’s credit from other overseas banks.[13]

PNB’s preliminary investigation showed that two officials of the bank had fraudulently issued Lou’s to the said firms without following the due procedure. These Los were then transmitted across the SWIFT messaging system, based on which the credit was offered to the said firms.[14]

PNB alleged that the funds ostensibly so raised for the purchase and sale of diamonds were not used for the purpose.

PNB issued to the stock exchange, about the detection of the fraudulent and unauthorized transaction. PNB has incurred $1.8 billion fraud, one of the largest to be detected in Indian Banking Sector.[15]

Read Also: Taxpayers Don’t Fall For These Types of Tax Scams in India

[1] “THE GROWTH OF SEBI – FROM HARSHAD MEHTA TO SUBRATA ROY” (PDF) <https://lawsdocbox.com/Legal_Issues/73899378-The-growth-of-sebi-from-harshad-mehta-to-subrata-roy.html> accessed May 13, 2019.

[2] Ibid.

[3] Ibid.

[4] Datta D and Datta D, “Ramalinga Raju And The Incredible Story Of India’s Greatest White Collar Crime” (HuffPost India July 15, 2016) <https://www.huffingtonpost.in/devangshu-datta/ramalinga-raju-and-the-in_b_7032688.html> accessed May 13, 2019.

[5] Ibid.

[6] Ibid.

[7] Nimmi (KETAN PAREKH SCAM) <https://www.indianmirror.com/indian-industries/indian-scams/ketanparekhscam.html> accessed May 13, 2019.

[8] “Here’s Why Saradha Was Not a Chit Fund but a Ponzi Scheme” (first post-December 20, 2014) <https://www.firstpost.com/business/heres-why-saradha-was-not-a-chit-fund-but-a-ponzi-scheme-739597.html> accessed May 13, 2019.

[9] Ibid

[10] “Saradha Chit Fund Scam: Mercedes of Sudipta Sen’s Son Seized” (The Economic TimesMay 7, 2013) <https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/politics-and-nation/saradha-chit-fund-scam-mercedes-of-sudipta-sens-son-seized/articleshow/19937529.cms?from=mdr> accessed May 13, 2019.

[11] Reporters BS, “SC Jolt for Mamata: CBI to Probe Saradha Scam” (Business StandardMay 9, 2014) <https://www.business-standard.com/article/current-affairs/sc-jolt-for-mamata-cbi-to-probe-saradha-scam-114050900345_1.html> accessed May 13, 2019.

[12] Mukherji UP, Bandyopadhyay K, and TNN, “Sanchayita Haunts Saradha Victims | Kolkata News-Times of India” (The Times of IndiaMay 13, 2019) <https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/kolkata/Sanchayita-haunts-Saradha-victims/articleshow/19656723.cms> accessed May 13, 2019.

[13] “Nirav Modi Case: How PNB Has Defrauded of Rs 11,400 Crore” (Business TodayMarch 15, 2018) <https://www.businesstoday.in/sectors/banks/nirav-modi-case-pnb-fraud-11400-crore-scam-ed-cbi-raid/story/270708.html> accessed May 11, 2019.

[14] Desk BQ, “The Nirav Modi-PNB Fraud Case: Everything We Know So Far” (BloombergQuintFebruary 17, 2018) <https://www.bloombergquint.com/law-and-policy/the-nirav-modi-pnb-fraud-case-everything-we-know-so-far> accessed May 11, 2019.

[15] Nair V, “The Nirav Modi Case: How The $1.8 Billion Fraud Detected At PNB Unfolded” (BloombergQuintFebruary 19, 2018) <https://www.bloombergquint.com/pnb-fraud/the-nirav-modi-case-how-the-18-billion-fraud-detected-at-pnb-unfolded> accessed May 11, 2019.

Original blog is published in Legodesk please read full blog for legal service

Manage your Legal practice with Legodesk helps you to manage your clients, do legal research, grow your practice and much more