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

PRINCIPLE: Whoever makes any false document or part of a document with intent to cause damage or injury, to the public or to any person, or to support any claim or title, or to cause any person to part with property, or to enter into any express or implied contract, or with intent to commit fraud or that fraud may be committed, commits forgery.
FACTS: 'A' without 'Z's authority affixes 'Z's seal to a document purporting to be conveyance of an estate from 'Z' to 'A', with the intention of selling the estate to B and thereby obtaining from 'B' the purchase money.
  • 'B' has committed forgery
  • 'Z' has committed forgery
  • 'A' has committed forgery
  • 'A' and 'B' have committed forgery
LEGAL PRINCIPLE:
(1) An act done, even if without the consent of a person is not an offence, provided the offender did not intend to cause death, and the act was done for the person's benefit, in good health.
(2) Mere precuniary benefit is not a 'thing done for a person's benefit'.
FACTUAL SITUATION:
 A is in a house, which is on fire, with Z, a child. People below hold out a blanket. A drops the child from the house top, knowing it to be likely that the fall may kill the child but intending to save him from the fire. Unfortunately, the child is killed. Is A guilty?
DECISION will be ______.
  • Yes, A had knowledge of his dangerous act. His act was not justified
  • Yes, A should have tried a less dangerous alternative
  • No, his act was done in good faith to save the child
  • No, he had the best of intentions and this was the only alternative
LEGAL PRINCIPLE: Nothing is an offence, which is done by any person who is, or who by reason of mistake of fact, in good faith, believes himself to be bound by law to do it.
FACTUAL SITUATION: A, soldier fires on a mob by the order of his superior officer, in conformity with the commands of the law. B is killed due to such firing, Is A guilty or murder?
DECISION will be _____.
  • Yest, he should have taken care avoid any innocent person from being killed
  • No, he is bound by law to do it
  • Yes, as he has killed a person
  • The superior officer is guilty
PRINCIPLE: When an act which would otherwise be a certain offence, is not that offence, by reason of the youth, the want of maturity of understanding, the unsoundness of mind or the intoxication of the person doing that act, or by reason of any misconception on the part of that person, every person has the same right of private defence against that act which he would have if the act were that offence.
FACTS: 'X', under the influence of madness, attempts to kill 'Y'.
  • 'Y 'has the right private defence against 'X'
  • 'Y' does not have the right of private defence against 'X'
  • 'Y' has the right of private defence against 'X', only of 'X is not under the infuence of madness
  • 'X' as the right of private defence against 'Y'
LEGAL PRINCIPLES:
(1) An act done by the consent of a person above 18 years is not an offence, provided the offender did not intend to cause death or grievous hurt.
(2) Mere pecuniary benefit is not a thing done for a person's benefit.
FACTUAL SITUATION:
 A, a poor man, is in dire need of money to pay off his money lenders. A approaches Z, a doctor, to operate on him to remove one of this kidneys so that he can donate it to needy people and earn money. the doctor explains to him the risks and thereafter proceeds to remove his kidney. In the process, some complications develop and A develops an abdominal tumor. Is Z guilty?
  • Yes, donating kidney for money is illegal and amounts to trafficking of organs
  • Yes, removing kidney for money is not an act protected by this exception
  • No, Z performed the operation with A's consent and fully explained him the risks involved
  • No, Z's act was done for A's benefit so that he can pay off the money lenders
LEGAL PRINCIPLES:
(1) Preparation to commit an offence is not an offence.
(2) After one has finished preparation to commit an offence, any act done towards committing the offence withe intention to commit it, is an attempt to commit the offence, which is by itself an offence.
FACIAL SITUATION: Manish wanted to kill Nandini and had therefore gone to the market to buy explosives to plant in her house. Manish kept those explosives in his godown as he planned to plant them early next morning. But as the explosives were stolen in the night he could not plant them in Nandini's house. However, Nandini came to know about Manish's plan and therefore wants to file a complaint against him. Will she succeed?
DECISION will be ______.
  • Yes, because he has done something more than mere preparation
  • No, because Nandini did not die
  • Yes, because there existed a make fide intention
  • No, because mere preparation is no offence
LEGAL PRINCIPLE: No person shall be convicted of any offence except for violation of a law in force at the time of commission of the act charged as an offence, nor subjected to a penalty greater than which might have been inflicted under the law in force at the time commission of the offence.
FACTUAL SITUATION: A boy of 16 years was convicted of house trepass and theft. He was sentenced to imprisonment for 6 months and fine was also imposed. After the judgement, the Probation of Offenders Act came into force. It provided that a person below 21 years may not ordinarily be sentenced to imprisonment. Now the boy claims the benefit of this Act. Should he get it?
DECISION will be ______.
  • No
  • The rule of beneficial interpretation required that the benefit of ex post facto law can be applied to reduce his sentence
  • A boy below 18 years is a minor and so should not be punished
  • None of the above
PRINCIPLE: A pact, other than a pact to commit suicide, to suffer any harm is not an offence, provided, the age of the person who has given his consent to suffer harm is above eighteen years.
FACTS:A enters into a pact with B, a boy of less than 18  years of age, to fence with each other for amusement. They agreed to suffer any harm which, in the course of such fencing may be caused without foul play.
  • A, while playing fairly hurts B, A commits no offence
  • A, while playing only unfairly, hurts B, A commits an offence
  • A, while playing fairly, hurts B, a commits an offence
  • A, while playing unfairly, hurts B, A commits no offence
LEGAL PRINCIPLES: (1) 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.
(2) Whoever dishonestly misappropriates or converts to his own use any movable property, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both.
FACTS: A takes umbrella belonging to Z out of Z's possession in good faith, believing at the time when he took it, that the property belongs to himself. His wife points out after some days that the umbrella does not belong to them but to Z. After coming to know that, A dishonestly keeps the umbrella.
DECISION will be _____.
  • A is guilty of criminal misappropriation
  • A is guilty of criminal breach of trust
  • A is guilty of theft
  • Both A and his wife are guilty of criminal misappropriation
PRINCIPLE: Nothing is an offence merely by reason of its being done with the knowledge that it is likely cause harm, if it be done without any criminal intention to cause harm and in good faith for the purpose of preventing or avoiding other harm to a person or property.
FACTS: Mr. Shaman, the Italian captain of a steam vessel, suddenly and without any fault or negligence on his part, finds himself near the Kochi coast in such a position that before he can stop his vessel, he must inevitably run down a boat B with twenty or thirty passengers on board, unless he changes the course of his vessel and that by changing his course, he must incur risk of running down a boat C with only two passengers on board, which he may be possibly clear. Whether Sharman has committed an offence?
  • Sharman has committed no offence because this was done out of necessity
  • Sharman can be held responsible for the act of criminal negligence
  • Sharman can be held responsible for culpable homicide
  • The is a clear case of accident to Sharman cannot be held responsible
PRINCIPLE: Wherever the causing of a certain effect, or an attempt to cause that effect, by an act or by an omission, is an offence, it is to be understood that the causing of that effect partly by an act and partly by an omission is the same offence.
FACTS: A intentionally omitted to give food to his father. He also used to beat his father. Consequently, A's father died.
  • A did not commit any offence
  • A committed only the offence of omitting to give food to his father
  • A committed only the offence of beating of his father
  • A committed the offence of killing of his father
LEGAL PRINCIPLE: Wilful rash driving is an offence
FACTS: Mr. Tiwari was driving his car after drinking alcohol. Police books him for wilful negligent driving. Is this act of the police lawful?
  • No, because Mr. Tiwari was not driving rashly; he was drunk while driving
  • No, this is not a negligent act
  • Yes, because Mr. Tiwari was driving rashly
  • Yes, because the police has the power to arrest a person driving rashly
The temporary release of a convicted prisoner from jail for a fixed period is called
  • Bail
  • Parole
  • Acquittal
  • Discharge
LEGAL PRINCIPLE OF SEDITION: Whoever by words, by signs or otherwise brings into hatred or contempt or excites disaffection towards the Government established by Law in India shall be punished with imprisonment for life.
FACTUAL SITUATION: In a public meeting, Z, the leader of an opposite party thunders, "this is a Government of soundrels, bootleggers and scamsters. They deserve to be unseated. Teach them a lesson in the coming elections by voting them out of power". The Government prosecutes Z for sedition.
DECIDE.
  • Z is guilty of sedition for having made irresponsible and inflammatory statements against the Government
  • Z is not guilty of sedition as he is only exercising his freedom of speech in public
  • Z is guilty of sedition, as his statement would incite people to violence leading to breakdown of Law and order
  • 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 SITUATION: 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 finds the gold coin kept in the toys of Rachna. 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 takes away anything from the land of any person without that person's consent is said to have committed theft. A thing so long as it is attached to the earth is not the subject of theft; but it becomes capable of being the subject of theft as soon as it is severed from the earth.
FACTS: Y cuts down a tree standing on the land of X with the intention of dishonestly taking the tree out of X's possession without the consent of X. But Y is yet to take away the tree out of X's possession.
  • Y has committed theft as soon as he came to the land of X
  • Y has committed theft as soon as the tree as been completely cut down by him
  • Y has committed theft as soon as he has started cutting down the tree
  • Y has not committed theft because he is yet to take away the tree out of X's possession.
PRINCIPLE: Whoever by words, either spoken or written brings or attempts to bring into hatred or contempt, or excites or attempts to excite disaffection towards the Government established law in India shall be punished. However, comments expressing disapprobation of the administrative or other action of the Government without exciting or attempting to excite hatred, contempt or disaffection, do not constitute an offence.
FACTS: A renowned Professor of Economics wrote a critical comment on the economic policies of the Government of India in a National Daily. This piece of writing generated academic debate not only in the print media but also on television and internet. A student of law asked the fellow Indians on a social networking website to assemble at a particular place for peaceful and silent demonstration against the said economic policies on a stipulated date and time. The crowd assembled at that venue and started shouting anti-government slogans. Police arrested the professor.
  • The professor has committed the offence
  • The professor has not committed any offence
  • The student of law has committed the offence
  • The crowd has committed an offence
PRINCIPLE: The law permits citizens to use force only for protection when necessary against imminent attack.
FACTS: P with the intention of committing theft entered the house of Q. Q on seeing him entering, struck him with a a lathi and P fell down unconscious. Thereafter, Q gave him another blow of lathi on his head which caused his death. On being prosecuted for murder, Q took the plea of private defence. Which of the following arguments is valid?
  • Since Q was acting in the exercise of right of private defence of his property, he had taken a valid defence
  • Since in the defence of one's property one cannot cause death of the intruder Q
  • Q has used excessive force as once P fell unconscious; there was no need for the second blow. Hence, Q's plea of right of private defence will not succeed
  • If P committed house breaking in the night, Q has right to cause death in defence of his property and thus Q's plea should prevail
The gist of the offence of criminal conspiracy is _____.
  • agreement is necessary between two or more persons to do or cause to be done an illegal act
  • a legal act by illegal means followed by an overt act to be done or cause to be done according to agreement
  • both (a) and (b)
  • none of the above
Which of the following is the subject matter of the 99th Constitution Amendment Act, 2014, which came into force with effect from 13th April, 2015 ___________.
  • Giving Constitutional Status to the proposed National Judicial Appointments Commission
  • Giving Constitutional status to the Expenditure Management Commission
  • Giving Constitutional status to Juvenile Justice Board
  • None of the above.
PRINCIPLE: A person is said to cause an effect "voluntarily" whereby he intended to cause it or by means which, at the time of employing those means, he knew or had reason to believe, to be likely to cause it.
FACTS: A sets fire, by night, to an inhabited house in a large town, for the purpose of facilitating a robbery and this causes death of a person. A pleaded that he had intended the robbery but not the causing of death and he is sorry for the death caused by his act. Is A liable for causing the death voluntarily?
  • A is liable for causing the death voluntarily though he has not intended to cause death of anyone, because he has set fire in an inhabited house not in abandoned house and it is quite natural that in such house people must be there during night
  • A is not liable because he has not intended murder of anyone
  • A is not liable for murder but is liable for robbery only
  • A is not responsible for murder because he has not killed anyone by his own hands
PRINCIPLE: Every person has a right of self-defece, if his life is under imminent threat.
FACTS: Mr. Prashanth threatens Mr. Krishna that he will kill Mr. Krishna. After saying so, Mr. Prashanth goes to his house saying that he would get his axe.
  • Mr. Krishna will have to run away
  • Mr. Krishna will have to go to the Police Station and file a complaint
  • Mr. Krishna cannot exercise the right of self-defence
  • None of the above
Suppose X and Y were apprehended before administering poison to Z. What is the offence committed by X and Y?
  • X and Y are not guilty of conspiracy as they did not cause death of Z
  • Liability of X comes to an end and Y is only liable
  • As no offence is committed and none of them are responsible
  • X and Y are to be punished as it is immaterial whether illegal act is the ultimate object of the agreement or merely incidental to that object
X's farm house in outskirts of Delhi was attacked by a gang of armed robbers. X without informing the police, at firs warned the robbers by firing in the air. As they were fleeing from the farm, he fired, and killed one of them.
I. At the trail, X can avail the right of private defence as he was defending his life and property.
II. X cannot avail the right as he failed to inform the police.
III. X cannot avail the right as he caused more harm than was necessary to ward off the danger.
IV. X can avail off the right as at first he only fires in the air.
  • I and IV
  • II only
  • II and III
  • IV only
Choose the correct answer from the alternatives given.
D P Tyre Co. Ltd sold tyres to a dealer S, who sold those to D, a sub-dealer on the condition that those tyres would not be sold at a price lower than the list price fixed by D P Tyre Co. Ltd. and if the tyre were sold at a price lower than the list price, a penalty of $$\$$$ 2 for every tyre sold below the list price would be recovered as damages. D sold five tyres below the list price. D P Tyre Co. Ltd filed a suit against S. Is D P Tyre Co. Ltd entitled to maintain the suit?
  • No since D P Tyre Co. Ltd was not a party to the contract
  • No since only 5 tyres are involved and the amount is insignificant
  • Yes as D P Tyre Co. Ltd is the producer of the tyres
  • Yes as D P Tyre Co. Ltd sold the tyres to S who in turn sold to D
PRINCIPLE: Whoever does not act so rashly or negligently as to endanger human life of the personal safety of others is said to have committed an offence.
FACTS: Mr. Mangeskar owns a Yamaha motorcycle which has a very good pick up and speed. He is in the IV semester of Mechanical Engineering degree course. One day he was getting late for the college as he woke up late in the morning. He got ready and was rushing to the college so that he would not miss the class. He was riding the motor cycle at a speed of 140 km per hour in Bangalore city which was crowded. He was very good in riding the motorcycle. People who were using the road got annoyed/scared with the way Mr. Mangeskar was riding the motortcycle.
  • Mr. Mangeskar has committed an act of rash and negligent driving
  • Mr. Mangeskar is very good at driving, so there is no need for others to be panicky
  • Mr. Mangeskar is a very studious student and he does not want to miss any class in the college
  • None of the above
Is Lucky guilty of criminal damage?
  • No, Lucky is not guilty of criminal damage as he did not intentionally impair the value of the painting
  • Yes, Lucky is guilty of criminal damage as he intentionally stuck the paper on to the painting
  • No, Lucky is not guilty of criminal damage as he does not have the painting in his possession anymore
  • No, Lucky is not guilty of criminal damage as he has not destroyed the painting
PRINCIPLE: Whoever intentionally puts any person in fear of any injury to that person, or to any other and thereby dishonestly induces that person so put in fear to deliver to any person any property, commits extortion.
FACTUAL SITUATION: A entered B's house, caught hold of B's daughter C and threatened to stab her if A did not given him Rs. 10,000 immediately. B did so. A is prosecuted for extortion.
  • A has committed theft, not extortion
  • A has committed extortion
  • A has committed both theft and extortion
  • A has not committed any offence
PRINCIPLE: Theft is robbery, if in order to committing of the theft, or in committing the theft, or in carrying away or attempting to carry away property obtained by theft, the offender, for that end, voluntarily causes or attempts to cause to any person death or hurt or fear of instant death or instant hurt. 
FACTUAL SITUATION: A entered B's house to take away her TV. When he was carrying the TV out of the house, he encountered B near the door. he left the TV behind and ran away.
  • A has committed theft
  • A has committed robbery
  • A has committed both theft and robbery
  • A has neither committed theft nor robbery
LEGAL PRINCIPLE: If a person without any authority prevents a person to proceed to any direction and is kept confined, he commits an offence of criminal confinement.
FACTUAL SITUATION: The Municipal Board allowed X to hold a marriage party blocking a part of a public road. The marriage party blocked most of the roads and did not allow A, a passerby, to cross the road. He brings a charge of criminal confinement against the head of the marriage party and other associates. Can A succeed?
  • A cannot succeed because X has got previous permission from the Municipal Board and has blocked part of the public road
  • A can succeed because he has authority to walk on public road
  • A cannot succeed because he must have to wait upto end of marriage party
  • A shall succeed because no one is allowed to use public property for the personal benefits
0:0:1


Answered Not Answered Not Visited Correct : 0 Incorrect : 0

Practice Class 11 Commerce Legal Studies Quiz Questions and Answers