English

Legal Principle: the Latin Maxim Nemo Bis Punitur Pro Eodem Delictomeans that Nobody Can Be Punished Twice for the Same Offence.

Advertisements
Advertisements

Question

Legal Principle: The Latin maxim nemo bis punitur pro eodem delictomeans that nobody can be punished twice for the same offence.

Fact Situation: Sajan, a petty thief, is caught and thrashed thoroughly by the people before being handed over to the police. Sajan pleads before the magistrate that since he was already thrashed by the people he should not be again punished by the State.

Which of the following statements is the most appropriate in relation to the legal principle stated above?

Options

  • Sajan is right since nobody should be punished for the same offence twice.

  • Thrashing given by the people does not amount to legal punishment and so Sajan can be punished by the State.

  • Giving a good thrashing to the thief is the best form of punishment to prevent future theft.

  • The Magistrate should take into consideration the thrashing received by Sajan while fixing his punishment.

MCQ
Advertisements

Solution

Thrashing given by the people does not amount to legal punishment and so Sajan can be punished by the State.

Explanation:

Nemo bis punitur pro eodem delicto means no person shall be twice punished for the same offense, that ancient right of appeal was gone when the punishment had once been suffered. The protection against the action of the same court in inflicting punishment twice must surely be as necessary, and as clearly within the maxim, as protection from chances or danger of a  second punishment on a second trial.  
However in the case presented before us thrashing given by people cannot be considered as legal punishment as it was not given by any court exercising its legal power, hence Sajan can be still punished by the court of law, leading it is most appropriate. 

shaalaa.com
Law of Torts (Entrance Exams)
  Is there an error in this question or solution?
2017-2018 (May) Set 1

RELATED QUESTIONS

Principle: The existence of all the alleged facts is relevant whether they occurred at the same time and place or at different times and places.

Facts: A, a citizen of England, is accused of committing the murder of B in India by taking part in a conspiracy hatched in England. 


The principle is to be applied to the given facts and to choose the most appropriate option

Principle: The concept of natural justice is against bias and for the right to a fair hearing. While the term natural justice is often retained as a general concept, and it has largely been replaced and extended by the general ‘duty to act fairly’.

Facts: ‘X’, a male employee of a company was dismissed by the employer just on the basis of a complaint by ‘Y’, a female employee of the company that ‘X’ was trying to be too friendly with her and often requested her to accompany him to the canteen. Is the dismissal of ‘X’ valid?


Directions: Read the statement and on the basis of that, choose the most appropriate course of action(s) given below the statement.

Statement: Official data show more people died on Indian roads in 2016 than in 2015; UP and Tamil Nadu accounted for the largest numbers of fatalities.

Courses of Action:

I. The government should make a policy regulating the manufacturing of automobiles for private use.
II. The government should take steps to create awareness among the public about road safety.
III. Accidents can be avoided if the Government takes steps to make good roads.
IV. To eliminate accidents completely the Government should impose stringent punishments for traffic violations.


Every murder is a culpable homicide but every culpable homicide is not murder. This statement


Aaron is the punter on his high school football team. Biff, one of the players on the opposing team, runs into Aaron as he is punting the ball. Aaron is injured. Biff’s team is penalized 15 yards for roughing the kicker. Which of the following most accurately states the likely outcome if Aaron sues Biff in the tort of battery?


PRINCIPLE A person is entitled to protect his property by using lawful means.

FACTS Ramlal is growing valuable vegetables and fruits on his farm and he has fenced the farm to prevent the cattle from entering into it. In addition, he has kept a ferocious dog to chase away intruding urchins and catties. Some children were playing in a nearby playground and the ball slipped into the farm. A boy running after the ball came near the fence and shouted for the ball. But when there was no response, he managed to creep into the farm to get the ball. The dog which was surreptitiously waiting attacked the boy and badly mauled him. The boy's parents filed a suit against Ramlal.


Principle: A citizen is expected to take the reasonable duty of care while driving on the road and not to cause injuries to any person.

Facts: X, the owner of a car, asked his friend Y to drive the car to his office. As the car was near his (X' s) office, it hit a pedestrian P on account of Y' s negligent driving and injured him seriously. P sued X for damages.
Two persons are said to be joint tort-feasors when


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: Nuisance is an unlawful interference with a person's use or enjoyment of land or some right over or in connection with it. If the interference is 'direct', the wrong is trespass; whereas, if the interference is 'consequential', it amounts to a nuisance.

Facts: 'A' plants a tree on his land. However, he allows of its branches to project over the land of 'B'. Which of the following derivations is correct?


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: Interference with another's goods in such a way as to deny the latter's title to the goods amounts to conversion, and thus it is a civil wrong. It is an act intentionally done inconsistent with the owner's right, though the doer may not know of, or intend to challenge, the property or possession of the true owner.

Facts: y or possession of the true owner. Facts: 'R' went to a cycle-stand to park his bicycle. Seeing the stand fully occupied, he removed a few bicycles in order to rearrange a portion of the stand and make some space for his bicycle. He parked his bicycle properly, and put back all the bicycles except the one belonging to 'S', In fact, 'R' was in a hurry, and therefore, he could not put back S's bicycle. Somebody came on the way and took away S's bicycle. The watchman of the stand did not take care of it assuming that the bicycle was not parked inside the stand. 'S' filed a suit against 'R' for conversion. Which of the following derivations is correct?


Apply the legal principles to the facts given below and select the most appropriate answer:

Legal Principles:
The tort of negligent misstatement is defined as an inaccurate statement made honestly but carelessly usually in the form of advice given by a party with special skill/knowledge to a party that doesn’t possess this skill or knowledge.

Facts: 
X and Y Co. were advertising agents placing contracts on behalf of a client on credit terms, X and Y Co. would be personally liable should the client default. To protect themselves, the X and Y asked their bankers to obtain a credit reference from K and L, the client’s bankers. The reference (given both orally and then in writing) was given gratis and was favorable, but also contained an exclusion clause to the effect that the information was given ‘without responsibility on the part of this Bank or its officials’. X and Y relied upon this reference and subsequently suffered financial loss when the client went into liquidation. X and Y sued K and L Co. for negligence, claiming that the information was given negligently and was misleading. K and L argued there was no duty of care owed regarding the statements. Decide.


Share
Notifications

Englishहिंदीमराठी


      Forgot password?
Use app×