Advertisements
Advertisements
Question
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.
Options
The additions were made to give clarity to the original document and did not in any sense change the contents of the documents and hence there is no forgery as alleged by the researcher.
As forgery amounts to adding or deleting anything from an original document, the demand of the researcher is valid.
The additions in the letters were made by the publisher in his own handwriting would have made material alteration to the original meaning and hence amounted to forgery.
Allowing forged publications to be circulated among the public is as good as committing fraud on the public, so the publication should be banned.
Advertisements
Solution
The additions were made to give clarity to the original document and did not in any sense change the contents of the documents and hence there is no forgery as alleged by the researcher.
Explanation:
The additions were made to give clarity to the original document and did not in any sense change the contents of the documents and hence there is no forgery alleged by the researcher. John has only made additions to make the contents clearer. There was no intention of deceiving another person or entity. The additions did not change the sense of the original content and it was not fabricated or altered significantly. There was only intent of clarity and not to represent something which is factually incorrect. (Iqbal Singh Marwah & Anr vs Meenakshi Marwah & Anr on 11 March, 2005)
APPEARS IN
RELATED QUESTIONS
Legal Principle: No remedy lies in law where an injury is caused to a person without any infringement of his legal right.
Fact Situation: Ashutosh started a tuition Centre right next to the one being run for the past twenty years by Gulshan. After Ashutosh started his Centre, a large number of students shifted from Gulshan’s tuition Centre to Ashutosh’s Centre forcing Gulshan to close down his establishment suffering huge losses. Can Gulshan initiate legal action against Ashutosh?
Which of the following statements is the most appropriate in relation to the legal principle stated above?
Legal Principle: A person is liable to compensate others for harm caused by the escape of any inherently dangerous material that he keeps on his land.
Fact Situation: Ankit lights a bonfire in his courtyard to warm himself up during a cold winter evening. A strong wind suddenly blows some sparks from the fire, on to his neighbour’s house which catches fire and gets completely destroyed.
Which of the following statements is the most appropriate in relation to the legal principle stated above?
___ is NOT a Central Government tax.
Negligence involves:
Injuria sine damnum stands for.
PRINCIPLE The test as to whether the act done by an officer or agency of the state is a sovereign function or a function done ordinarily is dependent on the fact that an alternative person may also carry out the latter, but the former may only be carried out by the state.
FACTS In a boundary settlement dispute between India and Bangladesh, a certain territory was exchanged in pursuit of a treaty agreement. X's land which lay in the Indian enclave thus got transferred to Bangladesh, which did not recognise his proprietary rights. In a suit against the Indian Government, the likely outcome is
In Torts, the remedy is
Principle: Trespass to land is the wrongful and unwarranted entry upon the land of another. A purchased a ticket to watch a movie in a theatre. After the show got over, A refused to leave the theatre. The owner of the theatre sues A for trespass
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: In a civil action for defamation, the truth of the defamatory matter is an absolute defense. However, the burden of proving truth is on the defendant; and he is liable if he does not successfully discharge this burden.
Facts: 'D' who was the editor of a local weekly, published a series of articles mentioning that 'P', who was a government servant, issued false certificates, accepted bribe, adopted corrupt and illegal means to mint money and was a 'mischief monger'. 'P' brought a civil action against 'D', who could not prove the facts published by him.
Under the circumstances, 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.
Legal principle: Whoever stores a substance that could cause damage to escape shall be absolutely liable (i.e. liable even when he has exercised necessary care) for any damage caused by the escape of the substance.
Factual situation: Union Carbide India Limited (UCIL) manufactured methyl isocyanate, an extremely toxic gas. Due to a storm, the gas that was being stored in sealed containers got released. Before much could happen, the local municipal authorities managed to contain the disaster. The authorities filed a suit against UCIL for the costs that were incurred in decontamination. However, later it was realized that the clean-up by the authorities could have been done without spending as many resources and the damage was not that significant. UCIL argued that it would pay only part of the amount demanded by the authorities, which could have dealt with the contamination. DECISION:
