Advertisements
Advertisements
Question
Principle: Inducing any animal to move or to change its motion and thereby intentionally causing fear of injury or annoyance to others by such act, is an offence of use of criminal force.
Facts: X incites his dog to chase and run after his neighbour Y, to teach Y to stay away from him. The act is done without neighbour‘ consent and against his will
Options
X has committed no offence
X has committed no offence because no harm is caused to Y
X has committed no offence because he intended only to put fear in the mind of Y
X has committed an offence of use of criminal force
Advertisements
Solution
X has committed an offense of use of criminal force
Explanation:
X has committed an offence of use of criminal force. The principle defines criminal force as “Inducing any animal to move or to change its motion and thereby intentionally causing fear of injury or annoyance to others.” X inciting his dog to chase Y is an instance of criminal use of force. X intentionally causes a fear of injury or annoyance, which makes it an offence.
APPEARS IN
RELATED QUESTIONS
Principle: Use of criminal force intentionally knowing that it would cause or is likely to cause injury or annoyance to the person against whom force is used, is an offense.
Facts: X, a renowned social worker who had launched a movement for the liberation of women, pull up a Muslim women‘s veil in public in good faith without her consent causing annoyance to her.
The Right to Property was excluded from the Fundamental Rights during the tenure of the Government headed by
The principle is to be applied to the given facts and to choose the most appropriate option:
Principle: When a person falsifies something with the intent to deceive another person or entity is forgery and is a criminal act. Changing or adding the signature on a document, deleting it, using or possessing false writing is also considered forgery. In the case of writing to fall under the definition, the material included must have been fabricated or altered significantly in order to represent something it is actually not.
Facts: John was a publisher of ancient books and papers. In one of his books on the World Wars, he gave photograph of some letters written by famous historic personalities. A researcher in history noted that in the pictures of some of the letters printed in the book, John had added some words or sentences in his own handwriting to give completeness to the sentences, so that the readers will get a clear picture of the writer’s intention. The researcher challenges the originality of those pictures and claims that the book containing the forged letters should be banned. Examine the validity of the researcher’s demand.
Who among the following was the first Chief Information Commissioner of India?
In most cases, a threat of violence made over the telephone cannot constitute an assault. Which of the following most accurately explains why not?
PRINCIPLE An owner of land has the right to use the land in any manner he or she desires. The owner of the land also owns the space above and the depths below it.
FACTS Ramesh owns an acre of land on the outskirts of Sullurpeta, Andhra Pradesh. The Government of India launches its satellites into space frequently from Sriharikota, near Sullurpeta. The Government of India does not deny that once the satellite launch has travelled the distance of almost 7000 kilometres it passes over Ramesh's property. Ramesh files a case claiming that the Government of India has violated his property rights by routing its satellite over his property, albeit 7000 kilometers directly above it.
Applying the principle to the case you would decide
PRINCIPLE Trespass is the unauthorized entry through the person or tangible object into the property of another. The rights of property exist on the surface, aerially and in the subterrain.
FACTS Kumari and Shravan lived in houses interspersed by the plot of Shantanu. Kumari and Shravan set-up a walkie talkie connection by setting up their transmitte~s facing each other. When Shantanu came to know about the arrangement, he filed a suit of trespass stating that the same was a case of trespass as signals could reach each other only by crossing his plot.
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.
Principles:
1. When a person unlawfully interferes in the chattel of another person by which the latter is deprived of its use, the former commits the tort of conversion.
2. Nobody shall enrich himself at other's expense,
Facts:
A patient suffering from stomach ailment approached. a teaching hospital. He was diagnosed as suffering from appendicitis and his appendix was removed. He became alright. The hospital however found some unique cells in the appendix and using the cell lines thereof, it developed drugs of enormous commercial value. When the erstwhile patient came to know about it, he claimed a share in the profit made by the hospital.
Possible Decisions
(a) The hospital need not share its profits with the patient.
(b) The hospital may share its profits on ex gratis basis. (c) The hospital shall share its profits with the patient.
Possible Reasons
(i) The patient, far from being deprived of the use of his appendix, actually benefitted by its removal.
(ii) The hospital instead of throwing away the appendix conducted further research on it on its own and the development of the drug was the result of its own effort.
(iii) The hospital could not have achieved its success without that appendix belonging to the patient.
(iv) Everybody must care for and share with others. Your decision with the reason.
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:
1. Private nuisance is a continuous, unlawful and indirect interference with the use or enjoyment of land, or of some right over or in connection with it.
2. The person who for his own purposes brings on his lands and collects and keeps there anything likely to do mischief if it escapes must keep it in at his peril, and, if he does not do so, is prima facie answerable for all the damage which is the natural consequence of its escape.
3. Generally, nuisances cannot be justified on the ground of necessity. pecuniary interest, convenience, or economic advantage to a defendant.
Facts:
Dr. Hemant had for 18 years operated a clinic and hospital for the treatment of ENT. Dr. Karan operated a renal clinic in which patients receive haemo-dialysis on the floor above Dr. Hemant’s clinic. Karan was found liable for obnoxious fumes emitting from the clinic which escaped downwards into Dr. Hemant’s clinic. Hemant, his staff and patients were found to have suffered substantial damage ranging from skin diseases, red and swollen eyes, headaches, lethargy and breathing difficulties. Decide whether Karan is liable?
