Legal IQ

LEGAL IQ

1. Which of the following sections of IPC deals with Gang Rape?
(a) Section 376A
(b) Section 376D
(c) Section 376C
(d) Section 376E.

2. Law Commission of India 2015 report deals with
(a) juvenile justice
(b) sexual offences
(c) death penalty
(d) all of these.

3. A while leaving the examination hall as the last student, finds a watch on the floor and keeps it to himself. What offence, if any, has been committed by A?
(a) Criminal breach of trust
(b) Theft
(c) Extortion
(d) Criminal misappro-priation of property.

4. The right against self-incrimination under Article 20(3) and section 161(2) of Cr. P.C. was recognised by the Supreme Court in the case of
(a) Gian Kaur v. State
(b) Rupan Deal Bajaj v. K.P.S. Gill
(c) Nandini Satpathy v. P.L. Dani
(d) Joginder Kumar v. State.

5. The difference between section 34 and section 149 of IPC is that …………….
(a) Section 34 deals with group liability whereas section 149 deals with unlawful assembly
(b) Section 34 requires five persons whereas section 149 requires minimum of two
(c) Section 34 requires active participation whereas section 149 is attracted even on membership of the unlawful assembly
(d) Section 34 is a substantive offence whereas section 149 is a rule of evidence only.

6. Which of the following statements about Indian Penal Code is true?
(a) The Indian Penal Code applies to every person in any part of India for every act or omission contrary to the provisions of the Code
(b) The Indian Penal Code applies to any offence committed by any citizen of India within and beyond India
(c) Every such act committed outside India which if committed in India, would be punishable under the Indian Penal Code
(d) All of the above.

7. In which of the following cases the Supreme Court applied the ‘locus penitentiae’ rule?
(a) Om Prakash v. State of Punjab
(b) Malkiat Singh v. State of Punjab
(c) State of Maharashtra v. Mohd. Yakub
(d) Abhayanand Mishra v. State of Bihar.

8. Intoxication is an excusable defense to criminal liability if it is
(a) administered against the will of the offender
(b) administered without the knowledge of the offender
(c) both (a) and (b) above
(d) none of the above.

9. ‘Malice in fact’ means a wrongful act done intentionally
(a) without any just cause or excuse
(b) with evil motive
(c) without evil motive
(d) none of the above.

10. Match List I with List II and select the correct answer using the codes given below:
List I
Associated case
(a) Negligence
(b) Scienti non fit injuria
(c) Defamation
(d) “Eggshell Skull” Rule
List II
Associated case
(1) Tolley v. J.S. Fry & Sons
(2) Grant v. Australian Knitting Mills
(3) Smith v. Leech Brain & Co. Ltd.
(4) Smith v. Baker
Codes:
(a) (a)—(3), (b)—(1), (c)—(2), (d)—(4)
(b) (a)—(1), (b)—(3), (c)—(4), (d)—(2)
(c) (a)—(2), (b)—(4), (c)—(1), (d)—(3)
(d) (a)—(4), (b)—(2), (c)—(3), (d)—(1).

11. For the tort of defamation, the presence of malice destroys
(a) the defence of qualified privilege
(b) the defence of absolute privilege
(c) the defence of both absolute and qualified privileges
(d) the defence of neither absolute privilege nor qualified privilege.

12. Which one of the following statements is incorrect?
(a) An innocent principal is not liable for the fraud of his agent
(b) The general rule that employer is not liable for tort committed by the independent contractor is not applicable in cases of strict liability
(c) An act is deemed to be done in the course of employment, if it is a wrongful act authorized by the master
(d) An act is deemed to be done in the course of employment, if it is a wrongful and unauthorized mode of doing an act authorized by the master


Answers: 1.(b), 2.(c), 3.(d), 4.(c), 5.(c), 6.(d), 7.(b), 8.(c), 9.(b), 10.(c), 11.(a), 12.(a)


The answers are suggestive. Kindly verify from the basic documents and recommended text book in case of doubts.

Leave a Comment