Multiple Choice Questions Principle: Nothing is an offence merely by reason of its being done with the knowledge that it is likely to 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. Sharman, the Captain of a steam vessel, suddenly and without any fault or negligence on his part, finds himself 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 the risk of running down a boat C with only two passengers on board and which he may possibly clear.
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
Sharman can be held responsible for culpable homicide
Principle: Nothing is an offence which is done by a person who, at the time of doing it, by reason of unsound state of mind, is incapable of knowing the nature of the act, or something that he is doing is either wrong or contrary to law.
Fact: X takes his son Y who is three years old, for bathing to the well. He throws his son inside the well so that the son can have a good bath. After 10 minutes he also jumps into the well to take bath and get his son out of the well. Both were rescued by the villagers but his son was found dead.
X has committed culpable homicide amounting to murder
X has committed murder
X has done no offence as he can plead the defense of unsound state of mind
X has done no offence as he can plead the defense of unsound state of mind
Principle: Ignorance of Fact is excused but ignorance of law is no excuse Fact: X was a passenger from Zurich to Manila in a Swiss Plane. When the plane landed at the Airport of Bombay on 28 Nov. 1962 it was found on searching that X carried 34 kg of Gold Bars on his person and that he had not declared it in the ‘Manifest for Transit’. On 26th Nov. 1962 the Government of India had issued a notification modifying its earlier exemption, making it mandatory now that the gold must be declared in the “Manifest” of the aircraft.
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: Agreements, the meaning of which is not certain, or not capable of being made certain, are void.
Facts: A horse was bought for a certain price coupled with a promise to give Rs.500 more if the horse is proved lucky
This is a valid agreement.
This agreement is void for uncertainty because it is very difficult to determine what luck, bad or good, the horse has brought to the buyer.
The agreement is partially valid and partially void
The agreement is partially valid and partially void
Principle: Mere silence as to the facts likely to affect the willingness of a person to enter into a contract is not a fraud, unless the circumstances of the case are such that, on close examination it is found to be the duty of the person keeping silent to speak, or unless his silence is, in itself, equivalent to speech.
Facts: X sells by auction to Y, a horse which X knows to be of unsound state of mind. X says nothing to Y about the horse’s unsound state of mind. Give the correct answer-
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
Principle: Any direct physical interference with goods in somebody’s possession without lawful justification is called trespass of goods.
Facts: Z purchased a car from a person who had no title to it and sent it to a garage for repair. X believing wrongly that the car was his, removed it from the garage.
X can be held responsible for trespass of goods
X cannot be held responsible for trespass of goods as he was under a wrong belief.
X has not committed any wrong
X has not committed any wrong
Assertion (A): A void contract is not necessarily illegal
Reason (R): Every illegal contract is void.
Both A and R are individually true and R is the correct explanation of A.
Both A and R are individually true but R is not the correct explanation of A
A is true but R is false
A is true but R is false
Assertion (A): The Indian Constitution was adopted on 26th November, 1949.
Reason (R): Law Day is celebrated in India on 26th November every year.
Both A and R are individually true and R is the correct explanation of A.
Both A and R are individually true but R is not the correct explanation of A
A is true but R is false
A is true but R is false
Assertion (A): The state shall not make any law, which takes away or abridges the rights conferred by Part III (Fundamental Rights) and any law made in contravention of this clause shall, to the extent of the contravention, be void.
Reason (R): The fundamental rights are the rights reserved by the people and for this reason they are eternal and sacrosanct.
Both A and R are individually true and R is the correct explanation of A
Both A and R are individually true but R is not the correct explanation of A
A is true but R is false
A is true but R is false
Assertion (A): Directive Principles of State Policy contained in Part IV shall not be enforceable by any court, but the principles therein laid down are nevertheless fundamental in the governance of the country and it shall be the duty of the State to apply these principles in making laws.
Reason (R): Directive Principles of State Policy and Fundamental Rights are both complementary to each other but in case of any controversy fundamental rights will prevail.
Both A and R are individually true and R is the correct explanation of A
Both A and R are individually true but R is not the correct explanation of A
A is true but R is false
A is true but R is false
