Advertisements
Advertisements
Question
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.
Options
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
Solution
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
RELATED QUESTIONS
The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 helps in
The criminal procedure code is of
Theft is defined only for
'Death sentence' in Criminal punishment system in India is
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.
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: Nothing is an offense by reason that it causes, or that it is intended to cause, or that it is known to be likely to cause any harm if that harm is so slight that no person of ordinary sense and temper would complain of such harm.
Facts: 'X' takes a plain sheet of paper from Y's drawer without Y's consent to write a letter to his friend.
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 causes death by doing an act with the intention of causing death, or with the intention of causing such bodily injury as is likely to cause death, or with, the knowledge that he is likely by such act to cause death, commits the offense of culpable homicide.
Facts: 'A' knows 'Z' to be behind a bush. 'B' does not know it. 'A', intending to cause, or knowing it to be likely to cause Z's death, induces 'B' to fire at the bush. 'B' fires and kills 'Z'.
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.
What is the punishment under the Official Secrets Act, 1923 for the offence of spying in relation to any work of defense establishment or in relation to any secret official code?
The Supreme Court has said that FIR in respect heinous and serious offenses cannot be quashed solely on the ground that the dispute was settled amicably between the parties. Which of the following were included in the list of “heinous and serious offenses”?
I. Offenses under Prevention of Corruption Act
II. Some Offences under Arms Act
III. Rape
IV. Offenses by public servants in their official capacity
