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 The right of private defence entitles one to do harm to a proportional extent provided it is done in good faith, it is proportional and is inflicted only to the extent is necessary to stop a person from committing harm against oneself.
FACTS A doctor with the intention of saving a terminal patient's life decides to administer an experimental drug to the patient without informing the patient or taking consent from the patient's relatives leading to the patient's death.
PRINCIPLE No person shall be prosecuted and punished for the same offence twice.
FACTUAL SITUATION 'A', a kleptomaniac, was an acquaintance of 'B' and used to visit 'B's home on weekends. One day. 'B' was unable to find his watch after a visit from 'A'. Ultimately.'B' informed the police about the missing watch and the persons who had been to his room. The police, among others, made a search on a person of 'A' and found the watch in his pocket. At his trial, the Court found him guilty of theft and sentenced him to 3 months in prison. After completing his sentence, 'A' went to 'B's' home to apologise for his conduct. After 'A' left, it was discovered that 'B's' watch was missing. 'A' informed the police who located the watch from 'A's home. Can 'A' be prosecuted for theft?
Criminal Law (Amendment) Act, 2013 does not provide that
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 by words, either spoken or written brings or attempts to bring into hatred or contempt, or excites or attempts to excite disaffection towards the Government established by law in India shall be punished. However, comments expressing disapprobation of the administrative or other action of the Government without exciting or attempting to excite hatred, contempt or disaffection, do not constitute an offense.
Facts: A renowned Professor of Economics wrote a critical comment on the economic policies of the Government of India in a National Daily. This piece of writing generated academic debate not only in the print media but also on television and internet. A student of law asked the fellow Indians on a social networking website to assemble at a particular place for peaceful and silent demonstration against the said economic policies on a stipulated date and time. The crowd assembled at that venue and started shouting anti-government slogans. Police arrested the professor.
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 attempts to commit an offense punishable by the Indian Penal Code and in such attempt does any act towards the commission of the offense, shall be punished. Stealing is an offense punishable by the Indian Penal Code.
Facts: A makes an attempt to steal some jewels by breaking open a box and after so opening the box, finds that there is no jewel in it.
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: Existence of all the alleged facts is relevant whether they occurred at the same time and place or at different times and places.
Facts: A, a permanent resident in a foreign country who never visited India, is accused of waging war against the Government of India by taking part in an armed insurrection in which property is destroyed, troops are attacked and prisons are broken open.
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: Every person shall be liable to punishment under the Indian Penal Code and not otherwise for every act or omission contrary to the provisions of the Code of which he shall be guilty within the territory of India. In other words, the exercise of criminal jurisdiction depends upon the locality of the offense committed, and not upon the nationality or locality of the offender
Facts: 'X', a Pakistani citizen, while staying at Karachi, made false representations to 'Y' the complainant, at Bombay through letters, telephone calls and telegrams and induced the complainant to part with money amounting to over rupees five lakh to the agents of 'X' at Bombay, so that rice could be shipped from Karachi to India as per agreement; But the rice was never supplied to the complainant.
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:
The Supreme Court has said that FIR in respect heinous and serious offenses cannot be quashed solely on the ground that the dispute was settled amicably between the parties. Which of the following were included in the list of “heinous and serious offenses”?
I. Offenses under Prevention of Corruption Act
II. Some Offences under Arms Act
III. Rape
IV. Offenses by public servants in their official capacity
