Judiciary - Constitutional, Civil, Criminal Courts and Processes Test 27

Question 1
1 / -0

PRINCIPLE: When a person falsifies something with the intent to deceive another person or entity is forgery and is a criminal act. Changing of adding the signature on a document, deleting it, using or possessing the false writing is also considered forgery. In the case of writing to fall under the definition, the material included must have been fabricated or altered significantly in order to represent something it is actually not.
FACT: John was publisher of ancient books and papers. In one of his books on the World Wars, he gave photograph of some letters written by famous historic personalities. A researcher in history noted that in the pictures of some of the letters printed in the book, John had added some words or sentences in his own handwriting to give completeness to the sentences, so that the readers will get a clear picture of the writer's intention. The researcher challenges the originality of those pictures and claims that the book containing the forged letters should be banned. Examine the validity of the researcher's demand.

A
The additions were made to give clarity to the original document and did not in any sense change the contents of the documents and hence there is not forgery as alleged by the researcher

B
As forgery amounts to adding or deleting anything from an original document, the demand of the researcher is valid

C
The additions in the letters were made by the publisher in his own handwriting would have made material alteration to the original meaning and hence amounted to forgery

D
Allowing forged publications to be circulated among the public is as good as committing fraud on the public, so the publication should be banned

Question 2
1 / -0

PRINCIPLE: Whoever, by words, or by signs or otherwise brings or attempts to bring into hatred or contempt or excites disaffection towards the Government established by law in India shall be punished with imprisonment for life. This is the law on sedition.
FACTS: X made the following two statements at a public gathering.
DECISION:
(i)This is a Government of scoundrels, bootleggers, fools, and scamsters. Throw them out this time by voting against them. They don't deserve to be in power.
(ii) Kill all these corrupts and rascals who are running this nation, whether they are leaders of the ruling party or the government servants. Come help me to clean this nation, from these evils.

A
X is not guilty of sedition for having made the statements (i) and (ii) as he was exercising his fundamental right of freedom of speech and expression.

B
X is guilty of sedition for having made the statements (i) and (ii).

C
X is guilty of sedition for making statement (i) only.

D
X is guilty of sedition for making statement (ii) only.

Question 3
1 / -0

PRINCIPLE: Nothing is an offence which is done in the exercise of the right of private defence.
FACTS: 'A' under the influence of madness, attempts to kill 'B'. 'B' to save his life kills 'A'.

A
'B' has committed an offence

B
'A' has not committed an offence because he was mad

C
'B' has not committed any offence

D
'A' has committed the offence to attempt of murder

Question 4
1 / -0

LEGAL PRINCIPLES: Killing is not murder if the offender, whilst deprived of the power of self-control by intense and sudden provocation, causes the death of the person who gave the provocation.

FACTUAL SITUATION: 'A', a man found his girl friend sleeping in her own bedroom, with another man named 'B'. 'A' did not do anything but went to his home, picked a gun and cartridges, returned to the girl friend's bedroom with loaded gun but found the empty place. After fifteen days he saw his girl friend dining in a restaurant. Without waiting for even a second, 'A' fired five bullets in his girl friend who died on the spot.

A
'A' could have killed both 'B' and his girl friend.

B
'A' did not kill his girl friend under intense and sudden provocation.

C
'A' could have killed 'B' instead of his girl friend.

D
'A' killed his girl friend under intense and sudden provocation.

Question 5
1 / -0

LEGAL PRINCIPLE: Intentional application of force to another person is actionable in law.

FACTUAL SITUATION: P and D are unknown to each other. When P is about to sit on a chair, D intentionally pulls it away as a result of which P falls on to the floor and is injured.

A
D is not liable as such jokes are common in the society.

B
D is not liable as P is not seriously injured.

C
D is liable as he intentionally caused injury to P.

D
D is not liable as the injury is not directly caused.

Question 6
1 / -0

LEGAL PRINCIPLE: Whoever does not arrest the killer and report the matter to the concerned authorities commits an offence.
FACTUAL SITUATION: 'A', a woman sees 'B', another woman, killing a third woman 'C'. 'A 'neither attempted to arrest 'B' nor informed the concerned authorities.

A
'B' has not committed an offence

B
'A' has not committed an offence

C
'B' has committed an offence

D
'A has committed an offence

Question 7
1 / -0

LEGAL PRINCIPLE: Whoever takes away any movable thing from the land of any person without the person's consent, he is said to have committed theft.

FACTUAL SITUATION: During his visit to the house of 'C',' A' asked 'B', the son of 'C', to accompany 'A' to the forest. Neither 'A' nor 'B' informed 'C in this regard. 'B' accompanied 'A 'to the forest.

A
'A' has not committed theft.

B
'A 'has not committed theft till 'B 'did not accompany him.

C
'A' has committed theft.

D
'A' has committed theft; as soon as he entered the house of 'C'.

Question 8
1 / -0

LEGAL PRINCIPLE: A person is said to have committed assault when an apprehension is caused in the mind of a person that he is about to use physical force against his body.

FACTUAL SITUATION: 'A' abuses 'B' while he was sitting in a moving train, by aggressively shaking his fists when 'B' was standing on the railway platform at a distance.

A
'A' has caused fear of assault in the mind of 'B'.

B
'A' has committed assault against 'B'.

C
'A' has not committed assault against 'B'.

D
'A' has caused apprehension of assault in the mind of 'B'.

Question 9
1 / -0

LEGAL PRINCIPLE: Causing of an effect by an act and partly by an omission is an offence.
FACTUAL SITUATION: 'A' confined her daughter 'D' in a room. 'A' also did not provide any food to her daughter 'D'. Consequently, 'D' died of starvation.

A
'A' committed the offence of causing death of 'D'.

B
'A' committed the offence of confining 'D'.

C
'A' committed the offence of not providing food to 'D'.

D
'A' committed no offence.

Question 10
1 / -0

LEGAL PRINCIPLE: A person is said to abet the doing of a thing when he instigates any other person to do that thing. Mere acquiescence, however, does not amount to instigation.

FACTUAL SITUATION: A says to B:"I am going to kill C". And B replies: "Do as you wish and take the consequences"; whereafter A kills C.

A
B is jointly liable with A for killing C.

B
B has not abetted A to kill C.

C
B has abetted A by conspiracy.

D
B abetted A to kill C.

Submit Test

Judiciary - Con...

Question 1

The additions were made to give clarity to the original document and did not in any sense change the contents of the documents and hence there is not forgery as alleged by the researcher

As forgery amounts to adding or deleting anything from an original document, the demand of the researcher is valid

The additions in the letters were made by the publisher in his own handwriting would have made material alteration to the original meaning and hence amounted to forgery

Allowing forged publications to be circulated among the public is as good as committing fraud on the public, so the publication should be banned

Question 2

X is not guilty of sedition for having made the statements (i) and (ii) as he was exercising his fundamental right of freedom of speech and expression.

X is guilty of sedition for having made the statements (i) and (ii).

X is guilty of sedition for making statement (i) only.

X is guilty of sedition for making statement (ii) only.

Question 3

'B' has committed an offence

'A' has not committed an offence because he was mad

'B' has not committed any offence

'A' has committed the offence to attempt of murder

Question 4

'A' could have killed both 'B' and his girl friend.

'A' did not kill his girl friend under intense and sudden provocation.

'A' could have killed 'B' instead of his girl friend.

'A' killed his girl friend under intense and sudden provocation.

Question 5

D is not liable as such jokes are common in the society.

D is not liable as P is not seriously injured.

D is liable as he intentionally caused injury to P.

D is not liable as the injury is not directly caused.

Question 6

'B' has not committed an offence

'A' has not committed an offence

'B' has committed an offence

'A has committed an offence

Question 7

'A' has not committed theft.

'A 'has not committed theft till 'B 'did not accompany him.

'A' has committed theft.

'A' has committed theft; as soon as he entered the house of 'C'.

Question 8

'A' has caused fear of assault in the mind of 'B'.

'A' has committed assault against 'B'.

'A' has not committed assault against 'B'.

'A' has caused apprehension of assault in the mind of 'B'.

Question 9

'A' committed the offence of causing death of 'D'.

'A' committed the offence of confining 'D'.

'A' committed the offence of not providing food to 'D'.

'A' committed no offence.

Question 10

B is jointly liable with A for killing C.

B has not abetted A to kill C.

B has abetted A by conspiracy.

B abetted A to kill C.

User

Question Analysis

Results Announcement on: coming Monday

Stay Tuned: We’ll update you on your result via email or SMS.