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/painting to fall under the definition, the material included must have been fabricated or altered significantly in order to represent something it is actually no.
Facts: David made a living travelling from city to city, selling paintings that he claimed were done by great artists. Since the artists’ signatures were in place, many people fell for them and purchased the paintings. One of these artists saw three of his alleged paintings in a City gallery containing his name. He knew these were not his works and he complained to the police. Police traced David and initiated legal proceedings. Is David guilty of any offence?
Options
There is no point in taking legal action against David as the signature has not done any alteration to the artwork.
David is guilty of forgery as the addition of the signature was with an intention to make people believe that those were the paintings of the great artists.
Those who buy the art pieces from David ought to have been careful in checking it and ensuring that they were originals before purchasing it.
David is not guilty of any offence as he was selling the art pieces for his living.
Advertisements
Solution
David is guilty of forgery as the addition of the signature was with an intention to make people believe that those were the paintings of the great artists.
Explanation:
According to Section 468 of the Indian Penal Code, an individual committing forgery on a document for the purpose of cheating will be held guilty.
In this question, David sold fake paintings by forging the signatures of great artists with the purpose of cheating customers. He will be held guilty for the same. (Dinesh Chandra vs State Of U.P. And Others on 7 March, 2011).
APPEARS IN
RELATED QUESTIONS
In this Question problem consists of a set of rules and facts. Apply the specified rules to the set of facts and answer the question. In answering the following question, you should not rely on any rule(s) except the rule(s) that are supplied for problem. Further, you should not assume any fact other than 'those stated in the problem. The aim is to test your ability to properly apply a rule to a given set of facts, even when the result is absurd or unacceptable for any other reason. It is not the aim to test any knowledge of law you may already possess.
Rules
A. A person is an employee of another if the mode and the manner in which he or she carries out his work is subject to control and supervision of the latter.
B. An employer is required to provide compensation to his or her employees for any injury caused by an accident arising in the course of employment. The words 'in the course of the employment' means in the course of the work which the employee is contracted to do and which is incidental to it.
Facts Messrs. ZafarAbidi and Co. (Company) manufactures bidis with the help of persons known as `pattadars'. The pattadars are supplied tobacco and leaves by the Company and are required to roll them into bidis and bring the bidis back to the Company. The pattadars are free to roll the bidis either in the factory or anywhere else they prefer. They are not bound to attend the factory for any fixed hours of work or for any fixed number of days. Neither are they required to roll up any fixed number of bidis. The Company verifies whether the bidis adhere to the specified instructions or not and pays the pattadars on the basis of the number of bidis that are found to be of right quality. Aashish Mathew is one of the pattadars of the Company. He was hit by a car just outside the precinct of the factory while he was heading to have lunch in a nearby foodstall. Aashish Mathew has applied for compensation from the Company. Select the statement that could be said to be most direct inference from specified facts:
Mark the best option:
Facts: Ram’s father and Rizvi were enemies. One day at the market Rizvi attacked Ram's father with a lathi. Ram’s father suffered a simple injury on his head. On seeing this Ram got hold of a gun and shot Rizvi in the head, in order to protect his father. The police arrested Ram and charged him with culpable homicide.
Principle:
- The law recognizes an individual’s right to defend himself and his family and his property against any unlawful acts.
- The person defending himself should not do more harm than is necessary, that is to say, that the force used to defend should be proportionate to the force used by the aggressor.
Nothing is an offence which is done by a child of –
A cheats by pretending to be B, a person who is deceased. A commit –
One of the remedies for false imprisonment is :
Indian penal code 1860 was drafted by
A general exception of this code provides that nothing shall be an offence which is done by
Wrongful gain' means
The effect caused partly by act and partly by an omission is
Principle: Contributory negligence in an accident is a defense to a charge in criminal law.
Facts: X, the deceased was negligently crossing the busy road at Cannaught Place in Delhi while Y's car hit him resulting in the death of X. What is the liability of Y?
