• Progressive Tax
• Proportional Tax
• Lump sum Tax
• Lump sum Tax

•  Andhra Pradesh
• Tamil Nadu
•  Bihar
•  Bihar

173. Principle: Nothing which is not intended to cause death, is an offence by reason of any harm which it may cause, or be intended by the doer to cause, or be known by the doer to be likely to cause, to any person for whose benefit it is done in good faith, and who has given a consent, whether express or implied, to suffer that harm, or to take the risk of that harm.

A fake doctor operated on a man for internal piles by cutting them out with an kitchen ordinary knife. The man died of haemorrhage.

• A fake doctor operated on a man for internal piles by cutting them out with an kitchen ordinary knife. The man died of haemorrhage.
•  Doctor is not guilty.
•  Doctor is guilty of culpable homicide not amounting to murder 
•  Doctor is guilty of culpable homicide not amounting to murder 

• Doctor is guilty of murder
• Doctor is not guilty.
• Doctor is guilty of culpable homicide not amounting to murder
• Doctor is guilty of culpable homicide not amounting to murder

• Illegal
• Voidable
• Void
• Void

•  Partly material 
• Wholly materia
•  Party immaterial 
•  Party immaterial 

Principles:

A. Whoever intending to take any moveable property out of the possession of any person without that person’s consent, moves that property out of his or her possession, is said to commit theft.

B. A person who, without lawful excuse, damages any property belonging to another intending to damage any such property shall be guilty of causing criminal damage.

C. Damage means any impairment of the value of a property.

Facts:

Draupadi, an old lady of 85 years, used to live with her granddaughter Subhadra. Draupadi was ill and therefore bedridden for several months. In those months, she could not tolerate any noise and it ‘became quite difficult to clean her room. After she died, Subhadra hired a cleaner, Vinodji, to clean the room and throw away any rubbish that may be there. There was a pile of old newspapers which Draupadi had stacked in a corner of her room. Vinodji asked Subhadra if he should clear away the pile of old newspapers, to which she said yes, Vinodji took the pile to the municipality rubbish dump. While Vinodji was sorting and throwing away the newspapers, he was very surprised to find a beautiful painting in between two sheets of paper. He thought that Subhadra probably wouldn’t want this old painting back, especially because it was torn in several places and the colour was fading. He took the painting home, mounted it on a wooden frame and hung it on the wall of his bedroom. Unknown to him, the painting was an old ‘masterpiece, and worth twenty thousand rupees. Before mounting the painting, Vinodji pasted it on a plain sheet of paper so that it does not tear any more. By doing so, he made its professional ‘restoration very difficult and thereby reduced its value by half. Vinodji’s neighbour Champi discovered that the painting belonged to Subhadra. With the motive of returning the painting to Subhadra, Champi climbed through an open window into Vinodji’s room when he was away one afternoon and removed the painting from his house.

Has Vinodji committed theft?

• Yes, Vinodji has committed theft of the newspapers and the painting.
• No, Vinodji has not committed theft because he had Draupadi’s consent.
• es, Vinodji has committed theft of the painting, but not of the newspapers
• es, Vinodji has committed theft of the painting, but not of the newspapers

Principles:

A. Whoever intending to take any moveable property out of the possession of any person without that person’s consent, moves that property out of his or her possession, is said to commit theft.

B. A person who, without lawful excuse, damages any property belonging to another intending to damage any such property shall be guilty of causing criminal damage.

C. Damage means any impairment of the value of a property.

Facts:

Draupadi, an old lady of 85 years, used to live with her granddaughter Subhadra. Draupadi was ill and therefore bedridden for several months. In those months, she could not tolerate any noise and it ‘became quite difficult to clean her room. After she died, Subhadra hired a cleaner, Vinodji, to clean the room and throw away any rubbish that may be there. There was a pile of old newspapers which Draupadi had stacked in a corner of her room. Vinodji asked Subhadra if he should clear away the pile of old newspapers, to which she said yes, Vinodji took the pile to the municipality rubbish dump. While Vinodji was sorting and throwing away the newspapers, he was very surprised to find a beautiful painting in between two sheets of paper. He thought that Subhadra probably wouldn’t want this old painting back, especially because it was torn in several places and the colour was fading. He took the painting home, mounted it on a wooden frame and hung it on the wall of his bedroom. Unknown to him, the painting was an old ‘masterpiece, and worth twenty thousand rupees. Before mounting the painting, Vinodji pasted it on a plain sheet of paper so that it does not tear any more. By doing so, he made its professional ‘restoration very difficult and thereby reduced its value by half. Vinodji’s neighbour Champi discovered that the painting belonged to Subhadra. With the motive of returning the painting to Subhadra, Champi climbed through an open window into Vinodji’s room when he was away one afternoon and removed the painting from his house.

 Is Vinodji guilty of criminal damage?

• No, Vinodji is not guilty of criminal damage as he did not intentionally impair the value of the painting.
•  Yes, Vinodji is guilty of criminal damage as he intentionally stuck the paper on to the painting
• No, Vinodji is not guilty of criminal damage as he does not have the painting in his possession anymore.
• No, Vinodji is not guilty of criminal damage as he does not have the painting in his possession anymore.

Principles:

A. Whoever intending to take any moveable property out of the possession of any person without that person’s consent, moves that property out of his or her possession, is said to commit theft.

B. A person who, without lawful excuse, damages any property belonging to another intending to damage any such property shall be guilty of causing criminal damage.

C. Damage means any impairment of the value of a property.

Facts:

Draupadi, an old lady of 85 years, used to live with her granddaughter Subhadra. Draupadi was ill and therefore bedridden for several months. In those months, she could not tolerate any noise and it ‘became quite difficult to clean her room. After she died, Subhadra hired a cleaner, Vinodji, to clean the room and throw away any rubbish that may be there. There was a pile of old newspapers which Draupadi had stacked in a corner of her room. Vinodji asked Subhadra if he should clear away the pile of old newspapers, to which she said yes, Vinodji took the pile to the municipality rubbish dump. While Vinodji was sorting and throwing away the newspapers, he was very surprised to find a beautiful painting in between two sheets of paper. He thought that Subhadra probably wouldn’t want this old painting back, especially because it was torn in several places and the colour was fading. He took the painting home, mounted it on a wooden frame and hung it on the wall of his bedroom. Unknown to him, the painting was an old ‘masterpiece, and worth twenty thousand rupees. Before mounting the painting, Vinodji pasted it on a plain sheet of paper so that it does not tear any more. By doing so, he made its professional ‘restoration very difficult and thereby reduced its value by half. Vinodji’s neighbour Champi discovered that the painting belonged to Subhadra. With the motive of returning the painting to Subhadra, Champi climbed through an open window into Vinodji’s room when he was away one afternoon and removed the painting from his house.

If Vinodji had discovered the painting before leaving Subhadra’s house rather than at the rubbish dump, would he have been guilty of theft in this case?

• If Vinodji had discovered the painting before leaving Subhadra’s house rather than at the rubbish dump, would he have been guilty of theft in this case?
• No, he would not be guilty of theft.
•  Yes, he would be guilty of theft of the painting.
•  Yes, he would be guilty of theft of the painting.

Principles:

A. Whoever intending to take any moveable property out of the possession of any person without that person’s consent, moves that property out of his or her possession, is said to commit theft.

B. A person who, without lawful excuse, damages any property belonging to another intending to damage any such property shall be guilty of causing criminal damage.

C. Damage means any impairment of the value of a property.

Facts:

Draupadi, an old lady of 85 years, used to live with her granddaughter Subhadra. Draupadi was ill and therefore bedridden for several months. In those months, she could not tolerate any noise and it ‘became quite difficult to clean her room. After she died, Subhadra hired a cleaner, Vinodji, to clean the room and throw away any rubbish that may be there. There was a pile of old newspapers which Draupadi had stacked in a corner of her room. Vinodji asked Subhadra if he should clear away the pile of old newspapers, to which she said yes, Vinodji took the pile to the municipality rubbish dump. While Vinodji was sorting and throwing away the newspapers, he was very surprised to find a beautiful painting in between two sheets of paper. He thought that Subhadra probably wouldn’t want this old painting back, especially because it was torn in several places and the colour was fading. He took the painting home, mounted it on a wooden frame and hung it on the wall of his bedroom. Unknown to him, the painting was an old ‘masterpiece, and worth twenty thousand rupees. Before mounting the painting, Vinodji pasted it on a plain sheet of paper so that it does not tear any more. By doing so, he made its professional ‘restoration very difficult and thereby reduced its value by half. Vinodji’s neighbour Champi discovered that the painting belonged to Subhadra. With the motive of returning the painting to Subhadra, Champi climbed through an open window into Vinodji’s room when he was away one afternoon and removed the painting from his house.

Is Champi guilty of theft?

•  No, Champi is now guilty of theft since the person she took the painting from (Vinodji) was not its lawful owner.
• No, Champi is not guilty of theft since she took the painting only with the motive of returning it to Subhadra.
•  Yes, Champi is guilty of theft as she took the painting out of Vinodji’s possession without his consent.
•  Yes, Champi is guilty of theft as she took the painting out of Vinodji’s possession without his consent.