Advertisements
Advertisements
प्रश्न
Legal Principle: It is an offense to obstruct a public servant in the due discharge of his duty. The right of private defense is available to protect one’s person and property.
Fact Situation: Sidhu comes to the rescue of his uncle who is sought to be taken into a car by some men. In the process, he causes injury to some of them. Later, it turns out that the men were police persons in plain clothes trying to enforce a warrant against his uncle.
Which of the following statements is the most appropriate in relation to the legal principle stated above?
पर्याय
Sidhu has committed the offence of obstructing a public servant in due discharge of his duty.
Sidhu has not committed an offence since he did not know that the men were from the police.
Sidhu’s uncle has resisted arrest and should be proceeded against.
Sidhu should not have tried to help his uncle without ascertaining the fact
उत्तर
Sidhu has not committed an offense since he did not know that the men were from the police.
Explanation:
Right of private defense of body, this right has been given by the state to every citizen of the country to take law into his own hand for their safety of themselves or anybody else. The right is not dependent on the actual criminality of the person resisted. It depends solely on the wrongful or apparently wrongful character of the act attempted, if the apprehension is real and reasonable, it makes no difference that it is mistaken. IPC Section 96
Nothing is an offense, which is done in the exercise of the right of private defense.
In the light of above arguments, "Sidhu has not committed an offense since he did not know that the men were from the police" is the most appropriate and it can be clearly said that Sidhu has not committed an offense since he did not know that the men were from the police and he was only trying to save his uncle in good faith.
APPEARS IN
संबंधित प्रश्न
Principle: Whoever causes death by rash or negligent act commits an offence.
Facts: X is having a house on the roadside which is also having a street on the back of the house. He has a lawn on the back of his house where he has built a toilet. To prevent the intruders from entering his house, he got the fence charged with a high voltage live electric wire. Z was passing through the street at the backyard of the house of X and sat down to take rest near the fence. While getting up, his hands came in contact with the fence which was connected to high voltage electric wire causing his death.
Principle: False imprisonment is a tort (wrong) which means the total restraint of a person's liberty without lawful justification.
Facts: A part of a public road had been closed for spectators of a boat race. 'P' wanted to enter but he was prevented by 'D' and other policemen because he had not paid the admission fee. 'P' was able to enter the enclosure by other means but was unable to go where he wanted to go. The policemen refused access to where he wanted to go but allowed him to remain where he was or to go back. 'P' remained within the enclosure and refused to leave. Subsequently, 'P' sued 'D' for false imprisonment.
Principle: Law does not penalise for wrongs which are of trivial nature.
Facts: In the course of a discussion, 'A' threw a file of papers at the table which touched the hands of 'B'.
Legal Principle: ‘ Audi alteram partem’ is a Latin phrase which means ‘hear the other side’. It is the principle that no person should be judged without a fair hearing.
Fact Situation: Sanjay, in Delhi, is accused of theft and brought before the Court. The magistrate discovers that Sanjay is mute.
Which of the following statements is the most appropriate in relation to the legal principle stated above?
The tort of intentional infliction of emotional distress is a more recent development than the traditional torts of trespass to the person. To which of those torts is it most closely related?
Torts is a ________
PRINCIPLE The test as to whether the act done by an officer or agency of the state is a sovereign function or a function done ordinarily is dependent on the fact that an alternative person may also carry out the latter, but the former may only be carried out by the state.
FACTS In a boundary settlement dispute between India and Bangladesh, a certain territory was exchanged in pursuit of a treaty agreement. X's land which lay in the Indian enclave thus got transferred to Bangladesh, which did not recognise his proprietary rights. In a suit against the Indian Government, the likely outcome is
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.
Principles:
(1) Consumable goods that are not fit for consumption are not marketable.
(2) A consumer shall not suffer on account of unmarketable goods.
(3) A seller is liable for knowingly selling unmarketable goods.
(4) A manufacturer shall be liable for the quality of his products.
Facts:
Ram bought a Coca Cola bottle from Shama's shop. Back at home, the server opened the bottle and poured the drink into the glasses of Ram and his friend Tom. As Tom started drinking, he felt irritation in his throat. Immediately, Ram and Tom took the sample to test and found nitric acid in the content. Ram filed a suit against Shama, Coca Cola company and the bottler, Kishen and Co.
Suggested Decisions
(a) Ram cannot get compensation
(b) Tom can get compensation
(c) Both Ram and Tom can get compensation
Suggested Reasons
(i) Shama did not know the contents of sealed bottle.
(ii) Ram did not actually suffer though he bought the bottle.
(iii) Tom did not buy the bottle.
(iv) Coca Cola company is responsible since it supplied the concentrate.
(v) Kishen & Co is responsible since it added water, sugar, etc., and sealed the bottle.
(vi) Shama is responsible for selling the defective product. Your decision with the reason,
Rules:
A. A person is an employee of another if the mode and the manner in which he or she carries out his work is subject to control and supervision of the latter.
B. An employer is required to provide compensation to his or her employees for any injury caused by an accident arising in the course of employment. The words ‘in the course of the employment’ mean in the course of the work which the employee is contracted to do and which is incidental to it.
Facts:
Messers. Zafar Abidi and Co. (Company) manufactures bidis with the help of persons known as ‘pattadrs’. The pattadars are supplied tobacco and leaves by the Company and are required to roll them into bidis and bring the bidis back to the Company. The pattadars are free to roll the bidis either in the factory or anywhere else they prefer. They are not bound to attend the factory for any fixed number of bidis. The Company verifies whether the bidis adhere to the specified instructions or not pays the pattadars on the basis of the number of bids that are found to be of right quality. Aashish Mathew is one of the pattadars of the Company. He was hit by a car just outside the precinct of the factory while he was heading to have lunch in a nearby food-stall. Aashish Mathew has applied for compensation from the Company.
In case the pattadars were compulsorily required to work in the factory for a minimum number of hours every day, then it would be correct to state that:
Apply the legal principles to the facts given below and select the most appropriate answer:
Legal Principles:
1. Private nuisance is a continuous, unlawful, and indirect interference with the use or enjoyment of land, or of some right over or in connection with it.
2. A person is liable if he can reasonably foresee that his acts would be likely to injure his neighbor.
3. The foreseeability of the type of damage is a prerequisite of liability in actions of nuisance
Facts:
Bharat Sugar Ltd. operated a sugar refinery on the bank of the river Ravi. They had a jetty from which raw sugar would be offloaded from barges and refined sugar would be taken. The sugar would be taken by larger vessels and then transferred to smaller barges to enable them to get through the shallow waters. As part of development, Bharat Sugar Ltd. wished to construct a new jetty and dredge the water to accommodate the larger vessels. At the same time, the State was constructing new ferry terminals. The design of the ferry terminals was such that it caused the siltation of the channels. After using the channels for a short while, Bharat Sugars’ larger vessels were no longer able to use them. Further dredging at the cost of ₹ 7,50,000 was required to make the channel and jetties usable by the vessels. Bharat Sugar Ltd. brought an action in nuisance to recover the cost of the extra dredging. Is the State liable?
