Advertisements
Advertisements
प्रश्न
LEGAL PRINCIPLE Any direct physical, interference with goods in somebody's possession without lawful justification is called trespass of goods.
FACTS Z purchased a car from a person who had no title to it and sent it to a garage for repair. X believing wrongly that the car was his, removed it from the garage.
विकल्प
X can be held responsible for the trespass of goods
X cannot be held responsible for trespass of good as he was under a wrong belief
X has not committed any wrong
None of the above
Advertisements
उत्तर
X can be held responsible for the trespass of goods
Explanation:
Under section 441 of IPC which defines Criminal trespass that whoever enters into or upon property in the possession of another with 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 the intent thereby to intimidate, insult or annoy any such person or with intent to commit an offence.
APPEARS IN
संबंधित प्रश्न
PRINCIPLE Whoever causes the death of any person by doing any rash or negligent act not amounting to culpable homicide, shall be liable for causing death by negligence.
FACTS A nurse knowing that she is supposed to take vitals and ensure them to be in order before administering a particular injection, but not knowing or having reason to believe it is fatal does not follow the protocol in hurry. As a result, the patient died.
An accused under the age of 18 years can be tried for committing an offence under
LEGAL PRINCIPLE Defamation means publication of a statement injuring the reputation of a person without lawful justification. Such a statement must reflect on a person's reputation and tends to lower him in the estimation of right-thinking members of society generally or tends to make them shun or avoid him.
FACTUAL SITUATION Madam Tussauds Ltd. decided to keep a waxwork exhibition, and placed an effigy of Bab loo Prasad with a gun, in a room adjoining the 'Chamber of Horrors'. Mr. Babloo Prasad had been tried for murder in India and released on a verdict of 'not proven guilty' and a representation of the scene of the alleged murder was displayed in the 'Chamber of Horrors'. Does it amount to defamation?
Assertion (A) X, because of unsound state of mind and not knowing the nature of the act, attacks Y, who in self-defense and in order to ward off the attack hits him thereby injuring him .Y has not committed an offence.
Reason (R) Y had a right of private defense against X under the Indian Penal Code.
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. You have to choose a decision with reasons.
Principles:
1. Copying including attempt to copy in examinations is a serious offence.
2. One shall not take any unauthorized materials into the examination hall.
Facts:
Rohini, an examinee in PUC., was thoroughly checked while entering into the examination hall. She did not have anything other than authorized materials such as pen, instrument box, etc., with her. As she was writing her paper, an invigilator found close to her feet a bunch of chits. The invigilator on scrutiny found that the chits contained answers to the paper being written by Rohini. Rohini's answers tallied with the answers in the chits. A charge of copying was levelled against Rohini.
Probable decisions:
(a) Rohini shall be punished for copying.
(b) Rohini cannot be punished for copying.
Probable reasons for the decision:
(i) Something lying near the feet does not mean that the person is in possession of that thing.
(ii) The fact that she was checked thoroughly while getting into the hall must be conclusive.
(iii) Similarities between her answers and the answers in the chit indicate that she used those chits.
(iv) After using those chits, she must have failed to dispose of them properly.
The question consists of legal propositions/ principles (hereinafter referred to as 'principle') and facts. These principles have to be applied to the given facts to arrive at the most reasonable conclusion.
Principle: Whoever takes away with him any minor person less than sixteen years of age, if a male, or less than eighteen years of age, if a female out of the keeping of parents of such minor person without the consent of such parent, is said to kidnap such minor person.
Facts: A female born on January 01, 1995, got admitted to an undergraduate program of a reputed University on July 01, 2012. She became friendly with one of the boys, born on June 01, 1994, of her class. The boy and the girl decided to marry. The parents of the boy agreed but the family of the girl did not agree. On December 15, 2012, the girl made a call from her Blackberry to the boy. The girl told the boy to come in his car at a particular place and time. The boy reached the stipulated place before the stipulated time. He waited there for about half an hour. The girl reached the stipulated place. She opened the door of the car and sat beside the boy who was on the driving seat. Without exchanging any pleasantries, the boy drove the car to an unknown place. The father of the girl lodged an FIR in the nearest police on January 20, 2013.
The question consists of legal propositions/ principles (hereinafter referred to as 'principle') and facts. These principles have to be applied to the given facts to arrive at the most reasonable conclusion.
Principle: When a criminal act is done by several persons in furtherance of the common intention of all, each of such persons is liable for that act in the same manner as if it were done by him alone.
Facts: Roshan along with two of his friends, Tushar and Tarang proceeded to the house of Darshan in order to avenge an insult made by the brother of Darshan. They opened fire on the members of Darshan's family. It was found that the shots of Roshan did not hit anyone, but the shots of Tushar and Tarang succeeded in killing Darshan.
The question consists of legal propositions/ principles (hereinafter referred to as 'principle') and facts. These principles have to be applied to the given facts to arrive at the most reasonable conclusion.
Principle: 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.
Facts: 'Z', going on a journey, entrusts his plate to the possession of 'A', the keeper of a warehouse, till 'Z' shall return. Then, 'A' carries the plate to a goldsmith and sells it.
LEGAL PRINCIPLES:
1. To constitute a punishable criminal offense, guilty intention must accompany an illegal act.
2. Criminal mischief means causing damage to public property intentionally or with the knowledge that harm may occur.
FACTUAL SITUATION: Neel being a Shahrukh Khan fan went for the premiere of the movie, Happy New Year. As usual, he carried his pen-knife, a gift from his dead mother. At the security check, impatient of waiting in the queue, Neel slunk past the guards and the metal detector when no one was watching. Later, he was apprehended in the hall and charged for mischief and possession of a weapon when it was expressly forbidden. DECISION:
Which of the following offences can be prosecuted under the newly enacted Fugitive Economic Offenders Act, 2018?
I. Economic offences involving ₹100 crores and more
II. Dishonouring of cheques
III. Money laundering
IV. Benami transactions
