Judiciary - Constitutional, Civil, Criminal Courts and Processes Test 33

Result

Judiciary - Constitutional, Civil, Criminal Courts and Processes Test 33

Score
-
out of -
Rank
-
out of -

TIME Taken - -

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.

Weekly Quiz Competition

Question 1
1 / -0

LEGAL PRINCIPLE: Nothing is an offence, which is done by accident of misfortune and without any criminal intention or knowledge in the doing of a lawful act in a lawful manner by lawful means and with proper care and caution.
FACTUAL SITUATION: A is a woodcutter. One day when he was at work, a number of children flocked to him and asked him to make a cricket ball for them. Without listening to them he continued to chop woods using a heavy axe. Suddenly a piece of chopped wood flew and struck one child who was standing just two feet away from him as a result of which the child lost his one eye?

A
A is liabe for causing injury to child

B
A is not liable because it was merely an accident

C
A is not liable because children flocked to him

D
A is liable because he has the knowledge that the boys standing near him may get hurt

Solution

The essentials for an act to be an accident are as follows-
1. When the act is without criminal intention or knowledge that it is likely to cause harm.
2. Done in a lawful manner by lawful means.
3. By taking proper caution and care.
Here, A did not have the criminal intention to harm the boys. But he had the knowledge that chopping wood so close to the boys can cause harm to the boys. Therefore he liable as then the act will not be an accident.
Question 2
1 / -0

X's farm house in outskirts of Delhi was attacked by a gang of armed robbers. X without informing the police, at firs warned the robbers by firing in the air. As they were fleeing from the farm, he fired, and killed one of them.
I. At the trail, X can avail the right of private defence as he was defending his life and property.
II. X cannot avail the right as he failed to inform the police.
III. X cannot avail the right as he caused more harm than was necessary to ward off the danger.
IV. X can avail off the right as at first he only fires in the air.

A
I and IV

B
II only

C
II and III

D
IV only

Solution

There is no right of private defence if there is no apprehension of danger. Such apprehension of danger must be imminent and must be on his person or property or, someone or someone's property. The exercise of force must not be excessive than what is required to ward off the danger.
X cannot use the plea of right of private defence when the armed robbers were fleeing from the farm there was no danger or apprehension of danger to him or his property. He used excessive force when he fired at the robbers when they were fleeing from the farm and caused more harm than was necessary.
Question 3
1 / -0

Choose the correct answer from the alternatives given.
D P Tyre Co. Ltd sold tyres to a dealer S, who sold those to D, a sub-dealer on the condition that those tyres would not be sold at a price lower than the list price fixed by D P Tyre Co. Ltd. and if the tyre were sold at a price lower than the list price, a penalty of $$\$$$ 2 for every tyre sold below the list price would be recovered as damages. D sold five tyres below the list price. D P Tyre Co. Ltd filed a suit against S. Is D P Tyre Co. Ltd entitled to maintain the suit?

A
No since D P Tyre Co. Ltd was not a party to the contract

B
No since only 5 tyres are involved and the amount is insignificant

C
Yes as D P Tyre Co. Ltd is the producer of the tyres

D
Yes as D P Tyre Co. Ltd sold the tyres to S who in turn sold to D

Solution

A is the correct option.
The court held in a consistent choice that D P Tyre couldn't guarantee for harms in the conditions. The court found that right off the bat, just involved with an agreement can guarantee upon it. Besides, D P Tyre had not given any consideration to S and in this way there could be no coupling agreement between the gatherings.
In conclusion, D P Tyre was not recorded as an operator inside the agreement and could consequently not be incorporated as a substantial outsider who had rights to guarantee on the agreement.
Question 4
1 / -0

Given below are Legal Principles followed by a Factual Situation. Apply the principles followed by a factual Situation. Apply the principle to it and select the most appropriate answer for question among the four choices given.
LEGAL PRINCIPLE: Nothing is an offence which is done in the exercise of right of private defence.
FACTUAL SITUATION: Niman and Nitin are students staying in a boy's Hostel. Monica is a beautiful girl staying in a Girl's Hostel. Naman and Nitin both fall in love with Monica. They both quarrel and then they start fighting over Monica.
One day, Naman accompanied with some friends and armed with iron rods, reaches Nitin's room and abuses him. On seeing many boys in an offensive mood, Nitin throws boiling tea over Naman's face, due to which his skin is badly burnt.
DECIDE.

A
Nitin has committed an offence and can be punished.

B
Nitin has not committed any offence but has defended himself.

C
Both Nitin and Naman are guilty and can be punished.

D
Naman alone is guilty because he started the fight.

Solution

No person in the name of private defence is allowed to use more force than is required. According to the principle of private defence one is allowed to use reasonable force to save his life and property . This principle is incorporated under section 96-106 of IPC.
Nitin on apprehension that Naman with his friends will hurt him, throws boiling tea over Naman, it was an act done in private defence. Since Nitin was apprehended by immediate harm from Naman and his friends.Therefore, Nitin has not committed any offence as he was defending himself.
Question 5
1 / -0

PRINCIPLE: Whoever enters into or upon property in the possession of another with the 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 an intent to intimidate, insult, or annoy any such person, or with the intent to commit an offence commits criminal trespass.
FACTUAL SITUATION: A went to Delhi Law College to participate in a competition. After participating in the competition, A hid inside the campus so that he could steal a few books from the library

A
A has committed theft

B
A has committed criminal trespass

C
A has not committed criminal trespass, because he entered with permission

D
A has not committed any offence

Solution

As per the principle, someone who has entered into any property lawfully but unlawfully remains there with an intent to intimidate,insult, or annoy any such person or to commit a crime, then such person is said to have commit the criminal trespass.
Since, A hid inside the campus unlawfully and with the intent to steal few books from the library he has committed trespass.
Question 6
1 / -0

PRINCIPLE: Whoever intentionally puts any person in fear of any injury to that person, or to any other and thereby dishonestly induces that person so put in fear to deliver to any person any property, commits extortion.
FACTUAL SITUATION: A entered B's house, caught hold of B's daughter C and threatened to stab her if A did not given him Rs. 10,000 immediately. B did so. A is prosecuted for extortion.

A
A has committed theft, not extortion

B
A has committed extortion

C
A has committed both theft and extortion

D
A has not committed any offence

Solution

Section 384 of IPC defines Extortion. A had put B in fear that he will cause injury to B's daughter and induces B to delver Rs. 10000 to A.
Therefore, by simple application of the principle to the facts. A has committed extortion.
Question 7
1 / -0

PRINCIPLE: Theft is robbery, if in order to committing of the theft, or in committing the theft, or in carrying away or attempting to carry away property obtained by theft, the offender, for that end, voluntarily causes or attempts to cause to any person death or hurt or fear of instant death or instant hurt.
FACTUAL SITUATION: A entered B's house to take away her TV. When he was carrying the TV out of the house, he encountered B near the door. he left the TV behind and ran away.

A
A has committed theft

B
A has committed robbery

C
A has committed both theft and robbery

D
A has neither committed theft nor robbery

Solution

A has committed theft as he took away the property of B from B's possession. A has not committed robbery as at the time of carrying TV out of the house of B he did not cause death or hurt or fear of instant death or instant hurt. Therefore, he has committed theft as soon as he tried to take away the property of B out if its Possession but has not committed robbery as defined under Section 390 of IPC.
Question 8
1 / -0

A handed over his watch to B for safe-keeping, B sells the watch to C, which he was not authorised to do, B is prosecuted for theft.

A
B is guilty of theft because he gained from the act

B
B is not guilty of theft because he was in possession of the watch

C
B is not guilty of theft because A had given him the watch

D
B is guilty of theft because he caused wrongful loss to A

Solution

B has not committed theft. Since, theft is committed when an immovable property is taken dishonestly from the possession of any person without his consent.

As per the facts, even though A was the owner of the watch but he had transferred the possession of the watch to B for safe keeping and therefore the person whose consent to move the watch was required is B himself. Since he had the possession of A's watch. Therefore, B has not committed theft.
Question 9
1 / -0

LEGAL PRINCIPLE: When a person interferes with peaceful possession of another person without the permission of the person in possession of those premises, commits trespass to land.
FACTUAL SITUATION: 'T' just walked over the land of 'P' to reach his house as it was a short cut. 'P' had displayed a notice that it is not a throughfare. 'P' did not cause any damage to the land.

A
'T' has not committed any trespass on the land of 'P'

B
'T' has violated privacy of 'P'

C
'T' has committed trespass to land

D
'T' has created nuisance for 'P'

Solution

T has committed the tort of trespass to land of P. Since, He had entered the property of T without the permission of T.
The principle doesn't consider the intention of the trespasser. what is important is that to commit trespass the trespasser must interfere with the property of another without his permission.
Question 10
1 / -0

If a constable has reasonable cause to suspect that a motorist is drunk, he can
(I) Checks the motorist's breath with an Alcometer
(II) Makes an arrest
(III) Impounds the vehicle
(IV) Lets the person off with a bribe

A
It is a constable's discretion to do any of the four.

B
First I if it is affirmative, that II & III, no legal authority to do IV

C
Invariably IV

D
Only III

User

Question Analysis

Correct -
Wrong -
Skipped -

My Perfomance

Score
-
out of -
Rank
-
out of -

Re-Attempt Weekly Quiz Competition

Judiciary - Constitutional, Civil, Criminal Courts and Processes Test 33

Result

Judiciary - Constitutional, Civil, Criminal Courts and Processes Test 33

Score

-

Rank

-

SHARING IS CARING

Question 1

A is liabe for causing injury to child

A is not liable because it was merely an accident

A is not liable because children flocked to him

A is liable because he has the knowledge that the boys standing near him may get hurt

Solution

Question 2

I and IV

II only

II and III

IV only

Solution

Question 3

No since D P Tyre Co. Ltd was not a party to the contract

No since only 5 tyres are involved and the amount is insignificant

Yes as D P Tyre Co. Ltd is the producer of the tyres

Yes as D P Tyre Co. Ltd sold the tyres to S who in turn sold to D

Solution

Question 4

Nitin has committed an offence and can be punished.

Nitin has not committed any offence but has defended himself.

Both Nitin and Naman are guilty and can be punished.

Naman alone is guilty because he started the fight.

Solution

Question 5

A has committed theft

A has committed criminal trespass

A has not committed criminal trespass, because he entered with permission

A has not committed any offence

Solution

Question 6

A has committed theft, not extortion

A has committed extortion

A has committed both theft and extortion

A has not committed any offence

Solution

Question 7

A has committed theft

A has committed robbery

A has committed both theft and robbery

A has neither committed theft nor robbery

Solution

Question 8

B is guilty of theft because he gained from the act

B is not guilty of theft because he was in possession of the watch

B is not guilty of theft because A had given him the watch

B is guilty of theft because he caused wrongful loss to A

Solution

Question 9

'T' has not committed any trespass on the land of 'P'

'T' has violated privacy of 'P'

'T' has committed trespass to land

'T' has created nuisance for 'P'

Solution

Question 10

It is a constable's discretion to do any of the four.

First I if it is affirmative, that II & III, no legal authority to do IV

Invariably IV

Only III

User

Question Analysis

My Perfomance

Score

-

Rank

-

Results Announcement on: coming Monday

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