HP Judicial Services (Prelims) Mock - 3 (Criminal Law) - Judiciary Exams MCQ

According to Section 53 of the Indian Penal Code, the punishments to which offenders are liable under the provisions of this Code are:

• Death
• Imprisonment for life
• Imprisonment - Rigorous, that is, with hard labour and simple
• Fine
• Forfeiture of property

These punishments are awarded based on the severity of the offence and the discretion of the court.

According to Section 107 of the Indian Penal Code, a person abets the doing of a thing, who—

• Instigates any person to do that thing; or
• Engages with one or more other person or persons in any conspiracy for the doing of that thing, if an act or illegal omission takes place in pursuance of that conspiracy, and in order to the doing of that thing; or
• Intentionally aids, by any act or illegal omission, the doing of that thing.

Further, explanation 4 of Section 108 states that the abetment of an offence being an offence, the abetment of such an abetment is also an offence. So, in the given scenario, A's act of instigating B to instigate C to commit the offence of murder amounts to abetment.

According to Section 141 of IPC, an assembly of five or more persons is designated an unlawful assembly, if the common object of the persons composing that assembly is—

• To overawe by criminal force, or show of criminal force, the Central or any State Government or Parliament or the Legislature of any State, or any public servant in the exercise of the lawful power of such public servant; or
• To resist the execution of any law, or of any legal process; or
• To commit any mischief or criminal trespass, or other offence; or
• By means of criminal force, or show of criminal force, to any person, to take or obtain possession of any property, or to deprive any person of the enjoyment of a right of way, or of the use of water or other incorporeal right of which he is in possession or enjoyment, or to enforce any right or supposed right; or
• By means of criminal force, or show of criminal force, to compel any person to do what he is not legally bound to do, or to omit to do what he is legally entitled to do.
  

According to Section 179 of IPC, whoever, being legally bound to state the truth on any subject to any public servant, refuses to answer any question demanded of him touching that subject by such public servant in the exercise of the legal powers of such public servant, shall be punished with simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to six months, or with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees, or with both. Thus, 'A' will be punishable under this section.

According to Section 349 of the Indian Penal Code, a person is said to use force to another if he causes motion, change of motion, or cessation of motion to that other, or if he causes to any substance such motion, or change of motion, or cessation of motion as brings that substance into contact with any part of that other's body, or with anything which that other is wearing or carrying, or with anything so situated that such contact affects that other's sense of feeling: Provided that the person causing the motion, or change of motion, or cessation of motion, causes that motion, change of motion, or cessation of motion in one of the three ways hereinafter described:

• By his own bodily power.
  
• By disposing any substance in such a manner that the motion or change or cessation of motion takes place without any further act on his part, or on the part of any other person.
  
• By inducing any animal to move, to change its motion, or to cease to move.

The main characteristic of the new Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 is the separation of the judiciary from the executive. This means that the Code establishes a clear distinction and independence between the judiciary, which is responsible for the interpretation and application of laws, and the executive branch, which is responsible for the administration and enforcement of laws. The separation of powers ensures that the judiciary can exercise its functions impartially and independently without interference from the executive branch.

Section 376 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, states that there shall be no appeal in petty cases. The section reads as follows:
There shall be no appeal by a convicted person in any of the following cases, namely:-
(a) where a High Court passes only a sentence of imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months or of fine not exceeding one thousand rupees, or of both such imprisonment and fine;
(b) where a Court of Session or a Metropolitan Magistrate passes only a sentence of imprisonment for a term not exceeding three months or of fine not exceeding two hundred rupees, or of both such imprisonment and fine;
(c) where a Magistrate of the first class passes only a sentence of fine not exceeding one hundred rupees; or
(d) where, in a case tried summarily, a Magistrate empowered to act under section 260 passes only a sentence of fine not exceeding two hundred rupees:
Provided that an appeal may be brought against any such sentence if any other punishment is combined with it, but such sentence shall not be appealable merely on the ground-
(i) that the person convicted is ordered to furnish security to keep the peace; or
(ii) that a direction for imprisonment in default of payment of fine is included in the sentence; or
(iii) that more than one sentence of fine is passed in the case, if the total amount of fine imposed does not exceed the amount hereinbefore specified in respect of the case.

Section 304 of the Code of Criminal Procedure provides for legal aid to accused at State expense in certain cases. According to the section:
(1) Where, in a trial before the Court of Session, the accused is not represented by a pleader, and where it appears to the Court that the accused has not sufficient means to engage a pleader, the Court shall assign a pleader for his defence at the expense of the State.
(2) The High Court may, with the previous approval of the State Government, make rules providing for-
(a) the mode of selecting pleaders for defence under sub-section (1);
(b) the facilities to be allowed to such pleaders by the Courts;
(c) the fees payable to such pleaders by the Government, and generally, for carrying out the purposes of sub-section (1).
(3) The State Government may, by notification, direct that, as from such date as may be specified in the notification, the provisions of sub-sections (1) and (2) shall apply in relation to any class of trials before other Courts in the State as they apply in relation to trials before Courts of Session.

In Vijay Manohar Arbat v. Kashi Rao Rajaram Sawai, the Supreme Court held that an application under section 125(1)(d) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, by a father claiming maintenance from his married daughter is perfectly maintainable. Section 125(1)(d) of the Code (a new provision) has imposed a liability on both the son and the daughter to maintain their father or mother who is unable to maintain himself or herself. The object of section 125 Criminal Procedure Code is to provide a summary remedy to save dependents from destitution and vagrancy and thus to serve a social purpose. There can be no doubt that it is the moral obligation of a son or a daughter to maintain his or her parents. It is not desirable that even though a son or a daughter has sufficient means, his or her parents would starve. Apart from any law, the Indian Society casts a duty on the children of a person to maintain their parents if they are not in a position to maintain themselves. It is also their duty to look after their parents when they become old and infirm.

Sections 262 and 265 of the Code of Criminal Procedure deal with summary trials. Section 143 of the Negotiable Instruments Act states the power to court of try cases summarily. Sub-clause 1 reads as:
Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), all offences under this Chapter shall be tried by a Judicial Magistrate of the first class or by a Metropolitan Magistrate and the provisions of Sections 262 to 265 (both inclusive) of the said Code shall, as far as may be, apply to such trials. Hence, option 1 is the correct answer.

Section 66 of the Himachal Pradesh Excise Act, 2011 deals with composition of offences by the Collector. The Sub-section 1 states:
The Collector may, on an application from any person who is reasonably suspected of having committed an offence punishable under Section 26, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47 or 59 including the attempts to commit or abet any of these offences under Section 50 of this Act, accept a sum of money not exceeding rupees twenty-five thousand subject to a minimum of five thousand rupees by way of composition, for each of such offences, and on payment of such sum of money to the Collector, the accused person if in custody shall be discharged and no further proceedings shall be taken against him in respect of such offence. Hence, the correct answer is option 1.

Section 6 of the Wildlife Protection Act provides for the constitution of State Board for Wildlife. According to Section 6(1)(a), the Chief Minister of the State and in case of the Union Territory, either Chief Minister or Administrator, as the case may be shall be the Chairperson of the State Board for Wildlife.

Section 28 of the Indian Forest Act provides for formation of village-forests. According to clause 1 of this section, the State Government may assign to any village-community the rights of Government to or over any land which has been constituted a reserved forest, and may cancel such assignment. All forests so assigned shall be called village-forests.

Section 69 of the Indian Penal Code contains provision regarding termination of imprisonment on payment of proportional part of fine. If, before the expiration of the term of imprisonment fixed in default of payment, such a proportion of the fine be paid or levied that the term of imprisonment suffered in default of payment is not less than proportional to the part of the fine still unpaid, the imprisonment shall terminate. Therefore, according to this provision, 'A' would be entitled to be released on the completion of three months.

Cognizable offence means an offence for which a police officer may, in accordance with the First Schedule or under any other law for the time being in force, arrest without warrant as mentioned under Section 2(d) of the Criminal Procedure Code. Section 43(1) of the Code states: Any private person may arrest or cause to be arrested any person who in his presence commits a non-bailable and cognizable offence, or any proclaimed offender, and, without unnecessary delay, shall make over or cause to be made over any person so arrested to a police officer, or, in the absence of a police officer, take such person or cause him to be taken in custody to the nearest police station. As per section 44(1) of the Code, when any offence is committed in the presence of a magistrate, whether executive or judicial, within his local jurisdiction, he may himself arrest or order any person to arrest the offender, and may thereupon, subject to the provisions herein contained as to bail, commit the offender to custody. Therefore, all the options are correct and hence the correct answer is option 4.

The inquiry as per the Criminal Procedure Code is done under Section 173 on the prima facie facts of the case. The provisions of Chapter XIX of the Code deal with the framing of the charges. Sections 221 to 223 show the form in which a charge must be drawn up and the particulars which must be entered therein; and Sections 233 to 239 show how charges may be joined, when they should be in alternative form, and what persons may be charged jointly. Therefore, framing of charges is done after the inquiry and hence, the correct answer is option 2.

Section 161 of Cr.P.C. deals with the examination of witnesses by police. The section declares that the police officer making an investigation may examine orally any person supposed to be acquainted with the facts and circumstances of the case. Such person shall be bound to answer truly all questions relating to such case and the police officer may reduce into writing any statement made to him and if he does so, he shall make a separate and true record of the statement of each such person whose statement he records.

According to Section 97 of the Code Of Criminal Procedure, 1973, a search warrant to find out a person can be issued if the person is unlawfully confined. If any District Magistrate, Sub-divisional Magistrate or Magistrate of the first class has reason to believe that any person is confined under such circumstances that the confinement amounts to an offence, then such warrant can be issued.

The term 'negotiable instrument' is defined under Section 13 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. Section 12 of the Act defines 'foreign instrument'.
Thus, option 3 is correct.

The bills of exchange are a kind of negotiable instruments generally arising out of trade transactions. Demand bills, usance bills, clean bills, and documentary bills are examples of bills of exchange. A cheque is also a kind of bill of exchange.
Thus, the statement that all cheques are bills of exchange, but all bills of exchange are not cheques, is true.

According to Section 68(1) of the Himachal Pradesh Excise Act, 2011, any person aggrieved by an order passed by any Excise Officer under this Act may, within thirty days from the date of communication of such order, appeal to the Collector in the manner prescribed.

According to Section 35 of the Indian Forest Act, the State Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, regulate or prohibit, in any forest or waste-land,—
(a) the breaking up or clearing of land for cultivation;
(b) the pasturing of cattle; or
(c) the firing or clearing of the vegetation;
when such regulation or prohibition appears necessary for any of the following purposes:—
(i) for protection against storms, winds, rolling stones, floods and avalanches;
(ii) for the preservation of the soil on the ridges and slopes and in the valleys of hilly tracts, the prevention of landslips or of the formation of ravines, and torrents, or the protection of land against erosion, or the deposit thereon of sand, stones or gravel;
(iii) for the maintenance of a water-supply in springs, rivers and tanks;
(iv) for the protection of roads, bridges, railways and other lines of communication;
(v) for the preservation of the public health.

Under section 354 A of the Indian Penal Code, sexual harassment is defined and punishable. The section reads as follows:
(1) A man committing any of the following acts— (i) physical contact and advances involving unwelcome and explicit sexual overtures; or
(ii) a demand or request for sexual favours; or
(iii) showing pornography against the will of a woman; or
(iv) making sexually coloured remarks, shall be guilty of the offence of sexual harassment.
(2) Any man who commits the offence specified in clause (i) or clause (ii) or clause (iii) of sub-section (1) shall be punished with rigorous imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both.
(3) Any man who commits the offence specified in clause (iv) of sub-section (1) shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to one year, or with fine, or with both.

The principle of "proximity of crime" refers to the requirement that a person must be in close proximity to the commission of a crime in order to be held liable for that offence. This principle is relevant in determining the liability for certain offences, but not for others.
In the context of the options:
Theft and dacoity: The principle of proximity of crime is relevant in determining the liability for theft and dacoity. A person must be physically present or in close proximity to the scene of the crime to be held liable for these offences.
Culpable homicide and murder: The principle of proximity of crime is relevant in determining the liability for culpable homicide and murder. These offences involve causing the death of another person, and the person accused must have been in close proximity to the victim at the time the offence was committed.
Kidnapping and abduction: The principle of proximity of crime is irrelevant in deciding the liability for the offences of kidnapping and abduction. These offences focus on the act of unlawfully taking or detaining a person against their will, irrespective of the physical proximity of the person committing the offence.
Abetment and conspiracy: The principle of proximity of crime is relevant in determining the liability for abetment and conspiracy. Both abetment and conspiracy involve actions or agreements made in close proximity to the commission of a crime, or with the intention to facilitate the commission of a crime.
Therefore, the correct answer is option 3, as the principle of proximity of crime is irrelevant in deciding the liability for the offence of kidnapping and abduction.

Section 171-D of Indian Penal Code is incorrectly matched as this section deals with the offence of personation at elections. Punishment for bribery is provided for under Section 171-E of the Indian Penal Code. Rest of the options are correctly matched.

The offence of 'Stalking' is an offence, under Indian penal Code, against a woman. It is provided under section 354C of the Indian Penal Code. According to the section, any man who
(i) follows a woman and contacts, or attempts to contact such woman to foster personal interaction repeatedly despite a clear indication of disinterest by such woman; or
(ii) monitors the use by a woman of the internet, email or any other form of electronic communication, commits the offence of stalking.

Section 160 of the Code of Criminal Procedure states that an investigating police officer may by order require the attendance before himself of any person.

Section 437A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 provides for provisions related to bail to require the accused to appeal before the next appellate court. The section reads as follows:
(1) Before conclusion of the trial and before disposal of the appeal, the Court trying the offence or the Appellate Court, as the case may be, shall require the accused to execute bail bonds with sureties, to appear before the higher Court as and when such Court issues notice in respect of any appeal or petition filed against the judgment of the respective Court and such bail bonds shall be in force for six months.
(2) If such accused fails to appear, the bond stand forfeited and the procedure under section 446 shall apply.

Section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments act, 1881 deals with offences by companies. The proviso second of the sub-section 1 reads as:
Provided that where a person is nominated as a Director of a company by virtue of his holding any office or employment in the Central Government or the State Government or a financial corporation owned or controlled by the Central Government or the State Government, as the case may be, he shall not be liable for prosecution under this Chapter. Hence, the correct answer is option 2.

Section 25A of the Wildlife Protection Act provides for the time limit for completion of acquisition proceedings. It states that the Collector shall, as far as possible, complete the proceedings under Sections 19 to 25 (both inclusive), within a period of two years from the date of notification of declaration of sanctuary under Section 18. The notification shall not lapse if, for any reasons, the proceedings are not completed within a period of two years.