Legal Principle: Nothing is an offence which is done by a person who is bound by law to do it.Facts: andlsquo;Aandrsquo;, a police officer, without warrant, apprehends Rohan, who has committed murder and is running for cover.Decide as a judge.a)andlsquo;Aandrsquo; is not guilty of the offence of wrongful confinement.b)andlsquo;Aandrsquo; cannot apprehend Rohanandrsquo; without a warrant issued by a court of law.c)andlsquo;Aandrsquo; is guilty of the offence of wrongful confinement.d)andlsquo;Aandrsquo; may be guilty of the offence of wrongful restraint.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 > Legal Principle: Nothing is an offence which ...

Legal Principle: Nothing is an offence which is done by a person who is bound by law to do it.
Facts: ‘A’, a police officer, without warrant, apprehends Rohan, who has committed murder and is running for cover.
Decide as a judge.

a)
‘A’ is not guilty of the offence of wrongful confinement.
b)
‘A’ cannot apprehend Rohan’ without a warrant issued by a court of law.
c)
‘A’ is guilty of the offence of wrongful confinement.
d)
‘A’ may be guilty of the offence of wrongful restraint.

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

Join for Free

Join for Free

Verified Answer

Legal Principle: Nothing is an offence which is done by a person who i...

It is case of murder and police officer is fully justified in discharge of his duties to apprehend the person without warrant who is accused of committing an offence or against whom a suspicion is there.

View all questions of this test

Most Upvoted Answer

Legal Principle: Nothing is an offence which is done by a person who i...

Legal Principle:
Nothing is an offence which is done by a person who is bound by law to do it.

Facts:
'A', a police officer, without warrant, apprehends Rohan, who has committed murder and is running for cover.

Explanation:
- The legal principle states that if a person is bound by law to do something, then it cannot be considered an offence.
- In this case, 'A' is a police officer whose duty is to apprehend individuals who have committed crimes, such as murder.
- Since Rohan has committed murder and is fleeing, it is within 'A's legal duty to apprehend him without a warrant.
- Therefore, 'A' is not guilty of the offence of wrongful confinement as he was simply carrying out his legal obligation as a police officer.

Conclusion:
Given the legal principle and the facts of the case, it can be concluded that 'A' is not guilty of the offence of wrongful confinement.

Answered by Glance Learning Institute · View profile

View all answers Start learning for free

Explore Courses for CLAT exam

Similar CLAT Doubts

Legal Principle: Nothing is an offence which is done by a person who is bound by law to do it.Facts: ‘A’, a police officer, without warrant, apprehends Rohan, who has committed murder and is running for cover.Decide as a judge.

View answer

Legal Principle: Nothing is an offense that is done by a person who is bound by law to do it.Facts: ‘A’, a police officer, without a warrant, apprehends Rohan, who has committed murder and is running for cover.Decide as a judge.

View answer

Principle: Nothing is an offence which is done by a person who is bound by laws to do it.Facts: A,a police officer, without warrant,apprehends Z,who has committed murder.Q. Which of the following derivations is CORRECT.

View answer

Directions:The question is based on the reasoning and arguments, or facts and principles set out in the passage. Some of these principles may not be true in the real or legal sense, yet you must conclusively assume that they are true for the purpose. Please answer the question on the basis of what is stated or implied in the passage. Do not rely on any principle of law other than the ones supplied to you, and do not assume any facts other than those supplied to you when answering the question. Please choose the option that most accurately and comprehensively answers the question.Under the Constitution of India, in Articles 19 and 21, every person throughout the territory of India is conferred with the right to freedom of movement and is guaranteed personal liberty. In furtherance of this objective set up by the Constitution, the Indian Penal Code lays down penal sanctions in case a person violates the freedom of movement or personal liberty of another. Sections 339 and 340 of Indian Penal Code define wrongful restraint and wrongful confinement, respectively. The Indian Penal Code, 1860, makes wrongful restraint and wrongful confinement punishable under Section 339 to 348.According to Section 339 of the Indian Penal Code, "Whoever voluntarily obstructs any person so as to prevent that person from proceeding in any direction in which that person has a right to proceed, is said wrongfully to restrain that person." Further, the section also lays down an exception, which is that if a person in good faith believes himself to have a lawful right to obstruct and so obstructs a private way over land or water, then it does not amount to wrongful restraint. To establish the offence of wrongful restraint, the complainant must prove that there was an obstruction; the obstruction prevented the complainant from proceeding in any direction; the person/complainant so proceeding must have a right to proceed in the direction concerned.Wrongful confinement is defined under Section 340 of the Indian Penal Code. Section 342 of the Indian Penal Code provides punishment for wrongful confinement. Wrongful confinement means that a person is wrongfully restrained from proceeding beyond certain circumscribing limits. Section 340 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, defines wrongful confinement as: "Whoever wrongfully restrains any person in such a manner as to prevent that person from proceeding beyond certain circumscribing limits, is said "wrongfully to confine" that person." Section 342 of the Indian Penal Code says that whoever wrongfully confines any person shall be punished with simple imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to one year, or with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees, or with both. The offence under Section 340 of the Code is cognizable, bailable compoundable and triable by any Magistrate. Section 343 of the Indian Penal Code says that whoever wrongfully confines any person for three days or more, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both. The offence under this section is cognizable, bailable, compoundable with the permission of the court and triable by any Magistrate.Q.Deepa lives in ABC apartment on the 6th floor. Deepa being health conscious prefers taking the stairs rather than lift to her floor. Mr. Verma, who lives at the 3rd floor, has a dog which usually sleeps peacefully outside Vermas flat. Deepa being scared of dogs couldnt make it to her floor. Is this a case of wrongful restraint? Decide.

View answer

Directions:The question is based on the reasoning and arguments, or facts and principles set out in the passage. Some of these principles may not be true in the real or legal sense, yet you must conclusively assume that they are true for the purpose. Please answer the question on the basis of what is stated or implied in the passage. Do not rely on any principle of law other than the ones supplied to you, and do not assume any facts other than those supplied to you when answering the question. Please choose the option that most accurately and comprehensively answers the question.Under the Constitution of India, in Articles 19 and 21, every person throughout the territory of India is conferred with the right to freedom of movement and is guaranteed personal liberty. In furtherance of this objective set up by the Constitution, the Indian Penal Code lays down penal sanctions in case a person violates the freedom of movement or personal liberty of another. Sections 339 and 340 of Indian Penal Code define wrongful restraint and wrongful confinement, respectively. The Indian Penal Code, 1860, makes wrongful restraint and wrongful confinement punishable under Section 339 to 348.According to Section 339 of the Indian Penal Code, "Whoever voluntarily obstructs any person so as to prevent that person from proceeding in any direction in which that person has a right to proceed, is said wrongfully to restrain that person." Further, the section also lays down an exception, which is that if a person in good faith believes himself to have a lawful right to obstruct and so obstructs a private way over land or water, then it does not amount to wrongful restraint. To establish the offence of wrongful restraint, the complainant must prove that there was an obstruction; the obstruction prevented the complainant from proceeding in any direction; the person/complainant so proceeding must have a right to proceed in the direction concerned.Wrongful confinement is defined under Section 340 of the Indian Penal Code. Section 342 of the Indian Penal Code provides punishment for wrongful confinement. Wrongful confinement means that a person is wrongfully restrained from proceeding beyond certain circumscribing limits. Section 340 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, defines wrongful confinement as: "Whoever wrongfully restrains any person in such a manner as to prevent that person from proceeding beyond certain circumscribing limits, is said "wrongfully to confine" that person." Section 342 of the Indian Penal Code says that whoever wrongfully confines any person shall be punished with simple imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to one year, or with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees, or with both. The offence under Section 340 of the Code is cognizable, bailable compoundable and triable by any Magistrate. Section 343 of the Indian Penal Code says that whoever wrongfully confines any person for three days or more, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both. The offence under this section is cognizable, bailable, compoundable with the permission of the court and triable by any Magistrate.Q.Rajat threatens Riya not to leave her house. If Riya attempts to leave the house, Rajat would burn her house down. Is this a case of wrongful confinement?

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

Legal Principle: Nothing is an offence which is done by a person who is bound by law to do it.Facts: ‘A’, a police officer, without warrant, apprehends Rohan, who has committed murder and is running for cover.Decide as a judge.a)‘A’ is not guilty of the offence of wrongful confinement.b)‘A’ cannot apprehend Rohan’ without a warrant issued by a court of law.c)‘A’ is guilty of the offence of wrongful confinement.d)‘A’ may be guilty of the offence of wrongful restraint.Correct answer is option 'A'. Can you explain this answer?

Share with a Friend

Answer this doubt

Question Description
Legal Principle: Nothing is an offence which is done by a person who is bound by law to do it.Facts: ‘A’, a police officer, without warrant, apprehends Rohan, who has committed murder and is running for cover.Decide as a judge.a)‘A’ is not guilty of the offence of wrongful confinement.b)‘A’ cannot apprehend Rohan’ without a warrant issued by a court of law.c)‘A’ is guilty of the offence of wrongful confinement.d)‘A’ may be guilty of the offence of wrongful restraint.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 Legal Principle: Nothing is an offence which is done by a person who is bound by law to do it.Facts: ‘A’, a police officer, without warrant, apprehends Rohan, who has committed murder and is running for cover.Decide as a judge.a)‘A’ is not guilty of the offence of wrongful confinement.b)‘A’ cannot apprehend Rohan’ without a warrant issued by a court of law.c)‘A’ is guilty of the offence of wrongful confinement.d)‘A’ may be guilty of the offence of wrongful restraint.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 Legal Principle: Nothing is an offence which is done by a person who is bound by law to do it.Facts: ‘A’, a police officer, without warrant, apprehends Rohan, who has committed murder and is running for cover.Decide as a judge.a)‘A’ is not guilty of the offence of wrongful confinement.b)‘A’ cannot apprehend Rohan’ without a warrant issued by a court of law.c)‘A’ is guilty of the offence of wrongful confinement.d)‘A’ may be guilty of the offence of wrongful restraint.Correct answer is option 'A'. Can you explain this answer?.

Solutions for Legal Principle: Nothing is an offence which is done by a person who is bound by law to do it.Facts: ‘A’, a police officer, without warrant, apprehends Rohan, who has committed murder and is running for cover.Decide as a judge.a)‘A’ is not guilty of the offence of wrongful confinement.b)‘A’ cannot apprehend Rohan’ without a warrant issued by a court of law.c)‘A’ is guilty of the offence of wrongful confinement.d)‘A’ may be guilty of the offence of wrongful restraint.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 Legal Principle: Nothing is an offence which is done by a person who is bound by law to do it.Facts: ‘A’, a police officer, without warrant, apprehends Rohan, who has committed murder and is running for cover.Decide as a judge.a)‘A’ is not guilty of the offence of wrongful confinement.b)‘A’ cannot apprehend Rohan’ without a warrant issued by a court of law.c)‘A’ is guilty of the offence of wrongful confinement.d)‘A’ may be guilty of the offence of wrongful restraint.Correct answer is option 'A'. Can you explain this answer? defined & explained in the simplest way possible. Besides giving the explanation of Legal Principle: Nothing is an offence which is done by a person who is bound by law to do it.Facts: ‘A’, a police officer, without warrant, apprehends Rohan, who has committed murder and is running for cover.Decide as a judge.a)‘A’ is not guilty of the offence of wrongful confinement.b)‘A’ cannot apprehend Rohan’ without a warrant issued by a court of law.c)‘A’ is guilty of the offence of wrongful confinement.d)‘A’ may be guilty of the offence of wrongful restraint.Correct answer is option 'A'. Can you explain this answer?, a detailed solution for Legal Principle: Nothing is an offence which is done by a person who is bound by law to do it.Facts: ‘A’, a police officer, without warrant, apprehends Rohan, who has committed murder and is running for cover.Decide as a judge.a)‘A’ is not guilty of the offence of wrongful confinement.b)‘A’ cannot apprehend Rohan’ without a warrant issued by a court of law.c)‘A’ is guilty of the offence of wrongful confinement.d)‘A’ may be guilty of the offence of wrongful restraint.Correct answer is option 'A'. Can you explain this answer? has been provided alongside types of Legal Principle: Nothing is an offence which is done by a person who is bound by law to do it.Facts: ‘A’, a police officer, without warrant, apprehends Rohan, who has committed murder and is running for cover.Decide as a judge.a)‘A’ is not guilty of the offence of wrongful confinement.b)‘A’ cannot apprehend Rohan’ without a warrant issued by a court of law.c)‘A’ is guilty of the offence of wrongful confinement.d)‘A’ may be guilty of the offence of wrongful restraint.Correct answer is option 'A'. Can you explain this answer? theory, EduRev gives you an ample number of questions to practice Legal Principle: Nothing is an offence which is done by a person who is bound by law to do it.Facts: ‘A’, a police officer, without warrant, apprehends Rohan, who has committed murder and is running for cover.Decide as a judge.a)‘A’ is not guilty of the offence of wrongful confinement.b)‘A’ cannot apprehend Rohan’ without a warrant issued by a court of law.c)‘A’ is guilty of the offence of wrongful confinement.d)‘A’ may be guilty of the offence of wrongful restraint.Correct answer is option 'A'. Can you explain this answer? tests, examples and also practice CLAT tests.

Explore Courses for CLAT exam