Advertisements
Advertisements
प्रश्न
LEGAL PRINCIPLE Any direct physical, interference with goods in somebody's possession without lawful justification is called trespass of goods.
FACTS Z purchased a car from a person who had no title to it and sent it to a garage for repair. X believing wrongly that the car was his, removed it from the garage.
पर्याय
X can be held responsible for the trespass of goods
X cannot be held responsible for trespass of good as he was under a wrong belief
X has not committed any wrong
None of the above
उत्तर
X can be held responsible for the trespass of goods
Explanation:
Under section 441 of IPC which defines Criminal trespass that whoever enters into or upon property in the possession of another with intent to commit an offence or to intimidate, insult or annoy any person in possession of such property or having lawfully entered into or upon such property, unlawfully remains there with the intent thereby to intimidate, insult or annoy any such person or with intent to commit an offence.
APPEARS IN
संबंधित प्रश्न
The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 helps in
The criminal procedure code is of
Unlawful homicide includes
PRINCIPLE Whoever causes the death of any person by doing any rash or negligent act not amounting to culpable homicide, shall be liable for causing death by negligence.
FACTS A nurse knowing that she is supposed to take vitals and ensure them to be in order before administering a particular injection, but not knowing or having reason to believe it is fatal does not follow the protocol in hurry. As a result, the patient died.
LEGAL PRINCIPLES
1. The crime of kidnapping involves taking someone away from the custody of their lawful guardian.
2. The crime of abduction involves inducing or forcing somebody to go away from someplace against their will.
FACTUAL SITUATION
A steals B's slave. Is it a crime?
DECISION
I. Kidnapping
II. Abduction
III. Neither
REASON
(A) Slavery is illegal.
(B) A bas taken him away from B's lawful custody.
(C) A bas forced somebody to go with him against his will.
The question contains some basic principles and fact situations in which these basic principles have to be applied. A list of probable decisions and reasons are given. You have to choose a decision with reasons.
Principles:
1. Copying including attempt to copy in examinations is a serious offence.
2. One shall not take any unauthorized materials into the examination hall.
Facts:
Rohini, an examinee in PUC., was thoroughly checked while entering into the examination hall. She did not have anything other than authorized materials such as pen, instrument box, etc., with her. As she was writing her paper, an invigilator found close to her feet a bunch of chits. The invigilator on scrutiny found that the chits contained answers to the paper being written by Rohini. Rohini's answers tallied with the answers in the chits. A charge of copying was levelled against Rohini.
Probable decisions:
(a) Rohini shall be punished for copying.
(b) Rohini cannot be punished for copying.
Probable reasons for the decision:
(i) Something lying near the feet does not mean that the person is in possession of that thing.
(ii) The fact that she was checked thoroughly while getting into the hall must be conclusive.
(iii) Similarities between her answers and the answers in the chit indicate that she used those chits.
(iv) After using those chits, she must have failed to dispose of them properly.
Given below is a statement of legal principle followed by a factual situation. Apply the principle to the facts given below and select the most appropriate answer.
LEGAL PRINCIPLE: Attempt is an act done with an intent to commit crime, and forming part of the series of acts which would constitute actual commission of the crime, if not interrupted.
FACTUAL SITUATION: A intending to murder B by poison purchases poison and mixes the same with a glass of water. He gave to the bearer to serve B. The bearer while approaching B, loses the balance and the glass drops out of his tray. DECISION:
The question consists of legal propositions/ principles (hereinafter referred to as 'principle') and facts. These principles have to be applied to the given facts to arrive at the most reasonable conclusion.
Principle: When two or more persons agree to do or cause to be done, (1) an illegal act or (2) an act which is not illegal by illegal means, through such an agreement such persons are said to have been engaged in a criminal conspiracy to commit an offense. It is said that no consummation of the crime needs to be achieved or even attempted.
Facts: 'X', 'Y' and 'Z' plan to kill 'D'. They agree that only one among them, that is 'Z', will execute the plan. In pursuance of it 'Z' buys a gun and loads it.
The question consists of legal propositions/ principles (hereinafter referred to as 'principle') and facts. These principles have to be applied to the given facts to arrive at the most reasonable conclusion.
Principle: Where a person fraudulently or erroneously represents that he is authorised to transfer certain immovable property and professes to transfer such property for consideration, such transfer shall, at the option of the transferee, operate on any interest which the transferor may acquire in such property at any time during which the; contract of transfer subsists.
Facts: 'A', a Hindu who has separated from his father 'B' sells to 'C' three fields, X, Y and Z representing that 'A' is authorised to transfer the same. Of these fields Z does not belong to 'A', it having been retained by 'B' on the partition, but on B's dying 'A' as successor obtains Z and at that time 'C' had not cancelled the contract of sale.
Given below is a statement of legal principle followed by a factual situation. Apply the principle to the facts given below and select the most appropriate answer.
LEGAL PRINCIPLE: No one can be punished for the same offence twice.
FACTUAL SITUATION: Aditya is accused of harassing his colleague Nimisha. She complains to her superior and a departmental inquiry is initiated against Aditya. Aditya tries to intimidate Nimisha and continues harassing her following which she complains to the police. The departmental inquiry finds him guilty and terminates his services. Later, he is found guilty by a court and is jailed for 2 years. He claims that he has been punished twice. DECISION:
