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
Unlawful homicide includes
FACTS 'A' was known to have violent tendencies to got drunk and was forced to get such by 'B'. When 'A' got drunk and tried to attack 'B', 'B' injured 'A' in using as much force as was proportional and only to the extent necessary to stop 'A' from injuring 'B'.
Whom lies the burden of proof where there is a plea for self-defence?
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) If a person commits an act by which death is caused to another person and the act is done with the intention of causing death, that person is liable for murder.
(2) A person has a right of self-defense to the extent of causing death to another provided he apprehends death by the act of the latter.
Facts:
Shuva went to a hardware shop owned by Anup. Bargaining on some item led to altercation between the two and Shuva picked up a sharp object and hit at Anup. When Anup started bleeding, his wife Mridula intervened and she was also hit by Shuva and she became unconscious. Finding himself totally cornered, Anup delivered a severe blow to Shuva with a sharp object. Shuva died instantly.
Possible decisions:
(a) Anup murdered Shuva.
(b) Anup killed Shuva with the intention of killing to save himself and his wife
(c) Anup killed Shuva without any intention to do so just to save himself and his wife
Probable reasons for the decision:
(i) If a person kills another instantly on the spot, the intention to kill is obvious.
(ii) Anup used force apprehending death of himself and his wife.
(iii) Anup used disproportionate force.
(iv) There was nothing to show that Shuva wanted to kill Anup or his wife. Your decision with the reason
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 two statements, one labelled as PRINCIPLE and other as FACT. You are to examine the principle and apply it to the given facts carefully and select the best option.
Principle: Ignorance of Fact is excused but ignorance of law is no excuse
Facts: X was a passenger from Zurich to Manila in a Swiss Plane. When the plane landed at the Airport of Bombay on 28 Nov. 1962 it was found on searching that X carried 34 kg of Gold Bars on his person and that he had not declared it in the ‘Manifest for Transit’. On 26th Nov. 1962, the Government of India had issued a notification modifying its earlier exemption, making it mandatory now that the gold must be declared in the “Manifest” of the aircraft
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:
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 with the intention to commit it, is an attempt to commit the offence which is by itself an offence.
FACTUAL 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:
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: To be held guilty of an offense, one should have done the act that causes the intended result.
FACTUAL SITUATION: A, with the intention to murder B stabs him repeatedly with a knife. B is taken to the hospital and is found to be cut of danger. Thereafter, due to the doctor's negligence. B's wounds are infected and he requires surgical interventions. During the time of operation to remove his infected leg. B died on account of the administration of general anesthesia. DECISION:
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 PRINCIPLES: Whoever dishonestly takes away any property from the possession of another, with an intention of such taking away, without his permission is liable for theft.
FACTUAL SITUATION: Raja, a famous gangster, moves into an apartment in Kankurgachi, Calcutta. There, he discovers that the previous owner of the apartment had left behind a pair of beautiful ivory-handled combs. Mesmerized by their beauty and confused as to whom he should be returning them to, he decides to retain them and starts using them. The previous owner of the combs gets to know this and registers an FIR for theft against Raja. Is Raja liable? DECISION:
What is the punishment under the Official Secrets Act, 1923 for the offence of spying in relation to any work of defense establishment or in relation to any secret official code?
