PRINCIPLE: Preparation is not an offence except the preparation some special offences.

FACT: Ramesh keeps poisoned halua in his house, wishing to kill Binoy whom he invited to 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

PRINCIPLE: Whoever, intending to take dishonestly and movable property out of the possession on 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 away.

• RAMU can be prosecuted for theft
•  RAMU cannot be prosecuted for theft
• RAMU can be prosecuted for attempt to theft
• RAMU can be prosecuted for attempt to theft

PRINCIPLE: Everybody is under a legal obligation to take reasonable care to avoid and act or omission which he can foresee would injure his neighbour. The neghbor for this purpose, is any person whom he should have in his mind as likely to be affected by his act.

FACT: Krishnan, while driving a car at high speed in a crowded road, knocked down a cyclist. The cyclist died on the spot with a lot of blood spilling around, Lakshmi, a pregnant woman passing by, suffered from a nervous shock, leading to abortion. Lakshmi filed a suit against Krishnan claiming damages.

• Krishna will be liable, because he owed a duty of reasonable care to everbody on the road including Lakshmi.
• Krishna will not be liable, because he could not have foreseen Lakshmi suffering from nervous shock as a result of his act.
• Krishna will be liable to Lakshmi because he failed to drive carefully.
• Krishna will be liable to Lakshmi because he failed to drive carefully.

PRINCIPLE: Any direct physical interference with the goods in somebody’s possession without lawful justification is called trespass to goods.

FACT: A purchased a car from a person who had no little to it and had send 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 to goods.
• X cannot be held responsible for trespass to good as he was under a wrong belief.
• X has not committed any wrong.
• X has not committed any wrong.

Principle : Consent is a good defence in a civil action for tort but the act should be the same for which consent was given.

Facts : 'B' was formally invited by 'A' to his house. 'B' after sitting for some time in drawing room, moved to the bed room of the house. 'A' sued 'B' for trespass.

• 'B' has interfered with privacy of 'A'.

• 'B' has committed no trespass as he entered the house with 'A's consent.

• 'B' has offended 'A' by moving to bed room.

• 'B' has offended 'A' by moving to bed room.

Principle : Whoever takes away any moveable thing form the land of any person without that person's consent, he is said to have committed theft.
Facts : 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 committed theft as soon as he entered the house of 'C'.

• 'A' has not committed theft.

• A' has committed theft.

• A' has committed theft.

Principle: Copyright law protects only work. 'Work' means cinemato graphic film but does not include performance by an actor in a cine matographic film.
Facts: Alia Bhatt acted in a movie

• The acting of Alia Bhatt can be protected under copyright law as professional work.

• The acting of Alia Bhatt cannot be protected under copyright law.

• The acting of Alia Bhatt can be protected under copyright law only as an artistic work

• The acting of Alia Bhatt can be protected under copyright law only as an artistic work

Principle: Import means bringing some consignment into India from a foreign country.
Facts: A consignment from Sri Lanka entered the territorial waters of India. However, this consignment never crossed the Indian custom barrier nor did it enter into the stream of commerce in
India.

• The consignment will only be imported into India when it enters into the stream of commerce in India.

• The consignment was not imported into India.

• The consignment was imported into India.

• The consignment was imported into India.

449.

Principle: Sale of liquor is illegal. All agreements relating to prohibit ed items do not exist in
the eyes of law.
Facts: 'A' entered into an agreement with 'B' for the sale of liquor. 'A' failed to supply the agreed quantity of liquor to 'B'.

• B' can bring a legal action against 'B'.

• 'A' can bring a legal action against 'B'.

• 'B' cannot bring any legal action against 'A'.

• 'B' cannot bring any legal action against 'A'.

Principle: One who dishonestly misappropriates or converts to his own use or sells any
movable property belonging to another, is guilty of the offence of misappropriation.
Facts: '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' may be guilty of theft but not for misappropriation.

• 'A' is guilty of an offence of misappropriation.

• 'A' is not guilty because when he took the property, he believed in good faith that it belonged to him.

• 'A' is not guilty because when he took the property, he believed in good faith that it belonged to him.