हिंदी

Legal Principle: the Latin Maxim Nemo Bis Punitur Pro Eodem Delictomeans that Nobody Can Be Punished Twice for the Same Offence.

Advertisements
Advertisements

प्रश्न

Legal Principle: The Latin maxim nemo bis punitur pro eodem delictomeans that nobody can be punished twice for the same offence.

Fact Situation: Sajan, a petty thief, is caught and thrashed thoroughly by the people before being handed over to the police. Sajan pleads before the magistrate that since he was already thrashed by the people he should not be again punished by the State.

Which of the following statements is the most appropriate in relation to the legal principle stated above?

विकल्प

  • Sajan is right since nobody should be punished for the same offence twice.

  • Thrashing given by the people does not amount to legal punishment and so Sajan can be punished by the State.

  • Giving a good thrashing to the thief is the best form of punishment to prevent future theft.

  • The Magistrate should take into consideration the thrashing received by Sajan while fixing his punishment.

MCQ
Advertisements

उत्तर

Thrashing given by the people does not amount to legal punishment and so Sajan can be punished by the State.

Explanation:

Nemo bis punitur pro eodem delicto means no person shall be twice punished for the same offense, that ancient right of appeal was gone when the punishment had once been suffered. The protection against the action of the same court in inflicting punishment twice must surely be as necessary, and as clearly within the maxim, as protection from chances or danger of a  second punishment on a second trial.  
However in the case presented before us thrashing given by people cannot be considered as legal punishment as it was not given by any court exercising its legal power, hence Sajan can be still punished by the court of law, leading it is most appropriate. 

shaalaa.com
Law of Torts (Entrance Exams)
  क्या इस प्रश्न या उत्तर में कोई त्रुटि है?
2017-2018 (May) Set 1

संबंधित प्रश्न

Mark the best option:
Facts: Manohar and Dev are childhood friends. One day while ploughing the field they have an argument and end up in blows. Satish, another farmer, has to intervene and separate them. Manohar swears that he will take revenge. In the evening Satishtells Dev that Manohar wants to reach a settlement and asks him to wait near the Mukhiya’s farmland behind the rose bush. Dev sits behind the bush and waits. Meanwhile, Satish goes to Manohar and tells him that wild animals have attacked theMukhiya’s farmland and asks Manohar to bring his shotgun to scare the animals away. On reaching the farm, Satish shouts out loudly that he has spotted a leopard behind the rose bush and asks Manohar to fire at the bush. Manohar fires two rounds. The bullet hits and kills Dev.
Principle: Whoever causes death by doing an act with the intention of causing death or bodily injury as is likely to cause death or with the knowledge that he is likely by such act to cause death commits the offence of culpable homicide.


The principle is to be applied to the given facts and to choose the most appropriate option:

Principle: When a person falsifies something with the intent to deceive another person or entity is forgery and is a criminal act. Changing or adding the signature on a document, deleting it, using or possessing false writing is also considered forgery. In the case of writing to fall under the definition, the material included must have been fabricated or altered significantly in order to represent something it is actually not.

Facts: John was a publisher of ancient books and papers. In one of his books on the World Wars, he gave photograph of some letters written by famous historic personalities. A researcher in history noted that in the pictures of some of the letters printed in the book, John had added some words or sentences in his own handwriting to give completeness to the sentences, so that the readers will get a clear picture of the writer’s intention. The researcher challenges the originality of those pictures and claims that the book containing the forged letters should be banned. Examine the validity of the researcher’s demand.


The principle is to be applied to the given facts and to choose the most appropriate option

Principle: The concept of natural justice is against bias and for the right to a fair hearing. While the term natural justice is often retained as a general concept, and it has largely been replaced and extended by the general ‘duty to act fairly’.

Facts: ‘X’, a male employee of a company was dismissed by the employer just on the basis of a complaint by ‘Y’, a female employee of the company that ‘X’ was trying to be too friendly with her and often requested her to accompany him to the canteen. Is the dismissal of ‘X’ valid?


In India, the literary work is protected until


Who heads the four members Committee appointed to study the Centre-State relations especially the changes took place since Sarkaria Commission


Why is defamation a tort?


Rules:

A. A person is an employee of another if the mode and the manner in which he or she carries out his work is subject to control and supervision of the latter.
B. An employer is required to provide compensation to his or her employees for any injury caused by an accident arising in the course of employment. The words ‘in the course of the employment’ mean in the course of the work which the employee is contracted to do and which is incidental to it.

Facts:

Messers. Zafar Abidi and Co. (Company) manufactures bidis with the help of persons known as ‘pattadrs’. The pattadars are supplied tobacco and leaves by the Company and are required to roll them into bidis and bring the bidis back to the Company. The pattadars are free to roll the bidis either in the factory or anywhere else they prefer. They are not bound to attend the factory for any fixed number of bidis. The Company verifies whether the bidis adhere to the specified instructions or not pays the pattadars on the basis of the number of bids that are found to be of right quality. Aashish Mathew is one of the pattadars of the Company. He was hit by a car just outside the precinct of the factory while he was heading to have lunch in a nearby food-stall. Aashish Mathew has applied for compensation from the Company.

Select the statement that could be said to be most direct inference from specified facts:


Assertion (A): In the event of a violation of any legal right (tort) the aggrieved party is entitled to recover damages as determined by the court.

Reason (R): The object of awarding damages to the aggrieved party is to put him in the same position in which he would have been in the wrong would not have been committed. Damages are, therefore, assessed on that basis. 


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.

Principle: A person has no legal remedy for an injury caused by an act to which he has consented.

Facts: 'R', a cricket enthusiast, purchases a ticket to watch a T20 match organized by the Indian Premier League (IPL). During the match, a ball struck for six hits 'R' on his body and injures him. He sues IPL for compensation for the medical expenses.
Which of the following derivation is correct?


Apply the legal principles to the facts given below and select the most appropriate answer:

Legal Principles:
The tort of negligent misstatement is defined as an inaccurate statement made honestly but carelessly usually in the form of advice given by a party with special skill/knowledge to a party that doesn’t possess this skill or knowledge.

Facts: 
X and Y Co. were advertising agents placing contracts on behalf of a client on credit terms, X and Y Co. would be personally liable should the client default. To protect themselves, the X and Y asked their bankers to obtain a credit reference from K and L, the client’s bankers. The reference (given both orally and then in writing) was given gratis and was favorable, but also contained an exclusion clause to the effect that the information was given ‘without responsibility on the part of this Bank or its officials’. X and Y relied upon this reference and subsequently suffered financial loss when the client went into liquidation. X and Y sued K and L Co. for negligence, claiming that the information was given negligently and was misleading. K and L argued there was no duty of care owed regarding the statements. Decide.


Share
Notifications

Englishहिंदीमराठी


      Forgot password?
Use app×