Skip to main content

NEET Paper Leaks & Fake Certificate Peaks: How the New Criminal Law (BNS) Deals with Cheating

As a lawyer, I've seen many cases of cheating and deception. Recently, I've been following news about the National Eligibility cum Entrance Test (NEET) exam paper leak and an Indian Administrative Service (IAS) probationary officer falsely presenting herself as an Other Backward Classes (OBC) candidate for her Union Public Service Commission (UPSC) exam. These events made me think about which legal provisions would apply to such cases. Are these covered under the new Bhartiya Nyay Sanhita (BNS) (भारतीय न्याय संहिता), 2023, formerly the IPC (Indian Penal Code), 1860? Absolutely — they fall under the category of cheating…

I explored the Bhartiya Nyay Sanhita and found Section 318 (formerly Section 420 of IPC). It’s like the all-new “cheating watchdog” (pardon my chartered accountant lingo...) on duty, keeping a sharp lookout for tricksters and making sure they don’t slip through the cracks!

What is Cheating?
Section 318 of BNS defines cheating as:
  • Deception: Tricking or deceiving any person. Hiding facts dishonestly is considered deception
  • Fraudulent or Dishonest Inducement: Making the deceived person deliver property, agree to retain property, or do/omit something they wouldn't have done without being deceived, and 
  • Resulting Harm: The act or omission must cause or be likely to cause damage or harm to the person's body, mind, reputation, or property.
Comparison with Section 420 of the IPC
The basic idea of cheating is the same in both Section 420 of the IPC and Section 318 of the BNS. Both focus on deception, fraudulent or dishonest inducement, and resulting harm. However, the BNS enhances the punishments:
  • Basic Offence: Imprisonment up to three years, or a fine, or both (increased from one year).
  • Aggravated Offence:
    • Cheating causing likely wrongful loss to a person legally bound to protect: Imprisonment up to five years, or a fine, or both (increased from three years)
    • Cheating leading to the delivery, alteration, or destruction of valuable security: Imprisonment up to seven years, and a fine (no change).
We must also look at the linked provisions under the Information Technology Act, 2000 - Section 66D where the punishment for cheating by personation using computer resources the imprisonment of up to three years, and a fine of up to one lakh rupees.

An old but still relevant case law reminds me of today's scandals—like paper leaks, fake caste certificates for top positions, and various financial scams. It shows how some legal principles remain timeless, no matter how much things change.

The Abhayanand Mishra v. State of Bihar, Criminal Appeal No. 226 of 1959 (SC), a case from 1961 that still holds lessons for us. Here’s a quick recap:

The Case:
Abhayanand Mishra wanted to appear for the M.A. exams at Patna University. To get in, he falsely claimed to be a graduate and a teacher, even submitting fake certificates. When the university discovered the deceit, Mishra was charged with cheating. He argued that his actions only amounted to the preparation for the commission of the offence of 'cheating, and did constitute an attempt to cheat. There is a thin line between the preparation for and an attempt to commit an offence.

The Supreme Court’s Take:
The Court had to decide if Mishra’s actions were just preparations or if they counted as an attempt to cheat. The ruling? Mishra's actions were indeed an attempt to cheat. Why? Because he tricked the university into giving him an admission card, which, although not a physical object of high value, was crucial for him to take the exams.

Why It Matters Today:
Even though the case is old, its principles are still relevant. The Court explained that cheating involves deceiving someone into giving you something or doing something that could harm them. The Supreme Court's reasoning shows that even if the deceit doesn’t involve a tangible item, it can still be considered cheating if it’s likely to cause harm.

So, as we navigate through today’s issues, like the NEET paper leak and fake IAS certificates, this case reminds us that the essence of cheating—deception, delivery of property and harm—remains the same, no matter how times or laws change.

[Stay connected, for more insights and updates on legal precedents.]
Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Maintenance Charges Default: No Water, No Sympathy

In what can only be described as a case of forum shopping (trying to find the friendliest court), an apartment owner in Shiv Vihar CHS, Dombivali (East), took his complaints on a legal tour. The petitioner, Vilas Gopal Dongare member of the society was unhappy. Why? Because his water supply was cut off. The reason? He had not paid his maintenance bills, which had piled up to a whopping Rs. 7 Lakhs! Despite making several complaints about the alleged harassment by the society and even a water tank causing structural issues in his building, his cries were heard and promptly dismissed. The Maharashtra State Human Rights Commission looked into his case and, on 05.02.2020, decided it was not a human rights violation. They said, “Pay your bills first.” The society initiated proceedings under Section 101 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 (MCS Act) to recover arrears and got a Recovery Certificate issued in its favour. When the petitioner’s appeal against this certificate wa...
Post a Comment
Read more

AMORTISED COST CALCULATION: THE EFFECTIVE INTEREST RATE (EIR)

IAS 39 mandates some financial assets and liabilities to be subsequently measured at ‘amortized cost’.  This measurement concept is a management theory put in accounting practice. It means that the contractual interest rate each period should be adjusted to amortize the transaction costs over the expected life of the financial instrument. The amortization is calculated on an effective interest rate (EIR) / yield-to-maturity (YTM) basis. The EIR is the rate that exactly discounts the stream of principal and interest cash flows excluding any impact of credit losses, to the initial net proceeds. It is important to note that EIR method does not take into account any future credit impairments anticipated on that instrument. The carrying amount of the financial instrument subsequently measured at amortized cost is computed as: Transaction costs are an integral part of the amortized cost calculation. They are defined as costs that are directly attributable to the acquisit...
49 comments
Read more

Court Upholds Co-operative Membership Transfer with Release Deed

In the case of Bima Nagar Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. v. Divisional Joint Registrar & Ors. WP 10768 of 2024 , the Bombay High Court on 23.09.2024 dismissed the society’s petition challenging the membership transfer to Pushpa Morey, a widow, following her husband's death. Initially, Pushpa was granted provisional membership but was later denied full membership by the society. Pushpa applied for full membership after her husband's passing. When the society refused, she sought help from the Deputy Registrar, who ordered that the society admit her as a full member under Section 22(2) of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960. The society’s appeal to the Divisional Joint Registrar was unsuccessful, prompting the writ petition in the Bombay High Court. The society argued that the "family arrangement" concept under Section 154B-13 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act applies only to a Hindu Undivided Family (HUF). Pushpa, however, contended tha...
2 comments
Read more