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
PRINCIPLE Whoever causes the death of any person by doing any rash or negligent act not amounting to culpable homicide, shall be liable for causing death by negligence.
FACTS A nurse knowing that she is supposed to take vitals and ensure them to be in order before administering a particular injection, but not knowing or having reason to believe it is fatal does not follow the protocol in hurry. As a result, the patient died.
PRINCIPLE Nothing is an offence which is done in the exercise of the right of private defence. Every person has a right to defend his property, against any act of theft, robbery, mischief or criminal trespass. This right of private defence of property extends to causing of death of the wrong-doer if the person exercising the right apprehends that death or grievous hurt shall be the consequence is such right of private defence is not exercised.
FACTUAL SITUATION 'A's cattle was being regularly stolen and 'A' was unable to apprehend the thief. One night, 'A' finally manages to catch 'B' untying his cow from the cowshed under the cover of darkness. 'A' slowly crept up to 'B' and slashed his neck with a sickle leading to the death of 'B'. Is 'A' guilty of the offence of culpable homicide?
In India, 'identity theft' has been made punishable under the
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. An employer shall be liable for the wrongs committed by his employees in the course of employment.
2. Third parties must exercise reasonable care to find out whether a person is actually acting in the course of employment.
Facts:
Nandan was appointed by Syndicate Bank to collect small savings from its customers spread over in different places on a daily basis. Nagamma, a housemaid, was one of such 'customers making use of Nandan's service. Syndicate Bank after a couple of years terminated Nandan's service. Nagamma, unaware of this fact, was handing over her savings to Nandan who misappropriated them. Nagamma realized this nearly after three months when she went to the Bank to withdraw money. She filed a complaint against the Bank.
Possible decisions:
(a) Syndicate Bank shall be liable to compensate Nagamma.
(b) Syndicate Bank shall not be liable to compensate Nagamma.
(c) Nagamma has to blame herself for her negligence.
Probable reasons for the decision:
(i) Nandan was not acting in the course of employment after the termination of his service.
(ii) A person cannot blame others for his own negligence.
(iii) Nagamma was entitled to be informed by the Bank about Nandan.
(iv) The Bank is entitled to expect its customers to know the actual position.
A lady wanted to get a railway ticket but finding a crowd near the ticket window at the station, asked Raju, who was near the window, to get a ticket for her and handed him money for the same. Raju took the money and instead of getting the ticket, ran away with it. What offense has been committed by Raju?
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 person shall be convicted of any offence except for violation of a law in force at the time of commission of the act charged as an offence, nor subjected to a penalty greater than which might have been inflicted under the law in force at the time of commission of the offence.
FACTUAL SITUATION: A boy of 16 years was convicted of house trespass and theft. He was sentenced to imprisonment for 6 months and fine was also imposed. After the judgement, the Probation of Offenders Act came into force. It provided that a person below 21 years may not ordinarily be sentenced to imprisonment. Now the boy claims the benefit of this Act. Should he get it?
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: Theft is the dishonest moving of a property with the intension of taking it, out from the person's possession without his consent.
Factual Situation: A gives his woolen coat to a dry cleaner along with his wife's sarees for the purpose of dry cleaning. He is told to collect the clothes after 2 days. When he comes after 2 days, he finds that he does not have enough money to pay the dry cleaner. But since due to the winter, he needs the coat desperately, he surreptitiously places the coat near his goods, so that he can quietly take it without the knowledge of the dry cleaner. Decision.
Actual-Reus and Mens Rea are essential elements of _____ law.
Given below is the 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: Article 19(1) (g) of the Constitution of India guarantees to all citizens the right to practice any profession, or to carry on any trade, occupation and business but Article 19 (6) empowers the State to impose reasonable restrictions on this right in the interest of public.
FACTUAL SITUATION: Having experienced an acute shortage of labour for agricultural purposes due to the engagement of agricultural laborer in the manufacture of Bidis, the state government enacted a law to prohibit such engagement of agricultural labour in the manufacture of Bidis. Whether the law violates constitutional provisions?
DECISION:
