← Labour Officer
Past Questions
While considering the transfer of any case or appeal the High Court may act
A)
On the report of the lower court
B)
On its own initiative
C)
On the application of the party interested
D)
All of the above
This question pertains to the powers of the High Court regarding the transfer of cases, which is governed by the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) (specifically Section 406 in the 1973 Code) and the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) (specifically Section 24).
1. Under Section 24 of the CPC, the High Court has the power to transfer any suit, appeal, or proceeding from one subordinate court to another. This power can be exercised 'suo motu' (on its own motion) or on the application of a party.
2. Under Section 406 of the CrPC, the High Court may transfer a case or appeal if it is satisfied that such a transfer is expedient for the ends of justice. This can be triggered by:
- An application made by a party interested in the case (Option c).
- A report submitted by the lower court indicating that a transfer is necessary for justice or administrative reasons (Option a).
- The High Court's own initiative (suo motu) based on information it receives or its own discretion (Option b).
Since the High Court possesses the authority to act upon any of these three triggers to ensure a fair trial and the proper administration of justice, the correct answer is 'All of the above'.
The maxim ‘Qui facit per alium facit per se’ means
A)
Act of an agent is act of all of the agents and thereby all of them becomes vicariously liable for the act of any one of them
B)
Act of an agent is the act of the principal and thereby makes the principal vicariously liable for the acts of the agent
C)
Act of one tortfeasor is the act of another tortfeasor and both are equally liable for the act of each other
D)
A tortious act makes a person liable per se and no evil motive is needed to be proved
The Latin maxim 'Qui facit per alium facit per se' literally translates to 'He who acts through another acts himself.' In the Law of Torts, this is the foundational principle of Vicarious Liability. It establishes that if a person (the principal or employer) employs another (the agent or employee) to perform a task, the acts of the agent performed within the course of their employment are legally attributed to the principal. Therefore, the principal is held liable for the torts committed by the agent.
Analysis of options:
- Option (a) is incorrect because it suggests a collective liability among agents, which is not the meaning of this maxim.
- Option (b) is correct as it accurately describes the relationship between a principal and an agent under the doctrine of vicarious liability.
- Option (c) is incorrect as it describes joint tortfeasors, which is a different legal concept.
- Option (d) is incorrect as it refers to the concept of 'strict liability' or 'liability per se,' which is unrelated to the specific meaning of this maxim.
An appeal against the judgment of acquittal under section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973
A)
Is not possible
B)
Possible as long as made by the accused
C)
Can only be filed by the public prosecutor
D)
Can only be made by the Supreme Court
Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), 1973, deals with appeals in cases of acquittal. Under this section, an appeal against an order of acquittal can be filed by the State government through the Public Prosecutor (or a designated officer). Specifically, Section 378(1) allows the State Government to direct the Public Prosecutor to present an appeal to the High Court from an original order of acquittal. While a complainant can also file an appeal under Section 378(3) or (4) with the leave of the court, among the given options, the role of the Public Prosecutor is the primary legal mechanism for the State to challenge an acquittal.
Analysis of options:
- Option (a) is incorrect because appeals against acquittal are legally permissible under Section 378.
- Option (b) is incorrect because the accused is the party who was acquitted; the accused would not appeal against their own acquittal.
- Option (d) is incorrect because such appeals are typically filed in the High Court or Sessions Court, not exclusively by the Supreme Court.
- Option (c) is the most accurate among the choices provided, as it identifies the Public Prosecutor as the authorized entity to file the appeal on behalf of the State.
Seizure under CrPC is dealt in
A)
Section 102
B)
Section 200
C)
Section 90
D)
Section 202
Under the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), Section 102 empowers a police officer to seize any property which may be alleged or suspected to have been stolen, or which may be found under circumstances which create suspicion of the commission of any offence. This section provides the legal authority for the seizure of property without a warrant during an investigation.
Analysis of other options:
- Section 200 deals with the examination of the complainant by a Magistrate.
- Section 202 deals with the postponement of the issue of process (investigation or inquiry by the Magistrate).
- Section 90 deals with the service of summons on prisoners.
Which one is not the mode to compel appearance of a person
A)
Summons
B)
Warrant of arrest
C)
Proclamation of person absconding
D)
Inquiry
Under the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), the law provides specific legal mechanisms to ensure that a person accused of an offense or a witness appears before the court. These modes are categorized as follows:
1. Summons (Option a): A legal document issued by a court ordering a person to appear at a specific time and place. This is the mildest form of compelling appearance.
2. Warrant of Arrest (Option b): If a person fails to appear after a summons, or in more serious cases, the court issues a warrant directing the police to arrest the person and bring them before the court.
3. Proclamation of person absconding (Option c): If the court has reason to believe that a person is concealing themselves to avoid execution of a warrant, it can publish a written proclamation requiring them to appear at a specified place and time.
In contrast, an 'Inquiry' (Option d) is a legal proceeding conducted by a Magistrate or a Court to determine whether there are sufficient grounds for proceeding with a trial or to determine a specific fact. An inquiry is a process of judicial investigation; it is NOT a tool or a 'mode' used to physically compel a person to appear in court. Therefore, option (d) is the correct answer as it is not a mode to compel appearance.
Which one is held not to be a judicial proceeding
A)
Maintenance proceedings
B)
Departmental inquiries
C)
Proceedings in execution of a decree
D)
An inquiry by a magistrate before issuing an order
To determine which of the options is not a 'judicial proceeding', we must look at the legal definition. A judicial proceeding is generally one where evidence is legally taken on oath, and the presiding officer has the legal authority to determine rights or liabilities based on that evidence.
1. **Maintenance proceedings (a)**: These are quasi-judicial proceedings conducted by a Magistrate under the CrPC (e.g., Section 125), where evidence is recorded and a legal order is passed. They are considered judicial proceedings.
2. **Departmental inquiries (b)**: These are administrative proceedings conducted by an employer or a government department to check employee misconduct. They are governed by service rules, not by the Code of Criminal Procedure or the Civil Procedure Code. They do not result in a judicial decree or judgment and are therefore categorized as administrative/departmental, not judicial proceedings.
3. **Proceedings in execution of a decree (c)**: Execution proceedings are conducted by a civil court to enforce a judgment. Since they are conducted by a court of law exercising judicial power, they are judicial proceedings.
4. **An inquiry by a magistrate before issuing an order (d)**: Any formal inquiry conducted by a Magistrate under the CrPC is a judicial function, as it involves the application of law to facts to reach a legal conclusion.
Therefore, departmental inquiries are the only option that does not meet the criteria of a judicial proceeding.
Appointment of public prosecutor is mentioned under
A)
Section 24 of CrPC
B)
Section 27 of CrPC
C)
Section 28 of CrPC
D)
Section 23 of CrPC
Under the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), 1973, the appointment of Public Prosecutors and Additional Public Prosecutors is specifically governed by Section 24.
1. Section 24: Explicitly mandates that the Central Government or the State Government shall appoint a Public Prosecutor and one or more Additional Public Prosecutors for every district. It also specifies the qualifications required for these appointments (e.g., being an advocate for at least seven years).
2. Why other options are incorrect:
- Section 23: This section does not exist in the context of Public Prosecutor appointments; the chapter on Public Prosecutors and Assistants begins with Section 24.
- Section 27: This section deals with the 'Prosecutor's role' or specific duties, but the actual 'Appointment' is established in Section 24.
- Section 28: This section deals with the appointment of 'Assistant Public Prosecutors', who are distinct from the Public Prosecutors appointed under Section 24.
Which one of the following is an essential element of criminal liability
A)
Volition
B)
Motive
C)
Mens Rea
D)
Will
In criminal law, the general principle for establishing criminal liability is 'Actus non facit reum nisi mens sit rea', which means 'the act does not make a person guilty unless the mind is also guilty'.
1. **Mens Rea (Guilty Mind):** This is a fundamental essential element of a crime. It refers to the mental intent, knowledge, or recklessness with which a prohibited act is committed. Without mens rea (except in cases of strict liability), a person cannot be held criminally liable.
2. **Actus Reus (Guilty Act):** This is the physical act or omission that constitutes the crime. Criminal liability generally requires the concurrence of both Actus Reus and Mens Rea.
Why other options are incorrect:
- **Motive (b):** Motive is the reason *why* a person commits a crime (e.g., greed or revenge). While motive can be used as evidence to prove intent, it is not a legal requirement for criminal liability. A person can be guilty even if their motive was 'good' (e.g., stealing medicine to save a life).
- **Volition (a) and Will (d):** While volition (the power of using one's will) is necessary for an act to be considered voluntary, it is a component of the broader concept of Mens Rea and Actus Reus rather than the overarching legal 'element' used to define liability in the same way as Mens Rea.
Application of the IPC depends on
A)
Place of the residence of the offender
B)
Nationality of the offender
C)
Place where the offence is committed
D)
None of the above
The application of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) is primarily governed by the principle of territoriality. According to Section 2 of the IPC, every person is liable to punishment under this Code for every act or omission contrary to the provisions thereof, of which he shall be guilty within India.
1. Why Option (c) is correct: The jurisdiction of the IPC is based on the 'locus delicti' (the place where the crime was committed). If an offence is committed within the territory of India, the IPC applies regardless of the nationality or residence of the offender.
2. Why Option (a) is incorrect: The residence of the offender is irrelevant to whether the law applies; a foreigner residing abroad who commits a crime within Indian territory is still subject to the IPC.
3. Why Option (b) is incorrect: While Section 4 of the IPC extends jurisdiction to Indian citizens committing crimes abroad, the general application of the Code is not dependent on nationality, but on the location of the act. A non-citizen committing a crime in India is equally liable.
Therefore, the primary determinant for the application of the IPC is the place where the offence is committed.
Section 162 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 is for the protection of
A)
Accused
B)
Witnesses
C)
Police officer
D)
Magistrate
Section 162 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), 1973, deals with statements made to the police during an investigation. It stipulates that no statement made by any person to a police officer shall be signed by the person making it, and it cannot be used as evidence in court except for the limited purpose of contradicting a witness (under Section 145 of the Indian Evidence Act).
1. Why it protects the Accused: The primary objective of Section 162 is to prevent the police from fabricating statements or coercing witnesses/accused persons into signing 'confessions' or statements under duress during the investigation phase. By making these statements inadmissible as substantive evidence, the law protects the accused from being convicted based on potentially coerced or manipulated police records.
2. Why other options are incorrect: While witnesses are the ones making the statements, the legal 'protection' (the bar on using the statement as substantive evidence) is designed to ensure a fair trial for the accused. It does not protect the police officer (who is the investigator) or the Magistrate (who is the judicial authority overseeing the process).
The IPC is a comprehensive piece of legislation comprising of
A)
23 chapters and 511 sections
B)
26 chapters and 538 sections
C)
23 chapters and 515 sections
D)
24 chapters and 516 sections
The Indian Penal Code (IPC), 1860, is the official criminal code of India. It is structured into 23 chapters and contains a total of 511 sections. These sections define various offenses and prescribe the punishments for them.
- Option (a) is correct as it accurately reflects the structure of the IPC (23 Chapters, 511 Sections).
- Option (b), (c), and (d) are incorrect as they provide inaccurate counts of both the chapters and the sections of the code.
Any hurt is grievous if it causes the sufferer to be in severe bodily pain or unable to follow his ordinary pursuits during the space of
A)
15 days
B)
25 days
C)
20 days
D)
30 days
The definition of 'Grievous Hurt' is provided under Section 320 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). According to the Seventh clause of Section 320, any hurt is designated as 'grievous' if it causes the sufferer to be in severe bodily pain, or unable to follow his ordinary pursuits, for a period of twenty days.
Step-by-step breakdown:
1. Section 319 defines 'hurt'.
2. Section 320 lists eight specific kinds of hurt that are designated as 'grievous'.
3. The 7th category specifically mentions the duration of severe pain or inability to perform ordinary pursuits.
4. The statutory period mentioned in the IPC for this specific condition is exactly 20 days.
Therefore, options a (15 days), b (25 days), and d (30 days) are legally incorrect as they do not align with the statutory language of the Indian Penal Code.
Which of the following deals with the procedure of presenting the petition of appeal when appellant is in jail
A)
Section 380 CrPC
B)
Section 287 CrPC
C)
Section 383 CrPC
D)
Section 289 CrPC
The Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), 1973, provides specific procedures for filing appeals. Section 383 specifically addresses the 'Procedure for presenting the petition of appeal when the appellant is in jail'. According to this section, any person who is in prison may present their appeal to the officer-in-charge of the prison, who shall then forward the petition to the appropriate court.
Analysis of other options:
- Section 380 CrPC deals with the 'Right of appeal' in certain cases (specifically regarding the acquittal of an accused).
- Section 287 CrPC relates to the 'Procedure for the disposal of property' (under the chapter on Miscellaneous provisions regarding the trial).
- Section 289 CrPC relates to the 'Procedure in cases of previous conviction' (under the chapter on Miscellaneous provisions regarding the trial).
Therefore, Section 383 is the only section among the options that deals with the procedure for an appellant in jail to present a petition of appeal.
Defamation is related with
A)
Character of a person
B)
Reputation of a person
C)
Both (a) & (b)
D)
None of the above
Under the Indian Penal Code (IPC), specifically Section 499, defamation is defined as making or publishing any imputation concerning any person, intending to harm, or knowing or having reason to believe that such imputation will harm, the 'reputation' of such person. In legal terms, defamation is a tort or a crime that protects the 'reputation' of an individual—which is the estimation in which they are held by others—rather than their 'character' (which refers to the internal moral qualities of the person). While reputation and character are often used interchangeably in common speech, in the context of law and defamation, the actionable harm is the damage to the person's standing in society (reputation). Therefore, option (b) is the precise legal answer.
Unless he is produced before a magistrate, an arrested person cannot be detained by the police for more than
A)
12 hours
B)
24 hours
C)
36 hours
D)
48 hours
The correct answer is based on the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) and the Constitution of India.
1. Legal Provision: Section 57 of the CrPC explicitly states that a person arrested without a warrant cannot be detained in custody by the police for more than a period of twenty-four hours without being produced before a Magistrate.
2. Constitutional Safeguard: This statutory provision is a reflection of Article 22(2) of the Constitution of India, which guarantees that every person who is arrested and detained in custody shall be produced before the nearest magistrate within a period of twenty-four hours of such arrest.
3. Exclusion: The 24-hour period excludes the time necessary for the journey from the place of arrest to the magistrate's court.
Analysis of other options:
- Option (a) 12 hours: This is not the legal limit for detention before production.
- Option (c) 36 hours: This is incorrect; the law strictly mandates 24 hours.
- Option (d) 48 hours: This is incorrect; detaining a person for 48 hours without a magistrate's order would constitute illegal detention.
When a man does sexual intercourse with an unmarried girl of 18 years of age without her consent, he commits the offence of
A)
Sexual harassment
B)
Rape
C)
Offence under Section 354 of IPC
D)
No offence
Under the Indian Penal Code (IPC), specifically Section 375, 'Rape' is defined as sexual intercourse with a woman under certain circumstances, one of the primary conditions being that the act occurs 'against her will' or 'without her consent'.
1. **Age and Consent**: The girl in the question is 18 years old. In Indian law, the age of consent is 18. Since she is 18, the act is not automatically statutory rape (which applies to those under 18), but because the act was done 'without her consent', it falls squarely under the definition of rape under Section 375.
2. **Marital Status**: The fact that she is 'unmarried' is a descriptive detail but does not change the legal nature of the non-consensual act.
3. **Why other options are incorrect**:
- (a) **Sexual harassment** is a broader term often dealt with under the POSH Act or specific sections of the IPC, but non-consensual intercourse is specifically categorized as rape.
- (c) **Section 354 of IPC** deals with 'Assault or criminal force to woman with intent to outrage her modesty'. While rape involves outraging modesty, it is a more severe and specific offence governed by Section 375/376.
- (d) **No offence** is incorrect because non-consensual sexual intercourse is a grave criminal offence.
Infancy as an exception has been provided under
A)
Section 80 of IPC
B)
Section 81 of IPC
C)
Section 82 of IPC
D)
Section 84 of IPC
The Indian Penal Code (IPC) provides for 'General Exceptions' under Chapter IV. Infancy is recognized as a defense because a child below a certain age is deemed incapable of forming the 'mens rea' (guilty mind) required for a crime.
1. Section 82 of the IPC states: 'Nothing is an offence which is done by a child under seven years of age.' This is known as the doctrine of 'doli incapax' (incapable of crime), providing an absolute immunity to children under 7.
Why other options are incorrect:
- Section 80: Deals with 'Accident in doing a lawful act,' where an act is done without criminal intention or knowledge in the doing of a lawful act in a lawful manner.
- Section 81: Deals with 'Act likely to cause harm, but done without criminal intent, and to prevent other harm' (the doctrine of necessity).
- Section 84: Deals with 'Act of a person of unsound mind,' providing an exception for those who cannot understand the nature of the act due to insanity.
The power of chief judicial magistrate includes
A)
Imprisonment upto 7yrs and fine
B)
Imprisonment upto 6 yrs and fine
C)
Imprisonment upto 10 yrs and fine
D)
None of the above
A Chief Judicial Magistrate may pass a sentence up to seven years' imprisonment under the CrPC, apart from fine within statutory limits.
In a session trial, if an accused pleads guilty, the session judge
A)
Must convict and sentence him
B)
May convict him after recording the plea
C)
Forward the case to the judicial magistrate for sentencing
D)
Forward the case to the High Court
Under the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), specifically Section 229, when an accused person pleads guilty in a trial before a Court of Session, the judge has the discretion to convict them. The law states that the judge 'may', as a result of such a plea, convict the accused. The word 'may' indicates a discretionary power rather than a mandatory obligation (which would be 'shall'). The judge must first record the plea of the accused before proceeding to conviction.
Why other options are incorrect:
- Option (a) is incorrect because the judge is not mandated ('must') to convict; the judge may still proceed with the trial if they believe the plea was not voluntary or informed.
- Option (c) is incorrect because a Sessions Judge has the full authority to sentence a convict; there is no requirement to forward the case to a Magistrate for sentencing.
- Option (d) is incorrect because the High Court is an appellate or revisional court and does not handle the sentencing phase of a trial conducted by a Sessions Judge.
‘A’ runs away with ‘B’s wallet. B chases him and while chasing gives a severe lathi blow on A’s head to retrieve his wallet. A dies in hospital some days later because of head injury. B has committed
A)
No offence because he was exercising his right to private defence of property
B)
Murder
C)
Culpable homicide
D)
Grievous hurt
The core of this problem lies in the 'Right of Private Defence' under the Indian Penal Code (IPC).
1. Right of Private Defence of Property: Under Sections 96 to 106 of the IPC, a person has the right to protect their property. However, Section 99 explicitly states that there is no right of private defence in cases where there is time to have recourse to the protection of the public authorities, and more importantly, the right of private defence does not extend to the inflicting of more harm than it is necessary to inflict for the purpose of defence.
2. Proportionality: The right of private defence is a defensive right, not a punitive or retaliatory right. In this scenario, 'A' was running away with the wallet. The theft had already occurred, and 'A' was in flight. While 'B' has a right to retrieve his property, the use of a 'severe lathi blow' to the head—a vital organ—is disproportionate to the threat posed by a fleeing thief who is not attacking 'B'.
3. Culpability: Inflicting a severe blow to the head with a lathi is an act that is sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. Since the force used was excessive and unnecessary to retrieve a wallet from a fleeing person, the protection of private defence (Section 99) is forfeited.
4. Conclusion: Because the harm inflicted was grossly disproportionate to the objective (retrieving a wallet), and the act was likely intended to cause death or cause such bodily injury as is likely to cause death, it falls under the definition of Murder (Section 300 IPC).
Whoever voluntarily causes a woman with child to miscarry and with no good faith can be punished with
A)
Imprisonment for 3 years
B)
Imprisonment for 4 years
C)
Imprisonment for 2 years
D)
Imprisonment for 10 years
The question pertains to the offense of causing miscarriage under the Indian Penal Code (IPC). According to Section 312 of the IPC, whoever voluntarily causes a woman with child to miscarry, unless it is done in good faith to save the life of the woman, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both.
Step-by-step analysis:
1. The act described is 'voluntarily causing a woman with child to miscarry'.
2. The condition 'with no good faith' (meaning not to save the life of the mother) triggers the penal provision of Section 312.
3. The prescribed punishment under Section 312 is imprisonment for a term which may extend to 3 years.
Comparing this to the options:
- Option (a) 'Imprisonment for 3 years' matches the statutory limit of Section 312.
- Options (b), (c), and (d) do not align with the specific punishment prescribed for this basic offense under Section 312 of the IPC.
The doctrine of the master for the act of his servant is based on the maxim
A)
Res ipsa loquitur
B)
Respondeat superior
C)
Assentio mentium
D)
Persona non grata
The question refers to the legal principle of 'Vicarious Liability,' where an employer (master) is held responsible for the wrongful acts committed by an employee (servant) provided the act was done within the course of employment.
1. **Respondeat superior** is a Latin phrase meaning 'let the master answer.' This is the foundational maxim for vicarious liability in the Law of Torts.
2. **Why other options are incorrect:**
- **Res ipsa loquitur** means 'the thing speaks for itself.' It is a rule of evidence used in negligence cases where the accident's nature implies negligence without direct proof.
- **Assentio mentium** (or Consensus ad idem) refers to 'meeting of the minds,' which is a fundamental requirement for a valid contract in Contract Law, not Torts.
- **Persona non grata** is a diplomatic term meaning 'an unwelcome person,' used in international law to describe a foreign person prohibited from entering or remaining in a country.
A confession during the course of an investigation must be made before
A)
Sessions judge
B)
Judicial/metropolitan magistrate
C)
Executive magistrate
D)
Superintendent of Police
According to Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), any confession made during the course of an investigation must be recorded by a Metropolitan Magistrate or a Judicial Magistrate of the first class. The law mandates this to ensure that the confession is made voluntarily and without coercion or torture by the police.
Why other options are incorrect:
- Option (a) Sessions Judge: While a Sessions Judge has judicial powers, the specific provision for recording confessions during the investigation stage under Section 164 is assigned to Magistrates.
- Option (c) Executive Magistrate: Executive Magistrates are primarily concerned with administrative and law-and-order duties; they are not empowered to record confessions under Section 164.
- Option (d) Superintendent of Police: Confessions made to police officers are generally inadmissible as evidence in court under Section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, to prevent custodial torture. Therefore, a confession cannot be legally 'made' before a police officer for the purpose of being admissible as a judicial confession.
Which of the following is not correctly matched:
A)
Mens Rea – R vrs Prince
B)
Necessity – DPP vrs Bread
C)
Insanity – Mc Naughten case
D)
Intoxication – Basudeo vrs State of Pepsu
Option A: Mens Rea – R vrs Prince. This matches the standard definition or established fact for the concept asked.
Which section of IPC defined dacoity
A)
Section 378 of IPC
B)
Section 390 of IPC
C)
Section 391 of IPC
D)
None of these
Step-by-step analysis of the options based on the Indian Penal Code (IPC):
1. **Section 390 of IPC**: This section specifically defines 'Dacoity'. According to the IPC, when five or more persons conjointly commit or attempt to commit a robbery, such robbery or attempt to commit robbery is called 'dacoity'. Therefore, option (b) is correct.
2. **Section 378 of IPC**: This section defines 'Theft'. Theft involves the dishonest moving of movable property out of the possession of any person without that person's consent. Thus, option (a) is incorrect.
3. **Section 391 of IPC**: This section defines 'Dacoity with Murder'. It specifies the punishment and legal consequences when any one of five or more persons committing dacoity commits murder. It describes a specific form of dacoity rather than defining the general act of dacoity itself. Thus, option (c) is incorrect.
Conclusion: The definition of dacoity is explicitly provided in Section 390.