CBSE Questions for Class 11 Commerce Legal Studies Judiciary - Constitutional Civil Criminal Courts And Processes Quiz 10 - MCQExams.com

PRINCIPLE: There are legal provisions to give authority to a person to use necessary force against an assailant or wrong-doer for the purpose of protecting one's own body and  as property as also another's body and property when immediate aid from the state machinery is not readily available; and in so doing he is not answerable in law for his deeds.
FACTS: X, a rich man was taking his morning walk. Due to the threats of robbers in the locality, he was carrying his piston also. From the opposite direction, another person was coming with a ferocious looking dog. All of a sudden, the dog which was on a chain held by the owner, started barking at X. The owner of the dog called the dog to be calm. They crossed each other without any problem. But suddenly, the dog started barking again from a distance. X immediately took out his pistol. By seeing the pistol, the dog stopped barking and started walking with the owner. However, X shot at the dog which died instantly. The owner of the dog files a complaint against X, which in due course reached the Magistrate Court. X pleads the right of private defence. Decide.
  • There was no imminent danger to X as the dog stopped barking and was walking with the owner. Hence, shooting it amounted to excessive use of the right of private defence and hence liable for killing the dog
  • The right of private defence is available to persons against assailants or wrong-doers only and a dog does not fall in the category
  • Shooting a fierce dog is not to be brought under the criminal law. So the case should be dismissed
  • As there was no guarantee that the dog would not bark again, shooting it was a percautionary measure and hence within the right available to X under law
LEGAL PRINCIPLES: Killing is not murder if the offender, whilst deprived of the power of self-control by intense and sudden provocation, causes the death of the person who gave the provocation.

FACTUAL SITUATION: 'A', a man found his girl friend sleeping in her own bedroom, with another man named 'B'. 'A' did not do anything but went to his home, picked a gun and cartridges, returned to the girl friend's bedroom with loaded gun but found the empty place. After fifteen days he saw his girl friend dining in a restaurant. Without waiting for even a second, 'A' fired five bullets in his girl friend who died on the spot.
  • 'A' could have killed both 'B' and his girl friend.
  • 'A' did not kill his girl friend under intense and sudden provocation.
  • 'A' could have killed 'B' instead of his girl friend.
  • 'A' killed his girl friend under intense and sudden provocation.
LEGAL PRINCIPLE: Intentional application of force to another person is actionable in law.

FACTUAL SITUATION: P and D are unknown to each other. When P is about to sit on a chair, D intentionally pulls it away as a result of which P falls on to the floor and is injured.
  • D is not liable as such jokes are common in the society.
  • D is not liable as P is not seriously injured.
  • D is liable as he intentionally caused injury to P.
  • D is not liable as the injury is not directly caused.
PRINCIPLE: When a person falsifies something with the intent to deceive another person or entity is forgery and is a criminal act. Changing of adding the signature on a document, deleting it, using or possessing the 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.
FACT: John was 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.
  • 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 not 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
LEGAL PRINCIPLE: A person is said to have committed assault when an apprehension is caused in the mind of a person that he is about to use physical force against his body.

FACTUAL SITUATION: 'A' abuses 'B' while he was sitting in a moving train, by aggressively shaking his fists when 'B' was standing on the railway platform at a distance.
  • 'A' has caused fear of assault in the mind of 'B'.
  • 'A' has committed assault against 'B'.
  • 'A' has not committed assault against 'B'.
  • 'A' has caused apprehension of assault in the mind of 'B'.
LEGAL PRINCIPLE: A person is said to abet the doing of a thing when he instigates any other person to do that thing. Mere acquiescence, however, does not amount to instigation.

FACTUAL SITUATION: A says to B:"I am going to kill C". And B replies: "Do as you wish and take the consequences"; whereafter A kills C.
  • B is jointly liable with A for killing C.
  • B has not abetted A to kill C.
  • B has abetted A by conspiracy.
  • B abetted A to kill C.
LEGAL PRINCIPLE: Nothing is an offence, which is done by accident of misfortune, and without any criminal intention or knowledge in the doing of a lawful act in a lawful manner by lawful means and with proper care and caution.

FACTUAL SITUATION: A takes up a gun, not knowing whether it is loaded of not, points it playfully at B and pulls the trigger. Consequently B falls dead.

Decide.
  • B's death is accidental, as A did not have the knowledge that the gun is loaded.
  • B's death is accidental, as A had no intention to kill B.
  • B's death is accidental as A was just pointing the gun playfully at B.
  • B's death is not accidental, as there was want of proper care and caution on the part of A.
The question consist of two statements, one labelled as PRINCIPLE and other as FACT. You are to examine the principle and apply it to the given facts carefully and select the best option.

PRINCIPLE: Nothing is an offence which is done by a person who, at the time of doing it, by reason of unsoundness of mind, is incapable of knowing the nature of the act, or that he is doing what is either wrong or contrary to law.
FACT: 'A' takes his son 'B' who is three years old, for a bath to the well. He throws his son inside the well so that he could have a good bath. After 10 minutes he also jumped in the well to take a bath and take his son out of the well. Both were rescued by the villagers but his son was found dead.
  • 'A' has committed culpable homicide not amounting to murder.
  • 'A 'has committed a murder.
  • 'A' has done no offence as he can plead the defence of unsoundness of mind.
  • 'A's family should be responsible for this incident to let him to take child to the well.
LEGAL PRINCIPLES:
(1) Whoever causes death by doing an act with the intention of causing death or with the intention of causing such bodily injury as is likely to cause death or with the knowledge that he is likely by such act to cause death commits the offence of culpable homicide.
(2) Mens rea and actus reus must concur to result in a crime which is punishable by the law.
FACTUAL SITUATION: A and B went for shooting. A knows Z to be behind a bush. B does not know it. A induces B to fire at the bush. B fires and kills Z. Has an offence been committed?
DECISION will be _____.
  • A had rea but no actus reus. B had actus reus but no mens rea. No one is guilty
  • A induced B to fire at the bush with the knowledge that Z is there. A is guilty of culpable homicide but B is not guilty of any offence
  • Both A and B are guilty
  • None of the above
LEGAL PRINCIPLE: Whoever does not arrest the killer and report the matter to the concerned authorities commits an offence.
FACTUAL SITUATION: 'A', a woman sees 'B', another woman, killing a third woman 'C'. 'A 'neither attempted to arrest 'B' nor informed the concerned authorities.
  • 'B' has not committed an offence
  • 'A' has not committed an offence
  • 'B' has committed an offence
  • 'A has committed an offence
LEGAL PRINCIPLE: Whoever takes away any movable thing from the land of any person without the person's consent, he is said to have committed theft.

FACTUAL SITUATION: During his visit to the house of 'C',' A' asked 'B', the son of 'C', to accompany 'A' to the forest. Neither 'A' nor 'B' informed 'C in this regard. 'B' accompanied 'A 'to the forest.
  • 'A' has not committed theft.
  • 'A 'has not committed theft till 'B 'did not accompany him.
  • 'A' has committed theft.
  • 'A' has committed theft; as soon as he entered the house of 'C'.
LEGAL PRINCIPLES:
(1) The crime of kidnapping involves taking someone away from the custody of their lawful guardian.
(2) The crime of abduction involves inducing or forcing somebody to go away from some place against their will.
FACTUAL SITUATION: A steals B's slave. It is a crime?
DECISION:
I. Kidnapping
II. Abduction
III. Neither
REASON:
(A) Slavery is illegal
(B) A has taken him away from B's lawful custody
(C) A has forced somebody to go with him against his will
DECISION will be ______.
  • I(B)
  • II(C)
  • III(A)
  • II(A)
PRINCIPLE: Whoever, intending to take dishonestly any movable property out of the possession of any person without that person's consent moves that property, such taking is said to commit theft.
FACT: Ramu cuts down a tree in Rinku's ground, with the intention of dishonestly taking the tree out of Rinku's possession without Rinku's consent. He could not take the tree away.
  • Ramu can be prosecuted for theft.
  • Ramu cannot be prosecuted for theft.
  • Ramu can be prosecuted for attempt to theft.
  • Ramu has neither committed theft nor attempt to commit thief.
LEGAL PRINCIPLES:
(i) Everyone has a right to defend their life and property against criminal harm provided it is not possible to approach public authorities and more harm than is necessary has been caused to avert the danger.
(2) Nothing is an offence which is done in the exercise of the right of private defence.
FACTUAL SITUATION: The accused found the deceased engaged in sexual intercourse with his 15 year old daughter The accused assaulted the deceased on the head with a spade which resulted in his death. Accused claimed private defence and the prosecution claimed that the sexual intercourse was with the consent of the daughter. Here,
DECISION will be _____.
  • Accused is entitled to the right of private defence since the girl was only 15 years old
  • Accused exceeded the right of private defence
  • Accused is not entitled to private defence as the intercourse was consensual
  • Accused is not entitled to private defence as the right of private defence is available for defending one's life and property only
LEGAL PRINCIPLE: Causing of an effect by an act and partly by an omission is an offence.
FACTUAL SITUATION: 'A' confined her daughter 'D' in a room. 'A' also did not provide any food to her daughter 'D'. Consequently, 'D' died of starvation.
  • 'A' committed the offence of causing death of 'D'.
  • 'A' committed the offence of confining 'D'.
  • 'A' committed the offence of not providing food to 'D'.
  • 'A' committed no offence.
LEGAL PRINCIPLE: One who dishonestly misappropriates or converts to his own use of sells any movable property belonging to another, is guilty of the offence of misappropriation.

FACTUAL SITUATION: 'A' takes property belonging to 'Z' out of Z's possession, in good faith, believing when he takes it, that the property belongs to himself. Subsequently, A on discovering his mistake, without disclosing the actual facts, dishonestly sells the property to a stranger.
  • 'A' is not guilty because when he tool the property, he believed in good faith that it belonged to him.
  • 'A' is guilty of an offence of misappropriation.
  • 'A' may be guilty of theft but not for misappropriation.
  • 'A' is not guilty as the property can be recovered from the stranger.
LEGAL PRINCIPLE: Law does not penalize for wrongs which are of trivial nature.
FACTUAL SITUATION: In the course of a discussion. 'A' threw a file of papers at the table which touched the hands of 'B'.
  • 'A' is liable for insulting 'B'.
  • 'A 'is not liable for his act, as it was of trivial nature.
  • 'A' is liable for his act, as the file touched B's hand.
  • 'A 'is liable for his act, as it assaulted 'B'.
PRINCIPLE: Whoever drives any vehicle, or rides, on any public way in manner so rash or negligent as to endanger human life, or to be likely to cause hurt or injury to any other person, has committed an offence, which shall be punished in accordance with the law
FACTS: 'X', a truck driver, driving his vehicle rashly and negligently at a high speed climbed the footpath and hit 'Y', a pedestrian, from behind causing his death.
  • 'X' not guilty of rash and negligent driving
  • 'Y' should have taken sufficient care on the footpath
  • 'X' is guilty of rash and negligent driving
  • 'X' is only in part guilty or rash and negligent
LEGAL PRINCIPLE: Whoever dishonestly misappropriates or converts to his own use any movable property is guilty of criminal misappropriation of property.
FACTUAL SITUATION: A finds a government promisory note belonging to Z bearing a blank endorsement. A knowing that the note belongs to Z, pledges it with a banker as a security for a loan, intending to restore it to Z at a future time. Has A committed criminal misappropriation?
DECISION will be ______.
  • Yes, since he deprived Z from using his property and used it for his own use
  • No, since he intended to return the property to Z in the future
  • No, it is theft and not criminal misappropriation
  • Yes, since he deprived Z from using his property
PRINCIPLE: 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. 
FACTS: Roshan along with two of his friends. Tushar and Tarang proceeded to the house of Darshan in order to average an insult made by the brother of Darshan. They opened fire on the members of Dharshan's family. It was found that the shots of Roshan did not hit anyone, but the shots of Tushar and Tarang succeeded is killing Darshan.
  • Roshan was not liable for the offence of murder of Darshan, as Roshan's shots did not hit Darshan
  • Only Tushar and Taran were liable for the offence of murder of Darshan, as their slots hit Darshan
  • Roshan along with Tushar and Tarang was liable for the offence of murder of Darshan
  • Roshan was liable to a lesser extent comparing to his friends for the offence of murder of darshan, as Roshan's shots did not hit Darshar
PRINCIPLE: Whoever causes death by doing an act with the intention of causing death, or with the intention of causing such bodily injury as is likely to cause death, or with the knowledge that he is likely by such act to cause death, commits the offence of culpable homicide.
FACTS: 'A' knows 'Z' to be behind a bush. 'B' does not know it. 'A' , intending to cause, or knowing it to be likely to cause Z's death, induces B to fire at the bush. B fires and kills 'Z'.
  • 'B' has committed the offence of culpable homicide
  • 'A' has no intention to use criminal force to 'Z'
  • 'A' has used force with the consent of 'Z'
  • None of the above 
LEGAL PRINCIPLES: Whoever dishonestly takes away any property from the possession of another, with an intention of such taking away, without his permission is liable for theft.
FACTUAL SITUATION: Raja, a famous gangster, moves into an apartment in Kankurgachi, Calcutta. There, he discovers that the previous owner of the apartment had left behind a pair of beautiful combs and confused as to whom he should be returning them to, he decides to retain them and starts using them. The previous owner of the combs gets to know this and registers an FIR for theft against Raja. Is Raja liable?
DECISION will be ______.
  • Raja is liable for theft as he failed to return the property even when he knew it was someone else's property
  • Raja is not liable as he has not taken it away from anyone else's possession and there was no dishonest intention
  • Raja is liable as you don't expect anything better from a gangster
  • Raja is not liable as he was confused as to whom he should be returning the property to
PRINCIPLE: Nothing is an offence, which is done by a person who is bound by law to do it.
FACTS: 'A', a police officer, without warrant, apprehends 'Z', who has committed murder.
  • 'A' is guilty of the offence of wrongful confinement.
  • 'A' is not guilty of the offence of wrongful confinement.
  • 'A' many be guilty of the offence of wrongful restraint.
  • 'A 'cannot apprehend Z without a warrant issued by a court of law.
PRINCIPLE: Whoever, intending to take dishonestly any movable property out of the possession of any person without that person's consent, moves that property in order to such taking, is said to commit theft.
FACTS: 'Z' going on a journey, entrusts his plate to the possession of 'A', the keeper of a warehouse, till 'Z' shall return. Then, 'A' carries the plate to a goldsmith and sells it.
  • A has committed theft
  • A has not committed theft
  • A lawfully sold the plate to the goldsmith
  • None of the above
PRINCIPLE: No communication made in good faith is an offence by reason of any harm to the person, to whom it is made, if it is made for the benefit of that person.
FACT: A, a surgeon, in good faith, communicates to a patient his opinion that he cannot live. The patient dies in consequences of the shock.
  • A has committed the offence of causing death of his patient
  • A has not committed the offence of causing death of his patient
  • A has only partially committed the offence of causing death of his patient
  • None of the above
LEGAL PRINCIPLE: Acts done by children below 12 years of age are not offences if they are not mature enough to understand the nature and consequences of the acts.
FACTUAL SITUATIONS: Sahil, a child of 10 years of age, finds a gold coin in his uncle's home. He gives the coin to his sister Rachna who is eight years old. The uncle reports the matter to the police. The police conducts a search. During the investigation the police finds the gold coin kept in the toys of Rachna tells the police that Sahil had given the coin to her.
DECISION will be _____.
  • Sahil is guilty of theft
  • Rachna is guilty of theft
  • Both Sahil and Rachna are guilty of theft
  • Neither Sahil nor Rachna is guilty of theft
PRINCIPLE: Whoever, being legally bound to furnish information on any subject to any public servant, as such, furnishes, as true, information on the subject which he knows or has reason to believe to be false, has committed a punishable offence of furnishing false information.
FACTS: Sawant, a landholder, knowing of the commission of a murder within the limits of his estate, wilfully misinforms the Magistrate of the district that the death has occurred by accident in consequence of the bite of a snake.
  • Sawant is not guilty of the offence of furnishing false information to the Magistrate
  • Sawant is guilty of the offence of furnishing false information to the Magistrate
  • Sawant is not legally bound to furnish true information to the Magistrate
  • Sawant has the discretion to furnish true information to the Magistrate, as the murder was committed within the limits of his estate
PRINCIPLE: Nothing is an offence by reason that it causes, or that it is intended to cause, or that it is known to be likely to cause, any harm, if that harm is so slight that no person of ordinary sense and temper would complain of such harm.
FACTS: 'X' takes a plain sheet of paper from 'Y's drawer without 'Y's consent to write a letter to his friend.
  • 'X' has committed an offence in the above context
  • 'X' has committed no offence in the above context
  • 'Y' can sue 'X' for an offence in the above context
  • None of the above 
PRINCIPLE: 'Wrongful gain' is gain by unlawful means of poverty to which the person gaining is not legally entitled. 'Wrongful loss' is the loss by unlawful means of property to which the person losing it is legally entitled.
FACTS: 'X' takes away 'Y's watch out of Y's possession, without 'Y's consent and with the intention of keeping it.
  • 'X' causes 'wrongful gain' to 'Y'
  • 'Y' causes 'wrongful gain' to 'X'
  • 'X' causes 'wrongful loss' to 'Y'
  • 'Y' causes 'wrongful loss' to 'X'
PRINCIPLE: Whoever intentionally uses force to any person, without that person's consent, in order to the committing of any offence, or intending by the use of such force to cause, or knowing it to be likely that by the use of such force he will , cause injury, fear or annoyance to the person to whom the force is used, is said to use criminal force to the other.
FACTS: 'Z' is riding in a palanquin. A intending to rob 'Z', seizes the pole and stops the palanquin. Here A has caused cessation of motion to 'Z', and A has done this by his own bodily power.
  • 'A' has used criminal force to 'Z'
  • 'A' has no intention to use criminal force to 'Z'
  • 'A' has used force with the consent of 'Z'
  • None of the above 
0:0:1


Answered Not Answered Not Visited Correct : 0 Incorrect : 0

Practice Class 11 Commerce Legal Studies Quiz Questions and Answers