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
Principle: Whoever causes death by rash or negligent act commits an offence.
Facts: X is having a house on the roadside which is also having a street on the back of the house. He has a lawn on the back of his house where he has built a toilet. To prevent the intruders from entering his house, he got the fence charged with a high voltage live electric wire. Z was passing through the street at the backyard of the house of X and sat down to take rest near the fence. While getting up, his hands came in contact with the fence which was connected to high voltage electric wire causing his death.
Principle: Employer is liable for the injury caused to the employee in the course of his employment.
Facts: X organized a party and hired a caterer. During the party, the generator set went out of order and he requested one employee of caterer i.e. Y to bring the mechanic on his vehicle and promised to pay 1000 for the same to Y. Y met with an accident while going to fetch the mechanic and he seeks compensation.
Principle: Law does not penalise for wrongs which are of trivial nature.
Facts: In the course of a discussion, 'A' threw a file of papers at the table which touched the hands of 'B'.
Mark the best option:
Facts: Babu, the driver of the bus, parked the bus at the karamangala bus station and went to the nearby bakery shop for some cutlets and samosas. Ranjit, the cleaner of the bus, on his own initiative took charge of the bus and drove it through the neighboring by-lanes. While reversing the bus he ran over a man who was trying to cross the road. The man was seriously injured and had to be hospitalized. The man sued the bus company for damages. Decide
Principle: A master is vicariously liable for the negligent acts of his servant acting in the course of his employment.
Legal Principle: When there is an infringement of the legal right of a person, he gets a right to sue the wrongdoer for remedy irrespective of any actual loss caused.
Fact Situation: Saroj is prevented from voting at an election. The candidate she intended to vote for, wins the election.
Which of the following statements is the most appropriate in relation to the legal principle stated above?
The Government of India is planning to open Rail Link between Sealdah to Devpura. Devpura is located in –
Which of the following is not a reason for the general lack of liability for omissions in English law?
Apply the legal principles to the facts given below and select the most appropriate answer.
Legal Principles:
- The Tort of Negligence is a legal wrong that is suffered by someone at the hands of another who fails to take proper care to avoid what a reasonable person would regard as a foreseeable risk.
- The test of liability requires that the harm must be a reasonably foreseeable result of the defendant's conduct, a relationship of proximity must exist and it must be fair, just and reasonable to impose liability.
- The claimant must prove that harm would not have occurred 'but for' the negligence of the defendant. The claimant must prove, on the balance of probabilities, that the defendant's breach of duty caused the harm.
Factual Situation: A 13-year-old boy fell from a tree. He went to a hospital where his hip was examined, but an incorrect diagnosis was made. After 5 days it was found that he was suffering from avascular necrosis. This was more advanced and serious than if it had been spotted straight away. Despite receiving treatment, it was determined that he had suffered from a muscular condition (avascular necrosis) which left the boy with a permanent disability and further left a strong probability that he would develop severe osteoarthritis later in life. The expert medical testimony indicated that had his fractured hip been identified on his initial hospital visit, there was a 25% chance of his condition having been successfully treated. He is claiming compensation for the negligence of the hospital. Whether the hospital's negligence on his initial visit had caused his injury?
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: A private nuisance may consist of:
1. Any interference with a person’s use or enjoyment of land.
2. The act of wrongfully causing or allowing the escape of deleterious things into another person’s land e.g. water, smoke, smell etc.
Factual situation: D erected a brick grinding machine adjoining the premises of P, a medical practitioner. The dust from the machine polluted the atmosphere and caused inconvenience to P and his patients. Here 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: 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:
