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.
पर्याय
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
Homicide means killing of a human being by
Unlawful homicide includes
Criminal Law (Amendment) Act, 2013 does not provide that
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 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 desires any court to give judgment about any legal right or liability which depends on the existence of those facts which he asserts, must prove that those facts exist.
Facts: A asserts that B, C and D have committed an offense of criminal conspiracy and therefore A desires a Court to give judgment that B, C and D shall be punished for that crime which A says B, C and D have committed.
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: Ignorance of law excuses on one.
Facts: 'X' fails to file his income tax returns for a considerable number of years. The Income Tax department serves upon him a show-cause notice' as to why proceedings should not be initiated against him for the recovery of the income tax due from him with interest and penalty. Which of the following derivations is correct?
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: A person is responsible for that which he could have reasonably foreseen or prevented.
FACTUAL SITUATION: A chemist sold a hair conditioner to Jyoti. The conditioner was locally manufactured and the contents, harmful chemicals. were listed on the bottle. The chemist, however, represented to Jyoti that the chemicals used were harmless and beneficial for the hair. On using it, Jyoti's hair was badly damaged and she had to get hair treatment done for the same. Jyoti filed a complaint against the chemist. Will the chemist be liable? 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: No one can be punished for the same offence twice.
FACTUAL SITUATION: Aditya is accused of harassing his colleague Nimisha. She complains to her superior and a departmental inquiry is initiated against Aditya. Aditya tries to intimidate Nimisha and continues harassing her following which she complains to the police. The departmental inquiry finds him guilty and terminates his services. Later, he is found guilty by a court and is jailed for 2 years. He claims that he has been punished twice. 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:
