← APP
Past Questions
An advocate who dictates to his clerk a letter containing defamatory statement regarding a person is ________ for defamation in view of privileged communication.
A)
Liable
B)
Not liable
C)
Punishable
D)
Not punishable
This question pertains to the legal concept of 'Privileged Communication' in the law of defamation.
1. **Definition of Privilege**: Privilege is a defense in defamation cases where the law recognizes that the public interest in the free flow of certain information outweighs the individual's right to protect their reputation.
2. **Qualified Privilege**: Communication between an employer and an employee (or a professional and their assistant/clerk) regarding the business of the employment is generally protected under 'qualified privilege'.
3. **Application to the Scenario**: When an advocate dictates a letter to their clerk, the clerk is acting as an agent/employee in the course of their professional duties. The communication from the advocate to the clerk is considered a privileged communication because the clerk is an extension of the advocate's office.
4. **Legal Precedent**: In the law of torts, it is established that a person is not liable for defamation for statements made to a subordinate or employee who is required to process that information as part of their job, provided the communication is made without actual malice and for a legitimate professional purpose.
Therefore, the advocate is 'Not liable' for the act of dictating the statement to the clerk, as the communication is protected by privilege.
Censure passed in good faith by a person having lawful authority over another is an exception to the defence of defamation.
A)
Correct
B)
Wrong
C)
Partially correct
D)
None of the above
The question asks whether 'Censure passed in good faith by a person having lawful authority over another' is an *exception to the defence* of defamation. This is a trick of terminology.
Under the Indian Penal Code (IPC), specifically the First Schedule (Exceptions to Defamation), the 'Imputation of truth which public good requires to be made' and 'Conduct of a public servant' are exceptions to the *crime* of defamation. Specifically, the law provides that it is NOT defamation to make an imputation on the character of another, published in good faith, which is an imputation made by a person having lawful authority over that other on the merits of the conduct of the latter.
Therefore, this act is an 'Exception to the Offence' (a defence), NOT an 'Exception to the Defence'. If something is an exception to the defence, it would mean the person is liable despite the defence. In this case, the censure is the defence itself. Since the statement claims it is an exception to the defence rather than an exception to the crime/offence, the statement is legally incorrect.
The reference of transportation for life under IPC shall be construed as a reference to
A)
Rigorous imprisonment
B)
Simple imprisonment
C)
Imprisonment for life
D)
Imprisonment for 20 years
The punishment of 'Transportation for Life' was historically used in the Indian Penal Code (IPC) to refer to the deportation of convicts to penal colonies (such as the Andaman Islands). However, this punishment was abolished by the Amending Act of 1955 (Act 26 of 1955). Following this amendment, Section 57 of the IPC was modified to specify that any reference in the Code to 'transportation for life' shall be construed as a reference to 'imprisonment for life'. Therefore, whenever an older provision or a specific section of the IPC mentions transportation for life, it is legally interpreted as imprisonment for life.
- Option (a) Rigorous imprisonment is a type of imprisonment involving hard labor, but it is not the legal equivalent of transportation for life.
- Option (b) Simple imprisonment is a type of imprisonment without hard labor.
- Option (d) Imprisonment for 20 years is a specific term of imprisonment, whereas transportation for life was an indeterminate sentence equivalent to the remainder of the convict's natural life.
By this section, any act which is an offence for all purposes shall not be an offence if the act comes within the exercise of the right of private defence.
A)
Section 98 IPC
B)
Section 97 IPC
C)
Section 96 IPC
D)
Section 95 IPC
The question refers to the fundamental principle of the Right of Private Defence under the Indian Penal Code (IPC).
1. **Section 96 IPC** explicitly states: 'Nothing is an offence which is done in the exercise of the right of private defence.' This is the general rule that exempts an act from being a crime if it was performed to protect oneself, another person, or property, provided it stays within the legal limits of that right.
2. **Analysis of other options:**
- **Section 95 IPC** deals with 'acts causing slight harm' (de minimis non curat lex), stating that acts causing such slight harm that no person of ordinary sense would complain are not offences.
- **Section 97 IPC** defines the *scope* of the right of private defence (stating that every person has a right to defend their own body, another's body, or property), but it is not the section that declares the act 'not an offence'.
- **Section 98 IPC** clarifies that the right of private defence is available against an act which would be an offence even if done by a person who is legally justified in doing it (e.g., a servant acting under the mistaken direction of a master).
Therefore, the specific provision that establishes that an act is not an offence if it falls under the exercise of private defence is Section 96.
Zothana put his watch on the table in such a way that at 6 P.M. hour hand points to South. In which direction the minute hand will point at 7.15 P.M.?
A)
East
B)
South
C)
North
D)
West
Based on established principles in Reasoning & Mental Ability, the correct and most appropriate choice is 'North' (Option C).
Identify the figure that completes the pattern.
A)
1
B)
2
C)
3
D)
4
Based on established principles in English Language, the correct and most appropriate choice is '4' (Option D).
How many dots lie opposite to the face having two dots, when the given figure is folded to form a cube?
A)
1
B)
3
C)
5
D)
6
Based on established principles in Reasoning & Mental Ability, the correct and most appropriate choice is '6' (Option D).
Common intention is an important ingredient under
A)
Section 30 IPC
B)
Section 33 IPC
C)
Section 34 IPC
D)
Section 32 IPC
Step-by-step reasoning:
1. Analysis of the Legal Concept: 'Common Intention' is a fundamental principle of joint liability in criminal law. It refers to a prior meeting of minds or a pre-arranged plan between two or more persons to commit a criminal act.
2. Statutory Reference: Under the Indian Penal Code (IPC), Section 34 specifically deals with 'Acts done by several persons in furtherance of common intention'. It states that when a criminal act is done by several persons in furtherance of the common intention of all, each of such persons is liable for that act in the same manner as if it were done by him alone.
3. Evaluation of Options:
- Option (a) Section 30 IPC: Deals with the definition of 'Woman'.
- Option (b) Section 33 IPC: Deals with the definition of 'Act'.
- Option (c) Section 34 IPC: Specifically defines and establishes the liability for acts done with 'Common Intention'.
- Option (d) Section 32 IPC: Deals with the definition of 'Words'.
Conclusion: Section 34 is the only section among the options that incorporates the ingredient of common intention.
A confession caused by an inducement, threat or promise is irrelevant under which section of the Evidence Act?
A)
Sec 23
B)
Sec 24
C)
Sec 26
D)
Sec 27
Under the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, Section 24 specifically deals with confessions caused by inducement, threat, or promise. It states that a confession made by an accused person is irrelevant in a criminal proceeding if the making of the confession appears to the Court to have been caused by any inducement, threat, or promise proceeding from a person in authority, provided that such inducement, threat, or promise is offered for the purpose of inducing the person to make such confession.
Analysis of other options:
- Sec 23: Deals with confessions made under a promise of pardon by a Magistrate (which are generally irrelevant unless the person is complied with the condition of pardon).
- Sec 26: Deals with confessions made to a police officer, which are generally inadmissible.
- Sec 27: Provides an exception to Sec 25 and 26, allowing the admission of information received from an accused in custody that leads to the discovery of a distinct fact.
Find the minimum number of straight lines required to make the given figure.
A)
10
B)
11
C)
12
D)
13
Based on established principles in English Language, the correct and most appropriate choice is '10' (Option A).
Whoever abets the commission of an offence by the public or more than ten persons shall be punished with
A)
Imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to 3 years or with fine or both
B)
Imprisonment of either description for a term which may not exceed 3 years or with fine or both
C)
Imprisonment for more than five years with fine
D)
Imprisonment for five years or with fine or both
This question pertains to the Indian Penal Code (IPC), specifically Section 117. Section 117 deals with the punishment for abetment of an offence. According to the second part of Section 117, 'Whoever abets the commission of an offence by the public or by more than ten persons, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both.'
Breaking down the options:
- Option (a) accurately reflects the statutory language of Section 117 IPC ('may extend to 3 years').
- Option (b) uses 'may not exceed', which is semantically similar but not the standard legal phrasing used in the code.
- Options (c) and (d) suggest five-year terms, which are legally incorrect for this specific provision of abetment by the public or more than ten persons.
Defamation is a
A)
Tort
B)
Crime
C)
Both (a) & (b)
D)
None of the above
Defamation is a unique legal concept that exists simultaneously in both civil and criminal law.
1. As a Tort (Civil Wrong): In civil law, defamation is a tort. The primary objective of a civil suit for defamation is to seek compensation (damages) for the harm caused to the person's reputation. The burden of proof is generally based on the 'preponderance of probabilities'.
2. As a Crime: In many jurisdictions, including India (under Sections 499 and 500 of the Indian Penal Code, now replaced by the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita), defamation is also a criminal offense. The objective here is to punish the offender with imprisonment or a fine to deter such behavior. The burden of proof in criminal cases is 'beyond a reasonable doubt'.
Since a single act of defamation can lead to both a civil suit for damages and a criminal prosecution for punishment, it is classified as both a tort and a crime.
Which word does NOT belong with the others?
A)
inch
B)
ounce
C)
centimeter
D)
yard
To solve this 'Odd One Out' question, we must categorize the units of measurement provided in the options:
1. Inch: A unit used to measure length/distance.
2. Ounce: A unit used to measure weight/mass (or volume in fluid ounces).
3. Centimeter: A unit used to measure length/distance.
4. Yard: A unit used to measure length/distance.
Comparing the four options, 'inch', 'centimeter', and 'yard' all belong to the category of linear measurement (length). 'Ounce' is the only term that refers to weight or mass, making it the odd one out.
Which offence does not require a minimum of five person
A)
Dacoity
B)
Riots
C)
Robbery
D)
Unlawful Assembly
To determine which offence does not require a minimum of five persons, we must look at the definitions under the Indian Penal Code (IPC), which governs these crimes:
1. **Unlawful Assembly (Section 141 IPC):** An assembly of five or more persons is designated as an 'unlawful assembly' if the common object is to commit any offence or disturb public peace.
2. **Rioting (Section 146 IPC):** Rioting occurs when an 'unlawful assembly' (which by definition requires 5 or more people) uses force or violence. Therefore, it requires at least five persons.
3. **Dacoity (Section 391 IPC):** Dacoity is defined as robbery committed by five or more persons. The numerical threshold of five is the distinguishing factor between robbery and dacoity.
4. **Robbery (Section 390 IPC):** Robbery is an aggravated form of either theft or extortion. It can be committed by a single individual or any number of people. It does not have a statutory minimum requirement of five persons.
Since Unlawful Assembly, Rioting, and Dacoity all legally require a minimum of five persons to be constituted as such, Robbery is the only offence among the options that does not.
Which does not fall under the definition of grievous hurt
A)
Privation of any member or joint
B)
Fracture or dislocation of a tooth
C)
Emasculation
D)
Acid attack
This question tests the knowledge of the definition of 'Grievous Hurt' as provided under Section 320 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).
1. Section 320 of the IPC lists eight specific kinds of hurt that are designated as 'grievous'.
2. Option (a) 'Privation of any member or joint' is explicitly listed as the second clause of Section 320.
3. Option (b) 'Fracture or dislocation of a tooth' is explicitly listed as the seventh clause of Section 320.
4. Option (c) 'Emasculation' is explicitly listed as the first clause of Section 320.
5. Option (d) 'Acid attack' is not listed under the definition of 'Grievous Hurt' in Section 320. While acid attacks are treated as extremely serious crimes and are punished severely under specific sections (such as Section 326A and 326B of the IPC), the act of throwing acid is a separate statutory offense rather than a category listed within the general definition of 'grievous hurt' under Section 320. Therefore, it does not 'fall under the definition' of grievous hurt as per the technical listing of the IPC.
Whoever commits dowry death shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than
A)
5 years
B)
6 years
C)
7 years
D)
10 years
The question pertains to the punishment for 'Dowry Death' as defined under the Indian Penal Code (IPC). Section 304B of the IPC specifically deals with Dowry Death. According to Section 304B(2), whoever commits dowry death shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than seven years, but which may extend to imprisonment for life.
Breakdown of options:
- Option (a) 5 years: Incorrect. This is not the minimum threshold for Section 304B.
- Option (b) 6 years: Incorrect.
- Option (c) 7 years: Correct. This is the statutory minimum punishment prescribed by law.
- Option (d) 10 years: Incorrect. While the sentence can be 10 years or more (up to life), the question asks for the term which shall 'not be less than', referring to the minimum mandatory sentence.
Unlawful homicide does not include
A)
Murder
B)
Dowry death
C)
Attempt to murder
D)
Stalking
To solve this question, we must first define 'Homicide'. Homicide is the act of one human being causing the death of another. 'Unlawful homicide' refers to the killing of a human being that is not justified (e.g., not in self-defense) or excused by law.
1. **Murder (Option a):** This is the most classic form of unlawful homicide, where there is an intention to cause death or bodily injury likely to cause death.
2. **Dowry Death (Option b):** Under the Indian Penal Code (Section 304B), dowry death is a specific form of culpable homicide/murder where a woman dies under abnormal circumstances related to dowry demands. It results in death, thus it is a form of homicide.
3. **Attempt to Murder (Option c):** While the victim does not die in an 'attempt', the legal classification of 'Attempt to Murder' (Section 307 IPC) falls under the umbrella of homicide-related offenses because the intent and the act are directed toward causing death. In many legal examinations, 'unlawful homicide' is used broadly to cover the spectrum of crimes targeting life.
4. **Stalking (Option d):** Stalking (Section 354D IPC) is a crime against a woman's dignity and privacy. It involves following or monitoring a person. Crucially, stalking does not involve the causing of death. Therefore, it cannot be classified as homicide (lawful or unlawful).
Comparing the options, stalking is the only offense listed that does not involve the death of a person, making it the correct answer to 'what unlawful homicide does NOT include'.
Under Sec 439 CrPC, jurisdiction to cancel the bail vests with
A)
Judicial magistrate first class
B)
Court of session
C)
High Court
D)
Both (b) & (c)
Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) deals with the 'Special powers of High Court or Court of Session regarding bail'.
1. According to Section 439(1), the High Court or the Court of Session may direct that any person admitted to bail, or continuing in custody, be released on bail.
2. According to Section 439(2), the High Court or the Court of Session may direct that any person who has been admitted to bail, or continues in custody, be arrested and committed to custody. This power to direct the arrest of a person previously released on bail is effectively the power to 'cancel' the bail.
Analysis of options:
- Option (a) Judicial Magistrate First Class: While Magistrates have powers to grant bail under Section 437, the specific 'special powers' mentioned under Section 439 (including the broad power to cancel bail) are reserved for the higher courts.
- Option (b) Court of Session: Correct, as per Sec 439(2).
- Option (c) High Court: Correct, as per Sec 439(2).
- Option (d) Both (b) & (c): This is the most accurate answer as both the High Court and the Court of Session are explicitly granted these powers under Section 439.
Statement recorded under section 161 CrPC can be used during trial
A)
For contradicting the witnesses
B)
For corroborating the witnesses
C)
For subtending the evidence
D)
All of these
Under the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), Section 161 deals with the examination of witnesses by police. According to Section 162 of the CrPC, statements made to the police during an investigation cannot be signed by the witness and are not substantive evidence. However, they can be used for a very specific purpose: to 'contradict' a witness.
1. **Contradiction (Option a):** If a witness testifies in court and says something different from what they told the police during the investigation, the prosecution or defense can use the Section 161 statement to point out the inconsistency. This is done under Section 145 of the Indian Evidence Act to impeach the credit of the witness.
2. **Corroboration (Option b):** A statement recorded under Section 161 cannot be used to corroborate (support) the testimony of a witness. Corroboration requires substantive evidence or statements made under different legal provisions (e.g., Section 157 of the Evidence Act).
3. **Subtending (Option c):** This is not a standard legal term used in the context of evidence admissibility in CrPC/Evidence Act.
Therefore, the only legally permissible use of a Section 161 statement during a trial is for the purpose of contradiction.
Waging war against the government is an example of
A)
Cognisable offence
B)
Non cognisable offence
C)
Summon case
D)
None of the above
Step-by-step reasoning: 1. Definition of the Offence: 'Waging war against the Government of India' is a grave offence defined under Section 121 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). 2. Classification under CrPC: Under the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), offences are classified as either 'Cognisable' or 'Non-cognisable'. A cognisable offence is one in which a police officer may arrest the accused without a warrant and start an investigation without the prior permission of a court. 3. Nature of the Crime: Offences against the State, such as waging war, are considered the most serious crimes against the sovereignty and security of the nation. Due to the severity and urgency of such crimes, they are always classified as cognisable offences to allow law enforcement to act immediately. 4. Analysis of Options: (a) Cognisable offence: Correct, as it allows immediate arrest without a warrant. (b) Non-cognisable offence: Incorrect, as these are less serious crimes requiring a warrant for arrest. (c) Summon case: Incorrect, as 'waging war' is a warrant case (punishable with death or imprisonment for life/more than two years). (d) None of the above: Incorrect.
Find the number of triangles in the given figure.
A)
8
B)
10
C)
12
D)
14
Based on established principles in English Language, the correct and most appropriate choice is '10' (Option B).
Abetment of a thing includes
A)
Instigating any person to do that thing
B)
Intentionally aids by any act or illegal omission
C)
Both (a) & (b)
D)
None of the above
Under the Indian Penal Code (IPC), specifically Section 107 (which is mirrored in the new Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita), 'Abetment' is defined as follows: A person abets the doing of a thing, which is an offence, if he:
1. Instigates any person to do that thing; or
2. Engages in a conspiracy for the doing of that thing, if the act or illegal omission takes place in pursuance of that conspiracy; or
3. Intentionally aids, by any act or illegal omission, the doing of that thing.
Analyzing the options:
- Option (a) 'Instigating any person to do that thing' directly matches the first clause of the definition of abetment.
- Option (b) 'Intentionally aids by any act or illegal omission' directly matches the third clause of the definition of abetment.
Since both (a) and (b) are legally recognized methods of abetment, option (c) is the correct choice.
The law does not require that a person should not exercise his right to self defence if by running away he can avoid injury from his assailant.
A)
False
B)
True
C)
Partially correct
D)
Partially wrong
Under the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and general principles of criminal law regarding the Right of Private Defence, there is no legal duty for a person to retreat (the 'duty to retreat') before exercising their right to self-defence. If a person is faced with an unlawful aggression, they are entitled to defend themselves and their property, provided the force used is proportionate to the threat. The law does not mandate that a person must first attempt to run away or flee the scene to avoid injury before they can legally claim the right of private defence. Therefore, the statement 'The law does not require that a person should not exercise his right to self defence if by running away he can avoid injury from his assailant' is a True statement of law.
Disclosure of the identity of a victim of rape is punishable under:
A)
Section 376D of IPC
B)
Section 229 IPC
C)
Section 228 ipc
D)
Section 228A IPC
Step-by-step reasoning:
1. The question asks for the specific section of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) that penalizes the disclosure of the identity of a victim of rape.
2. Section 228A of the IPC was specifically inserted to protect the privacy of victims of sexual offenses. It states that whoever prints or publishes the name or any matter which may make known the identity of any person against whom an offence under section 376, 376A, 376B, 376C, or 376D is alleged or found to have been committed, shall be punished with imprisonment.
3. Evaluating other options:
- Section 376D IPC deals with Gang Rape (the offense itself, not the disclosure of identity).
- Section 229 IPC deals with the punishment for publishing any matter which tends to actually prejudice the due course of any judicial proceeding.
- Section 228 IPC deals with the disclosure of a proceeding in camera for reasons to be recorded in writing.
4. Therefore, Section 228A is the correct and specific provision for the disclosure of a rape victim's identity.
The age of consent for kidnapping in India is
A)
16 years for boys & 18 years for girls
B)
21 years for boys & 18 years for girls
C)
18 years for boys and 18 years for girls
D)
No age is defined
Under the Indian Penal Code (IPC), specifically Section 361, 'kidnapping from lawful guardianship' occurs when a person takes or entices a minor away from their legal guardian without consent. The law defines the age threshold for this offense based on gender: a male is considered a minor for the purpose of kidnapping if he is under 16 years of age, and a female is considered a minor if she is under 18 years of age. Therefore, the 'age of consent' (the age after which a person is no longer considered a minor for the purpose of kidnapping from guardianship) is 16 for boys and 18 for girls. Options b and c are incorrect as they apply the age of majority (18 or 21) which is different from the specific thresholds set for kidnapping under Section 361 IPC. Option d is incorrect because the law explicitly defines these ages.