Yes. There is no mention of how much % of provisions were made towards that fraud.
It would have been surely recognized as NPA. The only question would be whether 100% provision is made or not.
The worst part of the results is 60-70% NPA divergence and there is no comment on it in the press release. With 2016 audit revealing 0% divergence and 2017 audit huge divergence, it makes no sense.