Problem (For question)Rules:A. Whoever intending to take any moveable property out of the possession of any person without that personandrsquo;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:Veena, an old lady of 78 years, used to live with her granddaughter Indira. Veena was ill and therefore bed-ridden for several months. In those months, she could not tolerate any noise and it andlsquo;became quite difficult to clean her room. After she died, Indira hired a cleaner, Lucky, to clean the room and throw away any rubbish that may be there. There was a pile of old newspapers which Veena had stacked in a corner of her room. Lucky asked Indira if he should clear away the pile of old newspapers, to which she said yes, Lucky took the pile to a municipality rubbish dump. While Lucky 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 Indira probably wouldnandrsquo;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 andlsquo;masterpiece, and worth twenty thousand rupees. Before mounting the painting, Lucky pasted it on a plain sheet of paper so that it does not tear any more. By doing so, he made its professional andlsquo;restoration very difficult and thereby reduced its value by half. Luckyandrsquo;s neighbour Kamala discovered that the painting belonged to Indira. With the motive of returning the painting to Indira, Kamala climbed through an open window into Luckyandrsquo;s room when he was away one afternoon and removed the painting from his house.Q.Is Lucky guilty of criminal damage?a)No, Lucky is not guilty of criminal damage as he did not intentionally impair the value of the painting.b)Yes, Lucky is guilty of criminal damage as he intentionally stuck the paper on to the paintingc)No, Lucky is not guilty of criminal damage as he does not have the painting in his possession anymore.d)No, Lucky is not guilty of criminal damage as he has not destroyed the painting.Correct answer is option 'A'. Can you explain this answer?

Explore Courses UPSC Exam UPSC Test Series Free Notes EduRev Infinity

Open App

CLAT Exam > CLAT Questions > Problem (For question)Rules:A. Whoever intend...

Problem (For question)

Rules:

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:

Veena, an old lady of 78 years, used to live with her granddaughter Indira. Veena was ill and therefore bed-ridden for several months. In those months, she could not tolerate any noise and it ‘became quite difficult to clean her room. After she died, Indira hired a cleaner, Lucky, to clean the room and throw away any rubbish that may be there. There was a pile of old newspapers which Veena had stacked in a corner of her room. Lucky asked Indira if he should clear away the pile of old newspapers, to which she said yes, Lucky took the pile to a municipality rubbish dump. While Lucky 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 Indira 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, Lucky 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. Lucky’s neighbour Kamala discovered that the painting belonged to Indira. With the motive of returning the painting to Indira, Kamala climbed through an open window into Lucky’s room when he was away one afternoon and removed the painting from his house.

Q.
Is Lucky guilty of criminal damage?

a)
No, Lucky is not guilty of criminal damage as he did not intentionally impair the value of the painting.
b)
Yes, Lucky is guilty of criminal damage as he intentionally stuck the paper on to the painting
c)
No, Lucky is not guilty of criminal damage as he does not have the painting in his possession anymore.
d)
No, Lucky is not guilty of criminal damage as he has not destroyed the painting.

Correct answer is option 'A'. Can you explain this answer?

Join for Free

Join for Free

Most Upvoted Answer

Problem (For question)Rules:A. Whoever intending to take any moveable ...

Explanation:

Intent:
- Lucky did not intentionally impair the value of the painting.
- His actions were based on the assumption that the painting had no significant value to Indira.

Actions:
- Lucky mounted the painting on a wooden frame and hung it on his bedroom wall.
- He pasted the painting on a plain sheet of paper to prevent further tearing, inadvertently reducing its value.

Knowledge:
- Lucky was unaware that the painting was a valuable masterpiece.
- His actions were not driven by the intention to cause damage to the painting.

Possession:
- Lucky no longer had the painting in his possession as Kamala had taken it from his house.
Therefore, Lucky is not guilty of criminal damage as he did not intentionally impair the value of the painting and did not have possession of it when it was removed from his house.

Answered by Glance Learning Institute · View profile

Free Test

FREE

Test: CLAT 2011 Past Year Paper
200 Ques | 120 Min

Start Free Test

View all free CLAT tests

Community Answer

Problem (For question)Rules:A. Whoever intending to take any moveable ...

Yes ofcourse the answer would be A because Lucky has no such criminal intention to steal it or to lower its value [ mens rea ] thus he wont be found guilty or liable .

View all answers Start learning for free

Explore Courses for CLAT exam

Similar CLAT Doubts

Problem (For question)Rules: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:Veena, an old lady of 78 years, used to live with her granddaughter Indira. Veena was ill and therefore bed-ridden for several months. In those months, she could not tolerate any noise and it ‘became quite difficult to clean her room. After she died, Indira hired a cleaner, Lucky, to clean the room and throw away any rubbish that may be there. There was a pile of old newspapers which Veena had stacked in a corner of her room. Lucky asked Indira if he should clear away the pile of old newspapers, to which she said yes, Lucky took the pile to a municipality rubbish dump. While Lucky 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 Indira 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, Lucky 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. Lucky’s neighbour Kamala discovered that the painting belonged to Indira. With the motive of returning the painting to Indira, Kamala climbed through an open window into Lucky’s room when he was away one afternoon and removed the painting from his house.Q.Which of the following propositions could be inferred from the facts and the rules specified.

View answer

Problem (For question)Rules: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:Veena, an old lady of 78 years, used to live with her granddaughter Indira. Veena was ill and therefore bed-ridden for several months. In those months, she could not tolerate any noise and it ‘became quite difficult to clean her room. After she died, Indira hired a cleaner, Lucky, to clean the room and throw away any rubbish that may be there. There was a pile of old newspapers which Veena had stacked in a corner of her room. Lucky asked Indira if he should clear away the pile of old newspapers, to which she said yes, Lucky took the pile to a municipality rubbish dump. While Lucky 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 Indira 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, Lucky 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. Lucky’s neighbour Kamala discovered that the painting belonged to Indira. With the motive of returning the painting to Indira, Kamala climbed through an open window into Lucky’s room when he was away one afternoon and removed the painting from his house.Q.If Lucky had discovered the painting before leaving Indira’s house rather than at the rubbish dump, would he have been guilty of theft in this case?

View answer

Problem (For question)Rules: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:Veena, an old lady of 78 years, used to live with her granddaughter Indira. Veena was ill and therefore bed-ridden for several months. In those months, she could not tolerate any noise and it ‘became quite difficult to clean her room. After she died, Indira hired a cleaner, Lucky, to clean the room and throw away any rubbish that may be there. There was a pile of old newspapers which Veena had stacked in a corner of her room. Lucky asked Indira if he should clear away the pile of old newspapers, to which she said yes, Lucky took the pile to a municipality rubbish dump. While Lucky 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 Indira 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, Lucky 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. Lucky’s neighbour Kamala discovered that the painting belonged to Indira. With the motive of returning the painting to Indira, Kamala climbed through an open window into Lucky’s room when he was away one afternoon and removed the painting from his house.Q.Has Lucky committed theft?

View answer

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 ofreturning 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.Q.Is Vinodji guilty of criminal damage?

View answer

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 ofreturning 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.Q.Which of the following propositions could be inferred from the facts and the rules specified

View answer

Top Courses for CLATView all

Current Affairs: Daily, Weekly & Monthly

Legal Reasoning for CLAT

Lucent for GK

Crash Course for CLAT

CLAT Mock Test Series 2026

Top Courses for CLAT

View all

Problem (For question)Rules: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:Veena, an old lady of 78 years, used to live with her granddaughter Indira. Veena was ill and therefore bed-ridden for several months. In those months, she could not tolerate any noise and it ‘became quite difficult to clean her room. After she died, Indira hired a cleaner, Lucky, to clean the room and throw away any rubbish that may be there. There was a pile of old newspapers which Veena had stacked in a corner of her room. Lucky asked Indira if he should clear away the pile of old newspapers, to which she said yes, Lucky took the pile to a municipality rubbish dump. While Lucky 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 Indira 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, Lucky 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. Lucky’s neighbour Kamala discovered that the painting belonged to Indira. With the motive of returning the painting to Indira, Kamala climbed through an open window into Lucky’s room when he was away one afternoon and removed the painting from his house.Q.Is Lucky guilty of criminal damage?a)No, Lucky is not guilty of criminal damage as he did not intentionally impair the value of the painting.b)Yes, Lucky is guilty of criminal damage as he intentionally stuck the paper on to the paintingc)No, Lucky is not guilty of criminal damage as he does not have the painting in his possession anymore.d)No, Lucky is not guilty of criminal damage as he has not destroyed the painting.Correct answer is option 'A'. Can you explain this answer?

Share with a Friend

Answer this doubt

Question Description
Problem (For question)Rules: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:Veena, an old lady of 78 years, used to live with her granddaughter Indira. Veena was ill and therefore bed-ridden for several months. In those months, she could not tolerate any noise and it ‘became quite difficult to clean her room. After she died, Indira hired a cleaner, Lucky, to clean the room and throw away any rubbish that may be there. There was a pile of old newspapers which Veena had stacked in a corner of her room. Lucky asked Indira if he should clear away the pile of old newspapers, to which she said yes, Lucky took the pile to a municipality rubbish dump. While Lucky 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 Indira 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, Lucky 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. Lucky’s neighbour Kamala discovered that the painting belonged to Indira. With the motive of returning the painting to Indira, Kamala climbed through an open window into Lucky’s room when he was away one afternoon and removed the painting from his house.Q.Is Lucky guilty of criminal damage?a)No, Lucky is not guilty of criminal damage as he did not intentionally impair the value of the painting.b)Yes, Lucky is guilty of criminal damage as he intentionally stuck the paper on to the paintingc)No, Lucky is not guilty of criminal damage as he does not have the painting in his possession anymore.d)No, Lucky is not guilty of criminal damage as he has not destroyed the painting.Correct answer is option 'A'. Can you explain this answer? for CLAT 2025 is part of CLAT preparation. The Question and answers have been prepared according to the CLAT exam syllabus. Information about Problem (For question)Rules: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:Veena, an old lady of 78 years, used to live with her granddaughter Indira. Veena was ill and therefore bed-ridden for several months. In those months, she could not tolerate any noise and it ‘became quite difficult to clean her room. After she died, Indira hired a cleaner, Lucky, to clean the room and throw away any rubbish that may be there. There was a pile of old newspapers which Veena had stacked in a corner of her room. Lucky asked Indira if he should clear away the pile of old newspapers, to which she said yes, Lucky took the pile to a municipality rubbish dump. While Lucky 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 Indira 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, Lucky 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. Lucky’s neighbour Kamala discovered that the painting belonged to Indira. With the motive of returning the painting to Indira, Kamala climbed through an open window into Lucky’s room when he was away one afternoon and removed the painting from his house.Q.Is Lucky guilty of criminal damage?a)No, Lucky is not guilty of criminal damage as he did not intentionally impair the value of the painting.b)Yes, Lucky is guilty of criminal damage as he intentionally stuck the paper on to the paintingc)No, Lucky is not guilty of criminal damage as he does not have the painting in his possession anymore.d)No, Lucky is not guilty of criminal damage as he has not destroyed the painting.Correct answer is option 'A'. Can you explain this answer? covers all topics & solutions for CLAT 2025 Exam. Find important definitions, questions, meanings, examples, exercises and tests below for Problem (For question)Rules: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:Veena, an old lady of 78 years, used to live with her granddaughter Indira. Veena was ill and therefore bed-ridden for several months. In those months, she could not tolerate any noise and it ‘became quite difficult to clean her room. After she died, Indira hired a cleaner, Lucky, to clean the room and throw away any rubbish that may be there. There was a pile of old newspapers which Veena had stacked in a corner of her room. Lucky asked Indira if he should clear away the pile of old newspapers, to which she said yes, Lucky took the pile to a municipality rubbish dump. While Lucky 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 Indira 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, Lucky 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. Lucky’s neighbour Kamala discovered that the painting belonged to Indira. With the motive of returning the painting to Indira, Kamala climbed through an open window into Lucky’s room when he was away one afternoon and removed the painting from his house.Q.Is Lucky guilty of criminal damage?a)No, Lucky is not guilty of criminal damage as he did not intentionally impair the value of the painting.b)Yes, Lucky is guilty of criminal damage as he intentionally stuck the paper on to the paintingc)No, Lucky is not guilty of criminal damage as he does not have the painting in his possession anymore.d)No, Lucky is not guilty of criminal damage as he has not destroyed the painting.Correct answer is option 'A'. Can you explain this answer?.

Solutions for Problem (For question)Rules: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:Veena, an old lady of 78 years, used to live with her granddaughter Indira. Veena was ill and therefore bed-ridden for several months. In those months, she could not tolerate any noise and it ‘became quite difficult to clean her room. After she died, Indira hired a cleaner, Lucky, to clean the room and throw away any rubbish that may be there. There was a pile of old newspapers which Veena had stacked in a corner of her room. Lucky asked Indira if he should clear away the pile of old newspapers, to which she said yes, Lucky took the pile to a municipality rubbish dump. While Lucky 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 Indira 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, Lucky 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. Lucky’s neighbour Kamala discovered that the painting belonged to Indira. With the motive of returning the painting to Indira, Kamala climbed through an open window into Lucky’s room when he was away one afternoon and removed the painting from his house.Q.Is Lucky guilty of criminal damage?a)No, Lucky is not guilty of criminal damage as he did not intentionally impair the value of the painting.b)Yes, Lucky is guilty of criminal damage as he intentionally stuck the paper on to the paintingc)No, Lucky is not guilty of criminal damage as he does not have the painting in his possession anymore.d)No, Lucky is not guilty of criminal damage as he has not destroyed the painting.Correct answer is option 'A'. Can you explain this answer? in English & in Hindi are available as part of our courses for CLAT. Download more important topics, notes, lectures and mock test series for CLAT Exam by signing up for free.

Here you can find the meaning of Problem (For question)Rules: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:Veena, an old lady of 78 years, used to live with her granddaughter Indira. Veena was ill and therefore bed-ridden for several months. In those months, she could not tolerate any noise and it ‘became quite difficult to clean her room. After she died, Indira hired a cleaner, Lucky, to clean the room and throw away any rubbish that may be there. There was a pile of old newspapers which Veena had stacked in a corner of her room. Lucky asked Indira if he should clear away the pile of old newspapers, to which she said yes, Lucky took the pile to a municipality rubbish dump. While Lucky 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 Indira 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, Lucky 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. Lucky’s neighbour Kamala discovered that the painting belonged to Indira. With the motive of returning the painting to Indira, Kamala climbed through an open window into Lucky’s room when he was away one afternoon and removed the painting from his house.Q.Is Lucky guilty of criminal damage?a)No, Lucky is not guilty of criminal damage as he did not intentionally impair the value of the painting.b)Yes, Lucky is guilty of criminal damage as he intentionally stuck the paper on to the paintingc)No, Lucky is not guilty of criminal damage as he does not have the painting in his possession anymore.d)No, Lucky is not guilty of criminal damage as he has not destroyed the painting.Correct answer is option 'A'. Can you explain this answer? defined & explained in the simplest way possible. Besides giving the explanation of Problem (For question)Rules: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:Veena, an old lady of 78 years, used to live with her granddaughter Indira. Veena was ill and therefore bed-ridden for several months. In those months, she could not tolerate any noise and it ‘became quite difficult to clean her room. After she died, Indira hired a cleaner, Lucky, to clean the room and throw away any rubbish that may be there. There was a pile of old newspapers which Veena had stacked in a corner of her room. Lucky asked Indira if he should clear away the pile of old newspapers, to which she said yes, Lucky took the pile to a municipality rubbish dump. While Lucky 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 Indira 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, Lucky 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. Lucky’s neighbour Kamala discovered that the painting belonged to Indira. With the motive of returning the painting to Indira, Kamala climbed through an open window into Lucky’s room when he was away one afternoon and removed the painting from his house.Q.Is Lucky guilty of criminal damage?a)No, Lucky is not guilty of criminal damage as he did not intentionally impair the value of the painting.b)Yes, Lucky is guilty of criminal damage as he intentionally stuck the paper on to the paintingc)No, Lucky is not guilty of criminal damage as he does not have the painting in his possession anymore.d)No, Lucky is not guilty of criminal damage as he has not destroyed the painting.Correct answer is option 'A'. Can you explain this answer?, a detailed solution for Problem (For question)Rules: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:Veena, an old lady of 78 years, used to live with her granddaughter Indira. Veena was ill and therefore bed-ridden for several months. In those months, she could not tolerate any noise and it ‘became quite difficult to clean her room. After she died, Indira hired a cleaner, Lucky, to clean the room and throw away any rubbish that may be there. There was a pile of old newspapers which Veena had stacked in a corner of her room. Lucky asked Indira if he should clear away the pile of old newspapers, to which she said yes, Lucky took the pile to a municipality rubbish dump. While Lucky 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 Indira 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, Lucky 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. Lucky’s neighbour Kamala discovered that the painting belonged to Indira. With the motive of returning the painting to Indira, Kamala climbed through an open window into Lucky’s room when he was away one afternoon and removed the painting from his house.Q.Is Lucky guilty of criminal damage?a)No, Lucky is not guilty of criminal damage as he did not intentionally impair the value of the painting.b)Yes, Lucky is guilty of criminal damage as he intentionally stuck the paper on to the paintingc)No, Lucky is not guilty of criminal damage as he does not have the painting in his possession anymore.d)No, Lucky is not guilty of criminal damage as he has not destroyed the painting.Correct answer is option 'A'. Can you explain this answer? has been provided alongside types of Problem (For question)Rules: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:Veena, an old lady of 78 years, used to live with her granddaughter Indira. Veena was ill and therefore bed-ridden for several months. In those months, she could not tolerate any noise and it ‘became quite difficult to clean her room. After she died, Indira hired a cleaner, Lucky, to clean the room and throw away any rubbish that may be there. There was a pile of old newspapers which Veena had stacked in a corner of her room. Lucky asked Indira if he should clear away the pile of old newspapers, to which she said yes, Lucky took the pile to a municipality rubbish dump. While Lucky 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 Indira 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, Lucky 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. Lucky’s neighbour Kamala discovered that the painting belonged to Indira. With the motive of returning the painting to Indira, Kamala climbed through an open window into Lucky’s room when he was away one afternoon and removed the painting from his house.Q.Is Lucky guilty of criminal damage?a)No, Lucky is not guilty of criminal damage as he did not intentionally impair the value of the painting.b)Yes, Lucky is guilty of criminal damage as he intentionally stuck the paper on to the paintingc)No, Lucky is not guilty of criminal damage as he does not have the painting in his possession anymore.d)No, Lucky is not guilty of criminal damage as he has not destroyed the painting.Correct answer is option 'A'. Can you explain this answer? theory, EduRev gives you an ample number of questions to practice Problem (For question)Rules: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:Veena, an old lady of 78 years, used to live with her granddaughter Indira. Veena was ill and therefore bed-ridden for several months. In those months, she could not tolerate any noise and it ‘became quite difficult to clean her room. After she died, Indira hired a cleaner, Lucky, to clean the room and throw away any rubbish that may be there. There was a pile of old newspapers which Veena had stacked in a corner of her room. Lucky asked Indira if he should clear away the pile of old newspapers, to which she said yes, Lucky took the pile to a municipality rubbish dump. While Lucky 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 Indira 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, Lucky 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. Lucky’s neighbour Kamala discovered that the painting belonged to Indira. With the motive of returning the painting to Indira, Kamala climbed through an open window into Lucky’s room when he was away one afternoon and removed the painting from his house.Q.Is Lucky guilty of criminal damage?a)No, Lucky is not guilty of criminal damage as he did not intentionally impair the value of the painting.b)Yes, Lucky is guilty of criminal damage as he intentionally stuck the paper on to the paintingc)No, Lucky is not guilty of criminal damage as he does not have the painting in his possession anymore.d)No, Lucky is not guilty of criminal damage as he has not destroyed the painting.Correct answer is option 'A'. Can you explain this answer? tests, examples and also practice CLAT tests.

Explore Courses for CLAT exam