1. Principle: Only Parliament or State Legislatures have the authority to enact laws on their own. No law made by the State can take away a person’s fundamental right.
Facts: Parliament enacted a law, which according to a group of lawyers is violating the fundamental rights of traders. A group of lawyers files a writ petition challenging the Constitutional validity of the statute seeking relief to quash the statute and further direct Parliament to enact a new law.

• No writ would lie against Parliament, as the court has no authority to direct Parliament to enact or re-enact a law

•  The court can quash existing law if it violates fundamental rights and can direct Parliament to make a new law

• The court can quash the existing law if it violates fundamental rights but cannot direct Parliament to make a new law
• The court can quash the existing law if it violates fundamental rights but cannot direct Parliament to make a new law

•  He cannot refuse to sell the CAR because the contract has already been made.
•  He can refuse to sell the CAR because it was only invitation to offer and not the real offer
• It was not a valid offer because willingness to enter into a contract was absent
• It was not a valid offer because willingness to enter into a contract was absent

•  Mr. X cannot enter into contract because he is of unsound state of mind when he entered into contract.
•  Mr. X can enter into contract but the burden is on the other party to prove that he was of unsound state of mind at the time of contract.
• Mr. X can enter into contract but the burden is on Mr. X to prove that he was of sound state of mind at the time of contract.
• Mr. X can enter into contract but the burden is on Mr. X to prove that he was of sound state of mind at the time of contract.

•  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 Mr. Tiwari was driving rashly

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 on Rinku's ground with the intention of dishonestly taking the tree out of Rinku's possession without Rinku' s consent. A could not take the tree.

• Ramu can be prosecuted for theft.

• Ramu cannot be prosecuted for theft.

• Ramu can be prosecuted for an attempt to theft.

• Ramu can be prosecuted for an attempt to theft.

Principle: Preparation is not an offence except the preparation of some special offences.
Fact: Ramesh keeps poisoned halua in his house, wishing to kill Binoy whom he invited to a party and to whom he wishes to give it. Unknown to Ramesh his only son takes the halua and dies. in this case. 

• Ramesh is liable for the murder

• He is not liable for murder since it is a preparation alone.

• He is liable for culpable homicide

• He is liable for culpable homicide

•  X cannot be prosecuted because he had actually no knowledge about the new notification issued two days ago
•  X cannot be prosecuted because ignorance of fact is excusable
•  X can be prosecuted because ignorance of law is not excusable
•  X can be prosecuted because ignorance of law is not excusable

Principle: Mens rea and actus reus must concur to result in a crime which is punishable by the law.
Facts: 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?

• A had mens 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 homocide but B is not guilty of any offence.

• Both A and B are guilty

• Both A and B are guilty

• X cannot be held responsible for trespass of goods as he was under a wrong belief.
•  X can be held responsible for trespass of goods
• X has not committed any wrong.
• X has not committed any wrong.

•  X can be held liable for fraud
•  X can be held liable for misrepresentation
•  X cannot be held liable, because he did not say anything positive about the mental state of the horse
•  X cannot be held liable, because he did not say anything positive about the mental state of the horse