← Labour Officer
Past Questions
Summons issued by a court shall be
A)
In writing
B)
In duplicate
C)
Signed and sealed by the presiding officer of the court
D)
All of the above
The requirements for a summons issued by a court are explicitly laid down in Section 62 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), 1973. According to Section 62: 'Every summons issued by a Court shall be in writing, in duplicate, signed by the presiding officer of such Court, and shall bear the seal of the Court.'
Breaking down the options:
- Option (a) 'In writing': Required by Section 62.
- Option (b) 'In duplicate': Required by Section 62 (this allows one copy to be served to the person and the second copy to be returned to the court with an endorsement of service).
- Option (c) 'Signed and sealed by the presiding officer of the court': Required by Section 62 to ensure the authenticity and legal validity of the judicial order.
Since all three conditions are mandatory legal requirements for a valid summons, option (d) is the correct choice.
Under Section 401 of the CrPC
A)
A total stranger cannot move an application for revision
B)
The revision can be done without giving notice to the parties
C)
A party who is in contempt of Court cannot be heard
D)
The Court cannot interfere if the case is pending
Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) deals with the High Court's power of revision.
1. Analysis of Option (a): Under Section 401(1), the High Court may call for and examine the records of any proceeding. However, when a revision is sought via an application, the 'aggrieved party' must be the one moving the court. A 'total stranger' (someone who is not a party to the case and has no legal interest or locus standi) cannot maintain a revision petition. This is a settled principle of law regarding the locus standi in revisional jurisdiction.
2. Analysis of Option (b): This is incorrect. Section 401(2) explicitly states that the High Court shall not exercise its revisional powers to convert a finding of acquittal into one of conviction, or to enhance a sentence, except upon the application of the complainant or the Public Prosecutor, and in such cases, the party must be given notice and an opportunity to be heard.
3. Analysis of Option (c): This is incorrect. While contempt of court is a serious matter, it does not automatically strip a party of their statutory right to seek a legal remedy like revision, provided the legal requirements of the section are met.
4. Analysis of Option (d): This is incorrect. The High Court can exercise revisional powers even if the case is pending in a lower court, provided it is examining the legality, propriety, or correctness of a specific interlocutory or final order passed during those proceedings.
For abduction, the person abducted should be
A)
Below 16 years of age
B)
Below 18 years of age
C)
Insane person
D)
Of any age
Under the Indian Penal Code (IPC), 'Abduction' is defined in Section 362. According to this section, whoever by force compels, or induces with any deceitful means, or under any threat, compels a person to go from any place, is said to abduct that person. Unlike 'Kidnapping' (defined in Sections 359-361), which specifically applies to minors (below 16 for males and below 18 for females) or persons of unsound mind, 'Abduction' does not specify any age limit or mental state for the victim. Therefore, a person of any age can be abducted if the elements of force, deceit, or threat are present.
Comparison:
- Kidnapping: Age is a critical element (below 16/18).
- Abduction: Age is irrelevant; the focus is on the means used (force/deceit/threat).
Powers of the Supreme Court to transfer cases and appeals from one High Court to another High Court can be done only on the application from
A)
Attorney General of India
B)
Advocate General
C)
Senior Advocate
D)
Any advocate practicing
The power of the Supreme Court of India to transfer cases and appeals from one High Court to another is governed by Section 25 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), 1908. According to Section 25(2), the Supreme Court shall give due consideration to the application of the Attorney General of India for the transfer of any such case or appeal. While the Supreme Court has the inherent power to transfer cases 'suo motu' (on its own motion) or upon an application by a party to the suit, among the specific professional roles listed in the options, the Attorney General of India is the only statutory authority explicitly mentioned in the Code of Civil Procedure as having the standing to apply for such a transfer.
- Option (b) Advocate General represents a State government, not the Union, and does not have this specific statutory power under Section 25 CPC.
- Options (c) and (d) refer to private practitioners; while they may represent a party applying for transfer, they cannot apply in their own capacity as a legal officer of the state/union to trigger this specific power of the Supreme Court.
Which one of the following is not an ingredient in mens rea
A)
Strict liability
B)
Public nuisance
C)
Ignorance of law is not an excuse-maxim
D)
All are correct
Step-by-step reasoning:
1. Understanding Mens Rea: 'Mens rea' (guilty mind) is a fundamental principle of criminal law which states that an act does not make a person guilty unless their mind is also guilty. It refers to the intention, knowledge, recklessness, or negligence of the perpetrator.
2. Analyzing Option (a) Strict Liability: Strict liability refers to legal responsibility for damages or injury even if the person was not at fault or did not have a 'guilty mind' (mens rea). In strict liability offenses, the prosecution does not need to prove mens rea to secure a conviction. Therefore, strict liability is the opposite of mens rea and is not an ingredient of it.
3. Analyzing Option (b) Public Nuisance: While public nuisance is a type of offense, it often falls under categories where specific intent is less critical than the act itself, but it is not a 'component' or 'ingredient' of the concept of mens rea.
4. Analyzing Option (c) Ignorance of law is not an excuse: This is the legal maxim 'Ignorantia juris non excusat'. This maxim supports the application of mens rea by establishing that a person cannot claim lack of intent/knowledge simply because they were unaware of the law.
5. Conclusion: Since strict liability specifically removes the requirement for mens rea, it is the most accurate answer to 'which is NOT an ingredient in mens rea'.
A person is stated to be partially incapax under section 83, IPC if he is aged
A)
Above seven years and under twelve years
B)
Above seven years and under ten years
C)
Above seven years and under sixteen years
D)
Above seven years and under eighteen years
Under the Indian Penal Code (IPC), the concept of 'doli incapax' (incapable of crime) and 'partial incapax' is handled through age-based presumptions.
1. Section 82 IPC establishes absolute immunity (doli incapax) for children under seven years of age.
2. Section 83 IPC deals with children who have attained the age of seven but have not completed twelve. This is known as 'qualified' or 'partial' immunity.
According to Section 83, an act is not an offence if it is done by a child above seven years of age and under twelve, provided that the child has not attained sufficient maturity of understanding to judge the nature and consequences of their conduct on that occasion. Therefore, the age bracket for partial incapax under Section 83 is above seven and under twelve years.
- Option b is incorrect as ten years is not the statutory limit.
- Option c is incorrect as sixteen years is not the statutory limit for this section.
- Option d is incorrect as eighteen years refers to the age of majority, not the specific threshold for Section 83.
House trespass is
A)
Lurking house trespass
B)
Lurking house trespass by night
C)
House breaking
D)
All of the above
Under the Indian Penal Code (IPC), 'House-trespass' is the foundational offense upon which more aggravated forms of trespass are built.
1. House-trespass is defined under Section 442 as committing trespass by entering into or remaining in any building, tent, or vessel used as a human dwelling.
2. Lurking house-trespass (Section 443) is a specific, more serious form of house-trespass where the offender takes precautions to conceal their presence.
3. Lurking house-trespass by night (Section 444) is an even more aggravated form of house-trespass occurring during the night.
4. House-breaking (Section 445) is a specific manner of committing house-trespass (e.g., entering through a passage not intended for human entrance).
Since Lurking house-trespass, Lurking house-trespass by night, and House-breaking are all specialized species or aggravated forms of the general offense of 'House-trespass', they all fall under the umbrella of house-trespass. Therefore, option (d) is the correct answer.
Summary trial may be conducted by
A)
Any chief judicial magistrate
B)
Any metropolitan magistrate
C)
Any magistrate of first class empowered by HC
D)
All the above
Under Section 260 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), 1973, the power to conduct a summary trial is vested in specific judicial officers. According to the statute, a summary trial may be conducted by:
1. Any Chief Judicial Magistrate (CJM).
2. Any Metropolitan Magistrate.
3. Any Judicial Magistrate of the first class specially empowered by the High Court.
Since options (a), (b), and (c) all accurately list the categories of magistrates authorized under Section 260 to conduct summary trials, the correct answer is 'All the above'.
Possession of forged counterfeit currency notes of bank notes is punishable under
A)
Section 498A of IPC
B)
Section 489 B of IPC
C)
Section 489 C of IPC
D)
Section 489 D of IPC
The Indian Penal Code (IPC) contains a specific series of sections (489A to 489E) dealing with offenses relating to currency notes and bank notes.
1. **Section 489B** deals with using as genuine a forged or counterfeit currency note or bank note. It focuses on the 'use' or 'uttering' of the note.
2. **Section 489C** specifically addresses the 'possession' of forged or counterfeit currency notes or bank notes. It states that whoever possesses any forged or counterfeit currency note or bank note, knowing it to be forged or counterfeit, shall be punished. This matches the requirement of the question.
3. **Section 489D** deals with making or selling instruments for forging currency notes or bank notes (the tools used for counterfeiting).
4. **Section 498A** is entirely unrelated to currency; it deals with cruelty by a husband or relatives of husband towards a woman.
Therefore, the possession of forged counterfeit currency notes is punishable under Section 489C of the IPC.
Where an application for transfer has been dismissed and is found to be frivolous or vexatious, the SC may order the applicant to pay appropriate compensation not exceeding
A)
Rs 5000
B)
Rs 2000
C)
Rs 1000
D)
Rs 500
This question pertains to the procedural rules regarding the transfer of cases to the Supreme Court of India. Under the specific rules governing the transfer of certain cases (specifically related to the Code of Civil Procedure and the Supreme Court Rules), when an application for transfer is dismissed and the Court finds that the application was frivolous or vexatious, it has the power to impose costs as a deterrent. According to the prescribed legal framework for such applications, the maximum amount of compensation/costs that the Supreme Court may order the applicant to pay in such instances is Rs 1,000. Options a, b, and d are incorrect as they do not align with the statutory limit set for this specific procedural penalty.
A magistrate has the power under CrPC to direct the police to investigate into
A)
A non cognisable offence
B)
A cognisable offence
C)
Only a non cognisable offence, as in a cognisable offence the police is under a duty to investigate
D)
Both (a) & (b)
The power of a Magistrate to direct an investigation is primarily governed by Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC).
1. **Section 156(3) CrPC**: This section explicitly states that any Magistrate empowered under Section 156(1) may order such an investigation as he thinks fit. Since Section 156(1) deals with the police's power to investigate 'cognisable cases', the Magistrate's power under 156(3) applies specifically to cognisable offences.
2. **Non-Cognisable Offences**: Under Section 155(2) of the CrPC, a police officer cannot investigate a non-cognisable offence without the order of a Magistrate. However, this is a 'permission' or 'authorization' to investigate, whereas the specific power to 'direct' the police to investigate (often used when the police refuse to register an FIR) is associated with cognisable offences under Section 156(3).
3. **Analysis of Options**:
- Option (a) is incorrect because the specific power to 'direct' an investigation (as a mandate) is typically discussed in the context of 156(3) for cognisable offences.
- Option (b) is correct as per Section 156(3).
- Option (c) is incorrect because while police have a duty to investigate cognisable offences, the Magistrate retains the judicial power to direct them to do so if they fail to act.
- Option (d) is incorrect because the legal mechanisms for cognisable and non-cognisable offences are distinct under the CrPC.
Maintenance and use of case diary is mentioned under
A)
Sec 161 CrPC
B)
Section 172 CrPC
C)
Section 125 CrPC
D)
Section 173 CrPC
The correct answer is Section 172 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC).
1. **Section 172 CrPC (Diary of proceedings in investigation):** This section explicitly mandates that every police officer making an investigation shall maintain a day-by-day diary of his proceedings. This is known as the 'Case Diary'. It records the steps taken during the investigation, the places visited, and the circumstances encountered.
2. **Why other options are incorrect:**
- **Section 161 CrPC:** This section deals with the examination of witnesses by police. It allows the police to examine persons acquainted with the facts of the case, but it does not govern the maintenance of the case diary.
- **Section 125 CrPC:** This section pertains to the maintenance of wives, children, and parents (civil nature within criminal procedure).
- **Section 173 CrPC:** This section deals with the 'Report of police officer on completion of investigation' (commonly known as the Charge Sheet or Final Report), which is the end product of the investigation, whereas the case diary (Sec 172) is the record of the process during the investigation.
The revisional jurisdiction is derived from
A)
Section 397-401 of the Code
B)
Article 227 of the Constitution of India
C)
Both (a) & (b)
D)
High Court
Revisional jurisdiction refers to the power of a higher court to review the records of a lower court to ensure the legality, propriety, and correctness of a finding, sentence, or order. This power is derived from two primary sources in the Indian legal system:
1. **Statutory Power (Section 397-401 of the CrPC):** The Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) explicitly grants revisional powers to the High Court and the Sessions Judge under Sections 397 to 401. This is a statutory right provided by the legislature.
2. **Constitutional Power (Article 227 of the Constitution of India):** Article 227 grants the High Court 'power of superintendence' over all courts and tribunals throughout the territories in relation to which it exercises jurisdiction. This constitutional power is broader than the statutory power under the CrPC and allows the High Court to ensure that subordinate courts act within the bounds of their authority.
Since the High Court exercises revisional control through both the specific provisions of the CrPC and its overarching constitutional mandate under Article 227, option (c) is the most comprehensive and correct answer.
Which one is not a cognisable offence
A)
All serious offences
B)
Offences which are punishable with imprisonment for 3 years or more
C)
Police has no authority to arrest without warrant
D)
Waging war against the government
Under the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), a 'cognisable offence' is defined as an offence for which a police officer may arrest the accused without a warrant.
1. Option (a) 'All serious offences' generally refers to cognisable offences, as the law classifies grave crimes (like murder or rape) as cognisable to allow immediate police action.
2. Option (b) 'Offences which are punishable with imprisonment for 3 years or more' is a general rule of thumb in the Indian legal system; most offences punishable by 3 years or more are categorized as cognisable.
3. Option (c) 'Police has no authority to arrest without warrant' is the definition of a NON-COGNISABLE offence. Therefore, this is the correct answer to the question 'Which one is NOT a cognisable offence'.
4. Option (d) 'Waging war against the government' is one of the most serious crimes possible and is strictly a cognisable offence.
The police can proceed to investigate
A)
On the information received from any person as to the commission of any cognisable offence
B)
Even without any such information but if they have reason to suspect the commission of any cognisable offence
C)
Both (a) & (b)
D)
None of the above
Under the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), the police have the authority to investigate cognisable offences (offences for which a police officer may arrest without a warrant).
1. Option (a) refers to the standard procedure where an investigation is triggered by a First Information Report (FIR) or information received from a person regarding the commission of a cognisable offence (Section 154 CrPC).
2. Option (b) refers to the police's inherent power to act on their own knowledge or suspicion. If a police officer has reason to suspect that a cognisable offence has been committed, they are not required to wait for a formal complaint from a third party to initiate an investigation or take preventive/detective action.
Since both the receipt of information and the existence of reasonable suspicion are valid grounds for the police to proceed with an investigation into a cognisable offence, option (c) is the correct choice.
Section 304 of IPC explain
A)
Punishment for murder by life convict
B)
Punishment for culpable homicide not amounting to murder
C)
Punishment for culpable homicide amounting to murder
D)
None of these
Step-by-step reasoning:
1. Analysis of Section 300 IPC: Section 300 defines 'Murder'. If a person commits culpable homicide that falls under the definitions of murder, they are punished under Section 302.
2. Analysis of Section 304 IPC: This section specifically prescribes the punishment for 'Culpable Homicide not amounting to murder'. This occurs when the act falls under the definition of culpable homicide (Section 299) but does not satisfy the specific criteria of murder (Section 300), or falls under the exceptions listed in Section 300.
3. Evaluating Options:
- Option (a) is incorrect; there is no specific section titled 'Punishment for murder by life convict' in this context.
- Option (b) is correct as it matches the exact title and legal application of Section 304 IPC.
- Option (c) is incorrect because culpable homicide amounting to murder is punished under Section 302 IPC.
Offences not triable summarily
A)
Offences punishable with death
B)
Theft
C)
Lurking house trespass
D)
Imprisonment for life
Under the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), specifically Section 260, summary trials are intended for petty offences to ensure speedy disposal of cases. The law explicitly prohibits the summary trial of certain serious offences. According to Section 260(1), no sentence of imprisonment for a term exceeding twenty-five years (in some versions/contexts) or more specifically, offences that are punishable with death, imprisonment for life, or imprisonment for a term exceeding two years cannot be tried summarily.
Analyzing the options:
- Option (a) 'Offences punishable with death' are the most serious crimes and are strictly prohibited from being tried summarily.
- Option (d) 'Imprisonment for life' is also not triable summarily. However, in the context of standard multiple-choice questions for this exam, 'Offences punishable with death' is the primary category of non-summary trials.
- Note: In many legal frameworks, both (a) and (d) are correct as they both exceed the punishment threshold for summary trials. However, usually, the question asks for the most definitive example or follows a specific textbook phrasing. Between death and life imprisonment, death is the ultimate non-summary offence.
- Options (b) Theft and (c) Lurking house trespass can often be tried summarily depending on the value of the property stolen or the specific circumstances of the trespass, as they may fall under the punishment threshold allowed for summary trials.
Arrest of a person might be necessary inorder to
A)
Secure attendance of an accused
B)
Obtain correct name and address
C)
Take preventive or precautionary measure
D)
All of the above
Under the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), specifically guided by the principles laid down in Section 41 and reinforced by judicial precedents (such as the landmark Supreme Court judgment in Arnesh Kumar vs. State of Bihar), an arrest is not mandatory merely because an offense is cognizable. An arrest is considered 'necessary' only when specific conditions are met. These conditions include: 1. To ensure the presence of the accused at the trial (Secure attendance), 2. To prevent the accused from tampering with evidence or threatening witnesses, 3. To verify the identity of the person (Obtain correct name and address), and 4. To prevent the commission of further offenses (Preventive or precautionary measures). Since options a, b, and c all represent valid legal grounds for the necessity of an arrest, option d is the correct choice.
When the master is held liable for the wrongful act of his servant, the liability is called
A)
Strict liablity
B)
Vicarious liability
C)
Tortious liability
D)
Absolute liablity
Step-by-step reasoning: 1. The question asks for the specific legal term used when an employer (master) is held responsible for the wrongful acts committed by an employee (servant). 2. In the Law of Torts, the doctrine of 'Respondent Superior' (let the master answer) establishes that a master is liable for the torts committed by their servant provided the act was done 'in the course of employment'. This specific type of indirect liability is known as 'Vicarious Liability'. 3. Analysis of other options: (a) Strict Liability refers to liability that does not depend on actual negligence or intent to harm (e.g., Rylands v Fletcher). (c) Tortious Liability is a general term for any liability arising from a tort; it is not specific to the master-servant relationship. (d) Absolute Liability is a stricter form of strict liability where no exceptions are allowed, typically applied to hazardous industries (e.g., MC Mehta v Union of India). Therefore, option (b) is the precise legal term for this scenario.
Reference to High Court is mentioned under
A)
Section 395 CrPC
B)
Section 400 CrPC
C)
Section 401 CrPC
D)
Section 375 CrPC
Under the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), Section 400 specifically deals with the 'Reference to High Court'. This section empowers a Court to refer a case to the High Court if it believes that a question of law is involved which is necessary for the disposal of the case and that the law is settled or not settled.
Analysis of other options:
- Section 395 CrPC: Deals with the 'Cancellation of conviction' or the power of the appellate court to reverse a finding.
- Section 401 CrPC: Deals with the 'Powers of High Court as to bail' (specifically the power to grant bail or set aside an order refusing bail).
- Section 375 CrPC: Deals with the 'Appeal to High Court' from an order of acquittal.
Period of limitation for setting aside an ex parte decree
A)
10 days
B)
30 days
C)
60 days
D)
90 days
An application to set aside an ex parte decree is generally governed by a 30-day limitation period under the Limitation Act.
For a suit filed by or on behalf of Central government or any State government, the period of limitation is
A)
one year
B)
three years
C)
twelve years
D)
thirty years
Article 112 provides a 30-year limitation period for suits by or on behalf of the Central or State Government.
Section 27 of the limitation Act applies to
A)
suits
B)
appeals
C)
execution application
D)
all the above
Option A: suits. This follows the applicable statutory or doctrinal rule.
If the money suit filed within three years from the date on which cause of action arises, then the suit
A)
does not relate to Limitation Act
B)
is not barred by limitation
C)
is barred by limitation
D)
depends on application for condonation of delay
A money suit filed within the prescribed three-year limitation period is not barred by limitation.
A suit for possession of immovable property based on title can be filed
A)
within one year
B)
within three years
C)
within twelve years
D)
within six months
Option C: within twelve years. This matches the standard definition or established fact for the concept asked.