Directions: The question consists of two statements, one labelled as Principle(s) and the other as Facts. You are to examine the Principle(s) and apply it/them to the given Facts carefully and select the best option.Principle 1: No person shall be subjected to a penalty greater than that which might have been inflicted under the law in force at the time of the commission of the offence.Principle 2: Benfit of ex-post facto law should be given to the accused or convicted person.Facts: Ratan was a resident of State X. He was charged with allegations of corruption, accepting bribes and for aiding in adulteration of food meant for ration shops. He was sentenced to seven years imprisonment, along with a fine in accordance with the law of the State at that time. Two years later, the law under the concerned Act was amended in the Legislative Assembly of State X and reduced to a maximum four years imprisonment along with fine. Ratan filed a petition in court, requesting that his sentence be reduced accordingly.Decide.a)Ratan will succeed in his petition as an accused should be able to take advantage of a beneficial provision.b)Ratan will not succeed as the amendment took place after his sentence.c)Ratan will not succeed as his crime was serious and should not be given any liberties.d)None of the aboveCorrect 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 > Directions: The question consists of two sta...

Principle 1: No person shall be subjected to a penalty greater than that which might have been inflicted under the law in force at the time of the commission of the offence.

Principle 2: Benfit of ex-post facto law should be given to the accused or convicted person.

Facts: Ratan was a resident of State X. He was charged with allegations of corruption, accepting bribes and for aiding in adulteration of food meant for ration shops. He was sentenced to seven years imprisonment, along with a fine in accordance with the law of the State at that time. Two years later, the law under the concerned Act was amended in the Legislative Assembly of State X and reduced to a maximum four years imprisonment along with fine. Ratan filed a petition in court, requesting that his sentence be reduced accordingly.

Decide.

a)
Ratan will succeed in his petition as an accused should be able to take advantage of a beneficial provision.
b)
Ratan will not succeed as the amendment took place after his sentence.
c)
Ratan will not succeed as his crime was serious and should not be given any liberties.
d)
None of the above

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

Join for Free

Join for Free

Most Upvoted Answer

Directions: The question consists of two statements, one labelled as ...

Ex-post facto law is concerned with ensuring that an accused is not unfairly and unjustly punished more than what he deserves. It provides that an accused shouldn't be given a punishment greater than what was inflicted at the time of the commission of offence according to the law of that time. However, should the law change in a manner that it is beneficial to the accused, it is unfair to deny him of that benefit, and so, he should be entitled to it, and such amendment can be used to reduce the punishment.

Answered by Glance Learning Institute · View profile

View all answers Start learning for free

Explore Courses for CLAT exam

Similar CLAT Doubts

Directions: Read the passage and answer the question that follows.Article 20(1) of the Indian Constitution prohibits Ex Post Facto laws. The expression Ex Post Facto Law means a law, which imposes penalties or convictions on the acts already done and increases the penalty for such acts. In other words, Ex Post Facto Law imposes penalties retrospectively. For example, The Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 came into force from 20.5.1961. A person guilty of accepting dowry is punishable under the Act after 20.5 .1961 and not before 20.5.1961. Ex post facto laws are of three kinds as follows: (

View answer

Direction: Read the following passage carefully and answer the questions that follow.Solitary confinement is a kind of punishment which secludes the prisoner from any intercourse of sight of and communication with other prisoner ,it may be accompanied with or without labour . In leading case of Kishore Singh V. State Of Rajasthan it was held by SC that solitary confinement is a type of imprisonment in which there is complete isolation of prisoner from the co prisoner and segregation from outside world and fellow prisoner. Whenever any person is convicted of an offence for which under this code the court has power to sentence him to rigorous imprisonment , the court may, by its sentence , order that the offender shall be kept in solitary confinement for any portion or portions of the imprisonment to which he is sentenced , not exceeding three months in the whole, according to the following scale , that is say: A time not exceeding one month if the term of imprisonment shall not exceed six months; A time not exceeding two months if the term of imprisonment shall exceed six months and [shall not exceed one] year; A time not exceeding three months if the term of imprisonment shall exceed one year.Q.If someone is found guilty of a horrible crime, they could receive a harsh 8-year prison sentence. The defendant is given a sentence of 8 years in jail with the possibility of one month in solitary confinement. According to the states attorney, the judge had to have mandated three months of solitary confinement for the horrific crime. Decide?

View answer

Direction: Read the following passage carefully and answer the questions that follow.Solitary confinement is a kind of punishment which secludes the prisoner from any intercourse of sight of and communication with other prisoner ,it may be accompanied with or without labour . In leading case of Kishore Singh V. State Of Rajasthan it was held by SC that solitary confinement is a type of imprisonment in which there is complete isolation of prisoner from the co prisoner and segregation from outside world and fellow prisoner. Whenever any person is convicted of an offence for which under this code the court has power to sentence him to rigorous imprisonment , the court may, by its sentence , order that the offender shall be kept in solitary confinement for any portion or portions of the imprisonment to which he is sentenced , not exceeding three months in the whole, according to the following scale , that is say: A time not exceeding one month if the term of imprisonment shall not exceed six months; A time not exceeding two months if the term of imprisonment shall exceed six months and [shall not exceed one] year; A time not exceeding three months if the term of imprisonment shall exceed one year.Q.An individual is found guilty of a major offense and given a five-year hard jail sentence. Three months of solitary confinement are specified by the court as part of the sentence. For a serious offense, can the court impose a five-year sentence that includes three months of solitary confinement?

View answer

Directions: Kindly read the passage carefully and answer the questions given beside.Part IV of the Constitution contains Directive Principles of State Policy which provide guidelines for the government to govern the country. These Directives are different from the Fundamental Rights contained in Part III of the Constitution and the ordinary laws of the land in several respects. They are not enforceable in courts and do not create any justiciable rights in favor of individuals. They require implementation by legislation and do not confer or take away any legislative power from the appropriate legislature. The courts cannot declare any law as void on the ground that it contravenes any of the Directive Principles, nor can they compel the government to carry out any Directives or to make any law for that purpose. However, it is the duty of the state to implement the Directives subject to the limitations imposed by different provisions of the Constitution upon the exercise of legislative and executive power by the state The Sub-committee on Fundamental Rights constituted by the Constituent Assembly suggested two types of Fundamental Rights — one which can be enforced in the Courts of law and the other which because of their different nature cannot be enforced in the law Courts. Later on however, the former were put under the head ‘Fundamental Rights’ as Part III which we have already discussed and the latter were put separately in Part IV of the Constitution under the heading ‘Directive Principles of State Policy’ which are discussed in the following pages. The Articles included in Part IV of the Constitution (Articles 36 to 51) contain certain Directives which are the guidelines for the Government to lead the country. Article 37 provides that the ‘provisions contained in this part (i) shall not be enforceable by any Court, but the principles therein laid down are neverthless (ii) fundamental in the governance of the country and it shall be the duty of the state to apply these principles in making laws. The Directives, however, differ from the fundamental rights contained in PartIII of the Constitution or the ordinary laws of the land in the following respects: (i) The Directives are not enforceable in the courts and do not create any justiciable rights in favour of individuals. (ii) The Directives require to be implemented by legislation and so long as there is no law carrying out the policy laid down in a Directive, neither the state nor an individual can violate any existing law. (iii) The Directives per-se do not confer upon or take away any legislative power from the appropriate legislature. (iv) The courts cannot declare any law as void on the ground that it contravenes any of the Directive Principles. (v) The courts are not competent to compel the Government to carry out any Directives or to make any law for that purpose. (vi) Though it is the duty of the state to implement the Directives, it can do so only subject to the limitations imposed by the different provisions of the Constitution upon the exercise of the legislative and executive power by the state.Q. Sahil, an Indian citizen, submitted a petition to the High Court, contesting the constitutional validity of a state law that permitted private companies to acquire agricultural land for industrial purposes without obtaining the consent of farmers. Sahils argument centered on the assertion that this law contravened the Directive Principles of State Policy found in Part IV of the Constitution. These principles mandate that the state must safeguard the interests of farmers and promote agriculture. In response, the state government argued that the law was valid because it had been enacted to attract investments and generate employment opportunities, which are also significant constitutional objectives. Which of the following options accurately characterizes the relationship between the Directive Principles of State Policy and the fundamental rights of citizens?

View answer

Directions: Kindly read the passage carefully and answer the questions given beside.Part IV of the Constitution contains Directive Principles of State Policy which provide guidelines for the government to govern the country. These Directives are different from the Fundamental Rights contained in Part III of the Constitution and the ordinary laws of the land in several respects. They are not enforceable in courts and do not create any justiciable rights in favor of individuals. They require implementation by legislation and do not confer or take away any legislative power from the appropriate legislature. The courts cannot declare any law as void on the ground that it contravenes any of the Directive Principles, nor can they compel the government to carry out any Directives or to make any law for that purpose. However, it is the duty of the state to implement the Directives subject to the limitations imposed by different provisions of the Constitution upon the exercise of legislative and executive power by the state The Sub-committee on Fundamental Rights constituted by the Constituent Assembly suggested two types of Fundamental Rights — one which can be enforced in the Courts of law and the other which because of their different nature cannot be enforced in the law Courts. Later on however, the former were put under the head ‘Fundamental Rights’ as Part III which we have already discussed and the latter were put separately in Part IV of the Constitution under the heading ‘Directive Principles of State Policy’ which are discussed in the following pages. The Articles included in Part IV of the Constitution (Articles 36 to 51) contain certain Directives which are the guidelines for the Government to lead the country. Article 37 provides that the ‘provisions contained in this part (i) shall not be enforceable by any Court, but the principles therein laid down are neverthless (ii) fundamental in the governance of the country and it shall be the duty of the state to apply these principles in making laws. The Directives, however, differ from the fundamental rights contained in PartIII of the Constitution or the ordinary laws of the land in the following respects: (i) The Directives are not enforceable in the courts and do not create any justiciable rights in favour of individuals. (ii) The Directives require to be implemented by legislation and so long as there is no law carrying out the policy laid down in a Directive, neither the state nor an individual can violate any existing law. (iii) The Directives per-se do not confer upon or take away any legislative power from the appropriate legislature. (iv) The courts cannot declare any law as void on the ground that it contravenes any of the Directive Principles. (v) The courts are not competent to compel the Government to carry out any Directives or to make any law for that purpose. (vi) Though it is the duty of the state to implement the Directives, it can do so only subject to the limitations imposed by the different provisions of the Constitution upon the exercise of the legislative and executive power by the state.Q. What is the duty of the state regarding the implementation of Directive Principles?

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

Directions: The question consists of two statements, one labelled as Principle(s) and the other as Facts. You are to examine the Principle(s) and apply it/them to the given Facts carefully and select the best option.Principle 1: No person shall be subjected to a penalty greater than that which might have been inflicted under the law in force at the time of the commission of the offence.Principle 2: Benfit of ex-post facto law should be given to the accused or convicted person.Facts: Ratan was a resident of State X. He was charged with allegations of corruption, accepting bribes and for aiding in adulteration of food meant for ration shops. He was sentenced to seven years imprisonment, along with a fine in accordance with the law of the State at that time. Two years later, the law under the concerned Act was amended in the Legislative Assembly of State X and reduced to a maximum four years imprisonment along with fine. Ratan filed a petition in court, requesting that his sentence be reduced accordingly.Decide.a)Ratan will succeed in his petition as an accused should be able to take advantage of a beneficial provision.b)Ratan will not succeed as the amendment took place after his sentence.c)Ratan will not succeed as his crime was serious and should not be given any liberties.d)None of the aboveCorrect answer is option 'A'. Can you explain this answer?

Share with a Friend

Answer this doubt

Question Description
Directions: The question consists of two statements, one labelled as Principle(s) and the other as Facts. You are to examine the Principle(s) and apply it/them to the given Facts carefully and select the best option.Principle 1: No person shall be subjected to a penalty greater than that which might have been inflicted under the law in force at the time of the commission of the offence.Principle 2: Benfit of ex-post facto law should be given to the accused or convicted person.Facts: Ratan was a resident of State X. He was charged with allegations of corruption, accepting bribes and for aiding in adulteration of food meant for ration shops. He was sentenced to seven years imprisonment, along with a fine in accordance with the law of the State at that time. Two years later, the law under the concerned Act was amended in the Legislative Assembly of State X and reduced to a maximum four years imprisonment along with fine. Ratan filed a petition in court, requesting that his sentence be reduced accordingly.Decide.a)Ratan will succeed in his petition as an accused should be able to take advantage of a beneficial provision.b)Ratan will not succeed as the amendment took place after his sentence.c)Ratan will not succeed as his crime was serious and should not be given any liberties.d)None of the aboveCorrect 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 Directions: The question consists of two statements, one labelled as Principle(s) and the other as Facts. You are to examine the Principle(s) and apply it/them to the given Facts carefully and select the best option.Principle 1: No person shall be subjected to a penalty greater than that which might have been inflicted under the law in force at the time of the commission of the offence.Principle 2: Benfit of ex-post facto law should be given to the accused or convicted person.Facts: Ratan was a resident of State X. He was charged with allegations of corruption, accepting bribes and for aiding in adulteration of food meant for ration shops. He was sentenced to seven years imprisonment, along with a fine in accordance with the law of the State at that time. Two years later, the law under the concerned Act was amended in the Legislative Assembly of State X and reduced to a maximum four years imprisonment along with fine. Ratan filed a petition in court, requesting that his sentence be reduced accordingly.Decide.a)Ratan will succeed in his petition as an accused should be able to take advantage of a beneficial provision.b)Ratan will not succeed as the amendment took place after his sentence.c)Ratan will not succeed as his crime was serious and should not be given any liberties.d)None of the aboveCorrect 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 Directions: The question consists of two statements, one labelled as Principle(s) and the other as Facts. You are to examine the Principle(s) and apply it/them to the given Facts carefully and select the best option.Principle 1: No person shall be subjected to a penalty greater than that which might have been inflicted under the law in force at the time of the commission of the offence.Principle 2: Benfit of ex-post facto law should be given to the accused or convicted person.Facts: Ratan was a resident of State X. He was charged with allegations of corruption, accepting bribes and for aiding in adulteration of food meant for ration shops. He was sentenced to seven years imprisonment, along with a fine in accordance with the law of the State at that time. Two years later, the law under the concerned Act was amended in the Legislative Assembly of State X and reduced to a maximum four years imprisonment along with fine. Ratan filed a petition in court, requesting that his sentence be reduced accordingly.Decide.a)Ratan will succeed in his petition as an accused should be able to take advantage of a beneficial provision.b)Ratan will not succeed as the amendment took place after his sentence.c)Ratan will not succeed as his crime was serious and should not be given any liberties.d)None of the aboveCorrect answer is option 'A'. Can you explain this answer?.

Solutions for Directions: The question consists of two statements, one labelled as Principle(s) and the other as Facts. You are to examine the Principle(s) and apply it/them to the given Facts carefully and select the best option.Principle 1: No person shall be subjected to a penalty greater than that which might have been inflicted under the law in force at the time of the commission of the offence.Principle 2: Benfit of ex-post facto law should be given to the accused or convicted person.Facts: Ratan was a resident of State X. He was charged with allegations of corruption, accepting bribes and for aiding in adulteration of food meant for ration shops. He was sentenced to seven years imprisonment, along with a fine in accordance with the law of the State at that time. Two years later, the law under the concerned Act was amended in the Legislative Assembly of State X and reduced to a maximum four years imprisonment along with fine. Ratan filed a petition in court, requesting that his sentence be reduced accordingly.Decide.a)Ratan will succeed in his petition as an accused should be able to take advantage of a beneficial provision.b)Ratan will not succeed as the amendment took place after his sentence.c)Ratan will not succeed as his crime was serious and should not be given any liberties.d)None of the aboveCorrect 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 Directions: The question consists of two statements, one labelled as Principle(s) and the other as Facts. You are to examine the Principle(s) and apply it/them to the given Facts carefully and select the best option.Principle 1: No person shall be subjected to a penalty greater than that which might have been inflicted under the law in force at the time of the commission of the offence.Principle 2: Benfit of ex-post facto law should be given to the accused or convicted person.Facts: Ratan was a resident of State X. He was charged with allegations of corruption, accepting bribes and for aiding in adulteration of food meant for ration shops. He was sentenced to seven years imprisonment, along with a fine in accordance with the law of the State at that time. Two years later, the law under the concerned Act was amended in the Legislative Assembly of State X and reduced to a maximum four years imprisonment along with fine. Ratan filed a petition in court, requesting that his sentence be reduced accordingly.Decide.a)Ratan will succeed in his petition as an accused should be able to take advantage of a beneficial provision.b)Ratan will not succeed as the amendment took place after his sentence.c)Ratan will not succeed as his crime was serious and should not be given any liberties.d)None of the aboveCorrect answer is option 'A'. Can you explain this answer? defined & explained in the simplest way possible. Besides giving the explanation of Directions: The question consists of two statements, one labelled as Principle(s) and the other as Facts. You are to examine the Principle(s) and apply it/them to the given Facts carefully and select the best option.Principle 1: No person shall be subjected to a penalty greater than that which might have been inflicted under the law in force at the time of the commission of the offence.Principle 2: Benfit of ex-post facto law should be given to the accused or convicted person.Facts: Ratan was a resident of State X. He was charged with allegations of corruption, accepting bribes and for aiding in adulteration of food meant for ration shops. He was sentenced to seven years imprisonment, along with a fine in accordance with the law of the State at that time. Two years later, the law under the concerned Act was amended in the Legislative Assembly of State X and reduced to a maximum four years imprisonment along with fine. Ratan filed a petition in court, requesting that his sentence be reduced accordingly.Decide.a)Ratan will succeed in his petition as an accused should be able to take advantage of a beneficial provision.b)Ratan will not succeed as the amendment took place after his sentence.c)Ratan will not succeed as his crime was serious and should not be given any liberties.d)None of the aboveCorrect answer is option 'A'. Can you explain this answer?, a detailed solution for Directions: The question consists of two statements, one labelled as Principle(s) and the other as Facts. You are to examine the Principle(s) and apply it/them to the given Facts carefully and select the best option.Principle 1: No person shall be subjected to a penalty greater than that which might have been inflicted under the law in force at the time of the commission of the offence.Principle 2: Benfit of ex-post facto law should be given to the accused or convicted person.Facts: Ratan was a resident of State X. He was charged with allegations of corruption, accepting bribes and for aiding in adulteration of food meant for ration shops. He was sentenced to seven years imprisonment, along with a fine in accordance with the law of the State at that time. Two years later, the law under the concerned Act was amended in the Legislative Assembly of State X and reduced to a maximum four years imprisonment along with fine. Ratan filed a petition in court, requesting that his sentence be reduced accordingly.Decide.a)Ratan will succeed in his petition as an accused should be able to take advantage of a beneficial provision.b)Ratan will not succeed as the amendment took place after his sentence.c)Ratan will not succeed as his crime was serious and should not be given any liberties.d)None of the aboveCorrect answer is option 'A'. Can you explain this answer? has been provided alongside types of Directions: The question consists of two statements, one labelled as Principle(s) and the other as Facts. You are to examine the Principle(s) and apply it/them to the given Facts carefully and select the best option.Principle 1: No person shall be subjected to a penalty greater than that which might have been inflicted under the law in force at the time of the commission of the offence.Principle 2: Benfit of ex-post facto law should be given to the accused or convicted person.Facts: Ratan was a resident of State X. He was charged with allegations of corruption, accepting bribes and for aiding in adulteration of food meant for ration shops. He was sentenced to seven years imprisonment, along with a fine in accordance with the law of the State at that time. Two years later, the law under the concerned Act was amended in the Legislative Assembly of State X and reduced to a maximum four years imprisonment along with fine. Ratan filed a petition in court, requesting that his sentence be reduced accordingly.Decide.a)Ratan will succeed in his petition as an accused should be able to take advantage of a beneficial provision.b)Ratan will not succeed as the amendment took place after his sentence.c)Ratan will not succeed as his crime was serious and should not be given any liberties.d)None of the aboveCorrect answer is option 'A'. Can you explain this answer? theory, EduRev gives you an ample number of questions to practice Directions: The question consists of two statements, one labelled as Principle(s) and the other as Facts. You are to examine the Principle(s) and apply it/them to the given Facts carefully and select the best option.Principle 1: No person shall be subjected to a penalty greater than that which might have been inflicted under the law in force at the time of the commission of the offence.Principle 2: Benfit of ex-post facto law should be given to the accused or convicted person.Facts: Ratan was a resident of State X. He was charged with allegations of corruption, accepting bribes and for aiding in adulteration of food meant for ration shops. He was sentenced to seven years imprisonment, along with a fine in accordance with the law of the State at that time. Two years later, the law under the concerned Act was amended in the Legislative Assembly of State X and reduced to a maximum four years imprisonment along with fine. Ratan filed a petition in court, requesting that his sentence be reduced accordingly.Decide.a)Ratan will succeed in his petition as an accused should be able to take advantage of a beneficial provision.b)Ratan will not succeed as the amendment took place after his sentence.c)Ratan will not succeed as his crime was serious and should not be given any liberties.d)None of the aboveCorrect answer is option 'A'. Can you explain this answer? tests, examples and also practice CLAT tests.

Explore Courses for CLAT exam