Advertisements
Advertisements
प्रश्न
Principle: One who dishonestly misappropriates or converts to his own use or sells any movable property belonging to another, is guilty of the offence of misappropriation.
Facts: 'A' takes property belonging to 'Z' out of Z's possession, in good faith, believing when he takes it, that the property belongs to himself. Subsequently, 'A', on discovering his mistake, without disclosing the actual facts, dishonestly sells the property to a stranger.
पर्याय
'A' is not guilty because when he took the property, he believed in good faith that it belonged to him.
'A' is guilty of an offence of misappropriation.
'A' may be guilty of theft but not for misappropriation.
'A' is not guilty as the property can be recovered from the stranger.
उत्तर
'A' is guilty of an offence of misappropriation.
Explanation:
According to the section 403 of Indian Penal Code defines Dishonest misappropriation of property whoever dishonestly misappropriates or converts to his own use any movable property, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both.
1. A dishonest misappropriation for a time only is a misappropriation within the meaning of this section.
2. A person who finds property not in the possession of any other person, and takes such property for the purpose of protecting it for, or of restoring it to, the owner, does not take or misappropriate it dishonestly, and is not guilty of an offence; but he is guilty of the offence above defined, if he appropriates it to his own use, when he knows or has the means of discovering the owner, or before he has used reasonable means to discover and give notice to the owner and has kept the property a reasonable time to enable the owner to claim it.
What are reasonable means or what is a reasonable time in such a case, is a question of fact.
It is not necessary that the finder should know who is the owner of the property, or that any particular person is the owner of it; it is sufficient if, at the time of appropriating it, he does not believe it to be his own property, or in good faith belief that the real owner cannot be found.
The reasonable conclusion is drawn A is guilty of misappropriation is the correct.
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: Nothing is an offence which is done by a child under twelve years of age, who has not attained sufficient maturity of understanding to judge the nature and consequences of his conduct on that occasion.
Facts: Himesh, 11 years old boy, picks up a gold ring worth Rs 5000/- lying on a table in his friend's house and immediately sells it for Rs 2000/, and misappropriates the money.
Principle:
1. Wagering agreements are void.
2. Collateral agreements to wagering contracts are valid.
Facts: XYZ Bank lends Rs. 40, 000 to Sabu in order to enable him to award as a prize to Randeep who is the winner of horse race. Later Sabu refuses to pay the prize stating that horse racing is wagering agreement. Can XYZ Bank recover money from Sabu?
Legal Principle: An employer is liable for the act of his servant performed during the course of employment.
Fact Situation: While working as a driver for Verma, Alok sometimes used to earn some side income by carrying parcels for others in Verma’s car without his knowledge or permission. While going to pick Verma from the airport one day, Alok stopped to deliver a parcel he was carrying with him. While he was delivering the parcel, which unknown to him was one of contraband goods, the police arrested Alok.
Which of the following statements is the most appropriate in relation to the legal principle stated above?
Legal Principle: No remedy lies in law where an injury is caused to a person without any infringement of his legal right.
Fact Situation: Ashutosh started a tuition Centre right next to the one being run for the past twenty years by Gulshan. After Ashutosh started his Centre, a large number of students shifted from Gulshan’s tuition Centre to Ashutosh’s Centre forcing Gulshan to close down his establishment suffering huge losses. Can Gulshan initiate legal action against Ashutosh?
Which of the following statements is the most appropriate in relation to the legal principle stated above?
Result of successful prosecution is
What the Injuries Board is...
Principle: A Master is liable for the acts of his Servant as long as he can control the working of his servant.
A owned a taxi agency. She had hired B to drive one of her cars. On January 1, 2010, C called up A's taxi agency and asked for a car to drop him from his house to his place of work. On the way, because of the driver's negligence, the car hit a road divider and C was injured. He sued A for damages.
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: The master/principal is liable for all acts done by his duly appointed servant/agent for all acts done by him lawfully in the course of his employment.
Factual situation: A, B, C and D carried on a business in partnership. While making a deal with another company, B bribed the clerk there. Is the partnership firm vicariously liable? DECISION:
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. The person who for his own purposes brings on his lands and collects and keeps there anything likely to do mischief if it escapes must keep it in at his peril, and, if he does not do so, is prima facie answerable for all the damage which is the natural consequence of its escape.
3. Generally, nuisances cannot be justified on the ground of necessity. pecuniary interest, convenience, or economic advantage to a defendant.
Facts:
Dr. Hemant had for 18 years operated a clinic and hospital for the treatment of ENT. Dr. Karan operated a renal clinic in which patients receive haemo-dialysis on the floor above Dr. Hemant’s clinic. Karan was found liable for obnoxious fumes emitting from the clinic which escaped downwards into Dr. Hemant’s clinic. Hemant, his staff and patients were found to have suffered substantial damage ranging from skin diseases, red and swollen eyes, headaches, lethargy and breathing difficulties. Decide whether Karan is liable?
