Advertisements
Advertisements
प्रश्न
The question consists of two statements, one labelled as principle and other as Fact. You are to exa.mine the principle and apply it to the given facts carefully and select the best option.
PRINCIPLE: Doctrine of Double Jeopardy: No person shall be prosecuted and punished for the same offence twice.
FACT: MaqbooI brought some gold into India witnout mal<ing any declaration to Custom department on the airport. The custom authorities confiscated the gold under the Sea Customs Act. Maqbool was later charged for having committed an offence under Foreign Exchange Regulation Act.
पर्याय
He cannot be prosecuted because it would amount to double jeopardy
He can be prosecuted bceause confiscation of goods by customs authorities does not amount to prosecution by the Court
None of the above
Advertisements
उत्तर
He can be prosecuted because confiscation of goods by customs authorities does not amount to prosecution by the Court
APPEARS IN
संबंधित प्रश्न
In this Question problem consists of a set of rules and facts. Apply the specified rules to the set of facts and answer the question. In answering the following question, you should not rely on any rule(s) except the rule(s) that are supplied for problem. Further, you should not assume any fact other than 'those stated in the problem. The aim is to test your ability to properly apply a rule to a given set of facts, even when the result is absurd or unacceptable for any other reason. It is not the aim to test any knowledge of law you may already possess.
Rules: A. Whoever intending to take any moveable property out of the possession of any person without that person's consent, moves that property out of his or her possession, is said to commit theft.
B. A person who, without lawful excuse, damages any property belonging to another intending to damage any such property shall be guilty of causing criminal damage. C. Damage means any impairment of the value of a property.
Facts: Veena, an old lady of 78 years, used to live with her granddaughter Indira. Veena was ill and therefore bed-ridden for several months. In those months, she could not tolerate any noise and it 'became quite difficult to clean her room. After she died, Indira hired a cleaner, Lucky, to clean the room and throw away any rubbish that maybe there. There was a pile of old newspapers that Veena had stacked in a corner of her room. Lucky asked Indira if he should clear away the pile of old newspapers, to which she said yes. Lucky took the pile to a municipality rubbish dump. While Lucky was sorting and throwing away the newspapers, he was very surprised to find a beautiful painting in between two sheets of paper. He thought that Indira probably wouldn't want this old painting back, especially because it was I’m in several places and the colour was fading. He took the painting home, mounted it on a wooden frame and hung it on the wall of his bedroom. Unknown to him, the painting was an old, masterpiece, and worth twenty thousand rupees. Before mounting the painting, Lucky pasted it on a plain sheet of paper so that it does not tear anymore. By doing so, he made its professional restoration very difficult and thereby reduced its value by half Lucky's neighbor Kamala discovered that the painting belonged to Indira. With the motive of returning the painting to Indira, Kamala climbed through an open window into Lucky's room when he was away one afternoon and removed the painting from his house. Is Kamala guilty of theft'?
In this Question problem consists of a set of rules and facts. Apply the specified rules to the set of facts and answer the question. In answering the following question, you should not rely on any rule(s) except the rule(s) that are supplied for problem. Further, you should not assume any fact other than 'those stated in the problem. The aim is to test your ability to properly apply a rule to a given set of facts, even when the result is absurd or unacceptable for any other reason. It is not the aim to test any knowledge of law you may already possess.
Rules:
A. Whoever intending to take any moveable property out of the possession of any person without that person's consent, moves that property out of his or her possession is said to commit theft.
B. A person who, without lawful excuse, damages any property belonging to another intending to damage any such property shall be guilty of causing criminal damage. C. Damage means any impairment of the value of a property.
Facts: Veena, an old lady of 78 years, used to live with her granddaughter Indira. Veena was ill and therefore bed-ridden for several months. In those months, she could not tolerate any noise and it 'became quite difficult to clean her room. After she died, Indira hired a cleaner, Lucky, to clean the room and throw away any rubbish that maybe there. There was a pile of old newspapers that Veena had stacked in a corner of her room. Lucky asked Indira if he should clear away the pile of old newspapers, to which she said yes. Lucky took the pile to a municipality rubbish dump. While Lucky was sorting and throwing away the newspapers, he was very surprised to find a beautiful painting in between two sheets of paper. He thought that Indira probably wouldn't want this old painting back, especially because it was I’m in several places and the colour was fading. He took the painting home, mounted it on a wooden frame and hung it on the wall of his bedroom. Unknown to him, the painting was an old, masterpiece, and worth twenty thousand rupees. Before mounting the painting, Lucky pasted it on a plain sheet of paper so that it does not tear anymore. By doing so, he made its professional restoration very difficult and thereby reduced its value by half Lucky's neighbor Kamala discovered that the painting belonged to Indira. With the motive of returning the painting to Indira, Kamala climbed through an open window into Lucky's room when he was away one afternoon and removed the painting from his house. If Lucky had discovered the painting before leaving Indira's house rather than at the rubbish dump, would lie have been guilty of theft in this case'?
In this Question problem consists of a set of rules and facts. Apply the specified rules to the set of facts and answer the question. In answering the following question, you should not rely on any rule(s) except the rule(s) that are supplied for problem. Further, you should not assume any fact other than 'those stated in the problem. The aim is to test your ability to properly apply a rule to a given set of facts, even when the result is absurd or unacceptable for any other reason. It is not the aim to test any knowledge of law you may already possess.
Rule A: An owner of land has the right to use the land in any manner he or she desires. The owner of land also owns the space above and the depths below it.
Rule B: Rights above the laud extend only to the point they are essential to any use or enjoyment of land.
Rule C: An owner cannot claim infringement of her property right if the space above his or her land is put to reasonable use by someone else at a height at which the owner would have to reasonable use of it and it does not affect the reasonable enjoyment of his or her land.
Shazia's case: Shazia owns a single storeyed house in Ahmedabad which has been in her family for more than 75 years. The foundation of the house cannot support another floor and Shazia has no intention of demolishing her family home to construct a bigger building. Javed and Sandeep are business partners and own three-storey houses on either side of Shazia's house. Javed and Sandeep are also Ahmedabad's main distributors for a major soft drinke company. They have erected a huge hoarding advertising their products, with the ends supported on their roofs but the hoarding also passes over Shazia's house at 70 feet and casts a permanent shadow on her terrace. Shazia decides to hoist a huge Indian flag, going up to 75 feet, on her roof. She files a case, asking the court to order Javed and Sandeep to remove the hoarding for all these reasons. Applying only Rule B to Shazia's case, you would decide in favour of
This question consists of principles and facts. The principal may or may not be true in the real and legal sense, yet you have to conclusively assume them to be true for the purposes of this Section. In other words, in answering the question, you must not rely on any principle except the principle that is given hereinbelow for the question.
Further, you must not assume any facts other than those stated in the question. The objective of this section is to test your interest in the study of law, research aptitude, and problem-solving ability.
Therefore, to answer a question, the principle is to be applied to the given facts and to choose the most appropriate option.
Principle: According to law, a person is deemed to have attained the age of majority when he completes the age of 18 years, except in the case of a person where a guardian of a minor’s person or property has been appointed under the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890 or where the superintendence of a minor’s property is assumed by a Court of Wards. Indian law expressly forbids a minor from entering into a contract. Hence, any contract entered into by a minor is voidabinitio regardless of whether the other party was aware of his minority or not. Further, though a minor is not competent to contract, nothing in the Contract Act prevents him from making the other party bound to the minor.
Facts: Lal executed a promissory note in favour of Gurudutt, aged 16 years stating that he would pay Gurudutt a sum of Rs. 2 Lakhs when he attains the age of majority. On attaining the age of 18, Gurudutt demanded the amount from Lal, who refused to pay. Gurudutt wants to take legal action against Lal. Identify the most appropriate legal position from the following:
An offer and its acceptance is the basic requirement of an agreement and as per this requirement an offer by one party
The Law of Contract is nothing but ...............
To form a valid contract, there should be at least .............
.................. is made by words spoken.
Where the obligation in a contract is outstanding on the part of both parties, it is called
Where a contract has to be inferred from the conduct of parties, it is called
