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.
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.
APPEARS IN
संबंधित प्रश्न
Principle: The sale of liquor is illegal. All agreements relating to prohibited items do not exist in the eyes of law.
Facts: 'A‘ entered into an agreement with 'B‘ for the sale of liquor. 'A‘ failed to supply the agreed quantity of liquor to B.
Principle: Whoever causes death by rash or negligent act commits an offence.
Facts: X is having a house on the roadside which is also having a street on the back of the house. He has a lawn on the back of his house where he has built a toilet. To prevent the intruders from entering his house, he got the fence charged with a high voltage live electric wire. Z was passing through the street at the backyard of the house of X and sat down to take rest near the fence. While getting up, his hands came in contact with the fence which was connected to high voltage electric wire causing his death.
Principle: Consent is a good defence for civil action in tort. But consent must include both knowledge of risk and assumption of risk, i.e, readiness to bear harm.
Facts: A lady passenger was aware that the driver of the cab, in which she opted to travel was little intoxicated. The cab met with an accident and lady got injured.
Mark the best option:
Facts: Vir, a window cleaner was hired to clean the windows of Palam club. One of the windows was defective and so when it was being cleaned, it ran down quickly and injured the hand of the window cleaner and caused injuries. Vir used Palam club for damages Decide.
Principle: The occupier can expect that a person in the exercise of his calling will appreciate and guard against risks incidental to his calling and he need not be, therefore, warned about them.
The law relating to prisoners of war has been codified by
Which of the following is an example of trespass?
Apply the legal principles to the facts given below and select the most appropriate answer.
Legal Principles:
- The Tort of Negligence is a legal wrong that is suffered by someone at the hands of another who fails to take proper care to avoid what a reasonable person would regard as a foreseeable risk.
- The test of liability requires that the harm must be a reasonably foreseeable result of the defendant's conduct, a relationship of proximity must exist and it must be fair, just and reasonable to impose liability.
- The claimant must prove that harm would not have occurred 'but for' the negligence of the defendant. The claimant must prove, on the balance of probabilities, that the defendant's breach of duty caused the harm.
Factual Situation: Amar worked for an ironworks, Luxmi Mills & Co. Ltd. operating a remotely controlled crane, Amar galvanized items by dipping them into a large tank of molten metal. In order to protect its crane operators, whose controls were located just a few feet from the tank, Luxmi Mills erected a low wall around the tank and also provided a sheet of corrugated iron that crane operators placed between themselves and the wall. The operators were not facing the tank while operating the crane. Thus, they could not see the operation of the crane and therefore relied upon signals from another worker located farther from the tank. Many other galvanizers at the time situated their operators in enclosed, windowed spaces from which they could safely see and perform their work. Luxmi Mills eventually adopted that practice as well. One day, Amar was working on the crane. At one point, he either turned toward the tank or leaned out to see the worker giving him instructions, thereby placing his head outside the iron sheet. A spray of molten metal burned Amar's lip. When it failed to heal and began to ulcerate, he consulted a doctor who diagnosed the wound as cancerous. Amar ultimately died from the spread of cancer after three years. His widow sued Luxmi Mills for negligence. Whether the employers would be liable for the full extent of the burn and cancer that had developed as a result?
Public nuisance include
Unliquidated damages mean
LEGAL PRINCIPLE A person, who lawfully brings on something but which though harmless, but mischief if it escapes, must keep it at his and if he does not, he is answerable for all the damage.
FACTUAL SITUATION 'A' was the owner of a mill. In order to supply it with water, he constructed a reservoir upon nearby land by employing engineers and contractors. 'B' was the owner of coal mines, under lands, close to but not adjoining the premises on which the reservoir was constructed. The contractors, while excavating for the bed of the reservoir, came upon abandoned shafts and filled them with soil not suspecting that they were abandoned mine shafts. The reservoir was completed and partly filled. Within days the bed of the reservoir gave way and burst, leading to the flow of water through the channels connected with B's mine. Is 'A' liable to pay damages for loss caused to 'B'?
