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
In criminal proceedings acquittal refers to
When a convict is temporarily released from the prison for a fixed period of time, it is called ____________.
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.
Z is carried off by a tiger. X fires at the tiger, knowing that the shot might kill Z, but with no intention to kill Z, and in good faith trying to save Z. X’s shot, however, gives Z a mortal wound. Choose the correct option
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:
1. Whoever, intending to take dishonestly any movable property out of the possession of any person without that person’s consent, moves that property in order to such taking is said to commit theft.
2. Whoever dishonestly misappropriates or converts to his own any movable property, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both.
FACTUAL SITUATION:
A takes umbrella belonging to Z out of Z’s possession in good faith, believing at the time when he took it, that the property belongs to himself. His wife points out after some days that the umbrella does not belong to them but to Z. After coming to know that, A dishonestly keeps the umbrella. DECISION:
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 which is done by a person who is bound by law to do it.
Facts: 'A', a police officer, without a warrant, apprehends 'Z', who has committed murder.
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: Nothing is an offense which is done by any person who is, or who by reason of a mistake of fact, in good faith, believes himself to be bound by law to do it.
FACTUAL SITUATION: A, soldier, fires on a mob by the order of his superior officer, in conformity with the commands of the law. B is killed due to such firing. Is A guilty of murder? 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 PRINCIPLES: Whoever dishonestly takes away any property from the possession of another, with an intention of such taking away, without his permission is liable for theft.
FACTUAL SITUATION: Raja, a famous gangster, moves into an apartment in Kankurgachi, Calcutta. There, he discovers that the previous owner of the apartment had left behind a pair of beautiful ivory-handled combs. Mesmerized by their beauty and confused as to whom he should be returning them to, he decides to retain them and starts using them. The previous owner of the combs gets to know this and registers an FIR for theft against Raja. Is Raja liable? DECISION:
