Self Studies
Self Studies
Self Studies
Self Studies

Judiciary - Constitutional, Civil, Criminal Courts and Processes Test 31

Result Self Studies

Judiciary - Constitutional, Civil, Criminal Courts and Processes Test 31
  • Score

    -

    out of -
  • Rank

    -

    out of -
TIME Taken - -
Self Studies

SHARING IS CARING

If our Website helped you a little, then kindly spread our voice using Social Networks. Spread our word to your readers, friends, teachers, students & all those close ones who deserve to know what you know now.

Self Studies Self Studies
Weekly Quiz Competition
  • Question 1
    1 / -0
    LEGAL PRINCIPLES:
    (1) An act done by the consent of a person above 18 years is not an offence, provided the offender did not intend to cause death or grievous hurt.
    (2) Mere pecuniary benefit is not a thing done for a person's benefit.
    FACTUAL SITUATION:
     A, a poor man, is in dire need of money to pay off his money lenders. A approaches Z, a doctor, to operate on him to remove one of this kidneys so that he can donate it to needy people and earn money. the doctor explains to him the risks and thereafter proceeds to remove his kidney. In the process, some complications develop and A develops an abdominal tumor. Is Z guilty?
    Solution
    The direct application of principle lays down that an act or offence done even by the consent of a person for his benefit which is pecuniary in nature is an offence. 
    In the given set of facts, Z removed kidney of A so that A can sell it and earn money. Thus, Z committed a crime to give pecuniary benefit to A. Hence it does not fall under the exception laid down as the principle.
    Making Z guilty of offence of removing A's kidney and putting his life to danger.  
  • Question 2
    1 / -0
    LEGAL PRINCIPLES:
    (1) Preparation to commit an offence is not an offence.
    (2) After one has finished preparation to commit an offence, any act done towards committing the offence withe intention to commit it, is an attempt to commit the offence, which is by itself an offence.
    FACIAL SITUATION: Manish wanted to kill Nandini and had therefore gone to the market to buy explosives to plant in her house. Manish kept those explosives in his godown as he planned to plant them early next morning. But as the explosives were stolen in the night he could not plant them in Nandini's house. However, Nandini came to know about Manish's plan and therefore wants to file a complaint against him. Will she succeed?
    DECISION will be ______.
    Solution
    Manish is not guilty of any offence. Since the Principle clearly states that mere preparation to commit any offence is not an offence itself. 
    Therefore, buying explosives in order to kill Nandini will count as preparation which is not an offence in itself. Whereas had Manish done any act towards killing Nandini for example took the explosives out of his godown to plan them it would count as an offence. Mere preparation is not an offence.
  • Question 3
    1 / -0
    LEGAL PRINCIPLE: No person shall be convicted of any offence except for violation of a law in force at the time of commission of the act charged as an offence, nor subjected to a penalty greater than which might have been inflicted under the law in force at the time commission of the offence.
    FACTUAL SITUATION: A boy of 16 years was convicted of house trepass and theft. He was sentenced to imprisonment for 6 months and fine was also imposed. After the judgement, the Probation of Offenders Act came into force. It provided that a person below 21 years may not ordinarily be sentenced to imprisonment. Now the boy claims the benefit of this Act. Should he get it?
    DECISION will be ______.
    Solution
    The principle is enshrined under Article 20 of the constitution of India.
    Questions like these can be very tricky as there is no direct application of the principle to the facts. The direct application of the principle to the facts will result that the boy cannot claim the benefit of the ACT as he when the act of trespass and theft was committed was an offence under the law then.
    But such an option is not given in the answers. Option A cannot be  the answer as he should not get the benefits under the ACT since the act came after the commision of the offence by the boy. Similarly, Option C is irrelevant as the principle is silent about offence by an 18-year-old boy.
    Generally the option 'none of the above' is the answer. Apart from the reasons given above, Option B states a true fact that the benefits of an act can have retrospective effect.
  • Question 4
    1 / -0
    PRINCIPLE: The law permits citizens to use force only for protection when necessary against imminent attack.
    FACTS: P with the intention of committing theft entered the house of Q. Q on seeing him entering, struck him with a a lathi and P fell down unconscious. Thereafter, Q gave him another blow of lathi on his head which caused his death. On being prosecuted for murder, Q took the plea of private defence. Which of the following arguments is valid?
    Solution
    Q has used excessive force. The right of private defence is only available to a person when there is imminent attack on him or his property. P was justified in the first blow to Q when he saw him entering his property. But he was not justified in giving the second blow to P when he fell unconscious since then Q had no danger of imminent attack from Q. Hence, Q's plea of right of private defence will not succeed. 
    Hence, C is the correct option.
  • Question 5
    1 / -0
    LEGAL PRINCIPLES: (1) Whoever, intending to take dishonestly any movable property out of the possession of any person without that person's consent, moves that property in order to such taking, is said to commit theft.
    (2) Whoever dishonestly misappropriates or converts to his own use any movable property, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both.
    FACTS: A takes umbrella belonging to Z out of Z's possession in good faith, believing at the time when he took it, that the property belongs to himself. His wife points out after some days that the umbrella does not belong to them but to Z. After coming to know that, A dishonestly keeps the umbrella.
    DECISION will be _____.
    Solution

    According to the principle given, there are 3 main essentials required for committing theft. These essentials or ingredients are-

    That the taking away of the property must be done dishonestly.-Dishonesty, as defined in section 24of IPC, consists of two main ingredients it says that an act is done which cause either ‘wrongful gain' or ‘wrongful loss' is said to be done dishonestly. Dishonesty must have the element of mens rea to cause loss or gain to oneself.

    That there should be an intention of taking property from the possession of another. Such intention must be to cause wrongful gain to oneself or wrongful loss to another.

    That such taking away of property must be done without the permission of the owner- i.e. without consent
    Whereas Misappropriation is when a property of a person is converted or misappropriated by another person for his own use. 
    Since in this facts A moved the property out of Z's possession in good faith and not dishonestly, therefore, he hasn't committed theft. But after he has the knowledge that the property doesn't belong to him but to Z, A dishonestly misappropriates the Umbrella for his own use. Therefore, he has committed the crime of criminal misappropriation. 
  • Question 6
    1 / -0
    PRINCIPLE: A person is said to cause an effect "voluntarily" whereby he intended to cause it or by means which, at the time of employing those means, he knew or had reason to believe, to be likely to cause it.
    FACTS: A sets fire, by night, to an inhabited house in a large town, for the purpose of facilitating a robbery and this causes death of a person. A pleaded that he had intended the robbery but not the causing of death and he is sorry for the death caused by his act. Is A liable for causing the death voluntarily?
    Solution
    The option A is  self explanatory. 
    A did not intend to murder anyone but he should have known or had the reason to believe that setting fire to an inhabited house might lead to death of a person. Therefore he is liable for the murder of that person.
  • Question 7
    1 / -0
    PRINCIPLE: Nothing is an offence merely by reason of its being done with the knowledge that it is likely cause harm, if it be done without any criminal intention to cause harm and in good faith for the purpose of preventing or avoiding other harm to a person or property.
    FACTS: Mr. Shaman, the Italian captain of a steam vessel, suddenly and without any fault or negligence on his part, finds himself near the Kochi coast in such a position that before he can stop his vessel, he must inevitably run down a boat B with twenty or thirty passengers on board, unless he changes the course of his vessel and that by changing his course, he must incur risk of running down a boat C with only two passengers on board, which he may be possibly clear. Whether Sharman has committed an offence?
    Solution
    Shaman has committed no offence since he ran down Boat C and killed 2 passengers on boat C in order to save greater harm by not running down Boat B with twenty or thirty passengers on board. It was done bona fidely and for the purpose of preventing or avoiding other harm to a person or property.
  • Question 8
    1 / -0
    LEGAL PRINCIPLE: Wilful rash driving is an offence
    FACTS: Mr. Tiwari was driving his car after drinking alcohol. Police books him for wilful negligent driving. Is this act of the police lawful?
    Solution
    The principle says that wilful rash driving is an offence. And says nothing whether drunk driving is an offence or not. 
    Mr. Tiwari was drunk while driving and was not driving rashly. Therefore, Mr. Tiwari is not guilty of wilful rash driving.
    Hence, A is the correct option.
  • Question 9
    1 / -0
    The temporary release of a convicted prisoner from jail for a fixed period is called
    Solution
    Parole.
    Parole is restrictive opportunity for a jail prisoner. He gets out from the jail however needs to satisfy a progression of obligations. A parolee who doesn't adhere to the standards dangers returning into guardianship. 
    Carrying out piece of the jail punishment in the network under parole supports the parolee to reintegrate into the network with the point of improving the safety of the community.
  • Question 10
    1 / -0
    PRINCIPLE: Every person has a right of self-defece, if his life is under imminent threat.
    FACTS: Mr. Prashanth threatens Mr. Krishna that he will kill Mr. Krishna. After saying so, Mr. Prashanth goes to his house saying that he would get his axe.
    Solution
    C is the correct option.
    Mr. Krishna cannot exercise his right of self defence as his life is  not in imminent threat. Since Mr. Prashanth has only threatned Mr. Krishna that he will kill him. This has not put Mr. Krishna's life into imminent threat as is required for him to exercise his right of self defence. 
Self Studies
User
Question Analysis

  • Correct -

  • Wrong -

  • Skipped -

My Perfomance
  • Score

    -

    out of -
  • Rank

    -

    out of -
Re-Attempt Weekly Quiz Competition
Self Studies Get latest Exam Updates
& Study Material Alerts!
No, Thanks
Self Studies
Click on Allow to receive notifications
Allow Notification
Self Studies
Self Studies Self Studies
To enable notifications follow this 2 steps:
  • First Click on Secure Icon Self Studies
  • Second click on the toggle icon
Allow Notification
Get latest Exam Updates & FREE Study Material Alerts!
Self Studies ×
Open Now