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.
  

Explanation appended to exception 1 under Section 300 of the Indian Penal Code, i.e. murder, expressly states that whether the provocation was grave and sudden enough to prevent the offence from amounting to murder is a question of fact.

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.

Under Section 156(3), an application is filed before the Magistrate. The Magistrate can direct the FIR to be registered and also can direct a proper investigation to be made, in a case where, according to the aggrieved person, no proper investigation was made. Thus, the power to direct investigation under Section 156(3) of CrPC can be exercised by a Magistrate only.

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.

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 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 34 and Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code both deal with criminal liability in relation to a group of people, but they differ in their requirements and applications.
Section 34 deals with the principle of joint liability, where if two or more persons intentionally commit a criminal act in furtherance of a common intention, each person is liable for that act as if he or she had done it alone. Therefore, Section 34 requires active participation in the criminal act, and the presence of at least two persons is necessary for it to be invoked.
Section 149, on the other hand, deals with unlawful assembly. It states that if an offence is committed by any member of an unlawful assembly, every other member of the assembly is also guilty of that offence, provided they shared a common object. The section does not require active participation in the offence, but rather mere membership of the unlawful assembly with a common object. The presence of at least five persons is necessary for it to be invoked.

According to Section 445 of the Indian Penal Code, a person is said to commit house-breaking who commits house-trespass if he effects his entrance into the house or any part of it in any of the six ways hereinafter described; or if, being in the house or any part of it for the purpose of committing an offence, or having committed an offence therein, he quits the house or any part of it in any of such six ways, that is to say:—

• If he enters or quits through a passage made by himself, or by any abettor of the house-trespass, in order to the committing of the house-trespass.
• If he enters or quits through any passage not intended by any person, other than himself or an abettor of the offence, for human entrance; or through any passage to which he has obtained access by scaling or climbing over any wall or building.
• If he enters or quits through any passage which he or any abettor of the house-trespass has opened, in order to the committing of the house-trespass by any means by which that passage was not intended by the occupier of the house to be opened.
• If he enters or quits by opening any lock in order to the committing of the house-trespass, or in order to the quitting of the house after a house-trespass.
• If he effects his entrance or departure by using criminal force or committing an assault, or by threatening any person with assault.
• If he enters or quits by any passage which he knows to have been fastened against such entrance or departure, and to have been unfastened by himself or by an abettor of the house-trespass.

Thus, option 4 is the answer.

According to Section 354A (1) of the Indian Penal Code, 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.
Thus, option 3 is the answer.

Culpable homicide refers to the act of causing death by an intentional or negligent act, and murder is a type of culpable homicide that involves intention or knowledge to cause death. Every murder is culpable homicide, as culpable homicide is genesis and murder is species. So, (a) is correct.
According to Section 390, in a robbery, there is either theft or extortion. Therefore, (c) is also correct.
Hence, option 1 is the answer.

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.

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.

Section 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure provides the procedure for dealing with the private complaint, according to which, the jurisdictional Magistrate taking cognizance of an offence on complaint shall examine upon oath the complainant and the witnesses present, if any, and the substance of such examination shall be reduced to writing and shall be signed by the complainant and the witnesses, and also by the Magistrate. Thus, in a private complaint, case process can be issued against an accused after the Magistrate is of the opinion that there is sufficient ground to proceed with the case.

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.

The Himachal Pradesh Excise Act, 2011 is divided into 11 Chapters based on different subjects and topics. Chapter IV deals with Licenses, Permits and Passes. Chapter VI deals with Offences and Penalties. Chapter VII deals with Confiscation. Chapter IX deals with Appeal and Revision. Hence, option 2 is the correct answer.

Section 67 of the Indian Forest Act states that the District Magistrate or any Magistrate of the first class specially empowered in this behalf by the State Government may try summarily, under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 (5 of 1898), any forest-offence punishable with imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months, or fine not exceeding five hundred rupees, or both.

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.

Offence under Section 420 has been made out as per above facts. Section 420 deals with cheating and inducing the person deceived to deliver the property or to destroy the property. So, option (3) is correct.

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.

In the scenario, it is described that 'A' shoots at 'B' with the intention to kill him. Since 'B' survives the injury, 'A' would be held liable under the Indian Penal Code (IPC) for the offence of attempt to murder. Attempt to murder is covered under Section 307 of the IPC, which states that whoever does any act with the intention of causing death or with the intention of causing such bodily injury as is likely to cause death, and yet the person does not actually cause the death of the intended victim, is said to commit the offence of attempt to murder.

Section 164 lays down that the confession and statements made during the course of investigation are to be recorded by competent judicial magistrates or metropolitan magistrates.

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 26 of the Indian Forest Act, 1927 provides for acts prohibited in such forests. Sub-section 1 mentions the punishment for prohibiting certain acts as any person shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to six months, or with fine which may extend to five hundred rupees, or with both, in addition to such compensation for damage done to the forest as the convicting court may direct to be paid. Therefore, the correct answer is option 3.