UPSC CISF-AC-EXE Archives

21. Which one of the following is a constitutional body?

Which one of the following is a constitutional body?

Join Our Telegram Channel

The National Commission for Backward Classes

The National Commission for Scheduled Tribes

The National Commission for Protection of Child Rights

The National Commission for Minorities

Answer is Right!

Answer is Wrong!

This question was previously asked in

UPSC CISF-AC-EXE – 2024

Download PDF Attempt Online

The correct answer is B. Among the given options, the National Commission for Scheduled Tribes is a constitutional body.

– A constitutional body is one that is established by a specific provision of the Constitution of India.
– The National Commission for Scheduled Tribes (NCST) was established by Article 338A of the Constitution, inserted by the 89th Constitutional Amendment Act, 2003.
– The National Commission for Scheduled Castes (NCSC) was established by Article 338 of the Constitution (initially as a Special Officer, later constitutionalized). NCST was created by bifurcating the original NCSC.
– The National Commission for Backward Classes (NCBC) was initially a statutory body. It was granted constitutional status by the 102nd Constitutional Amendment Act, 2018, which inserted Article 338B.
– The National Commission for Protection of Child Rights (NCPCR) is a statutory body established under the Commissions for Protection of Child Rights Act, 2005.
– The National Commission for Minorities is a statutory body established under the National Commission for Minorities Act, 1992.

Given that both NCST (B) and NCBC (A) are currently constitutional bodies, this question might be considered flawed if it expects only one correct answer from a recent perspective. However, if the question originated before the 102nd Amendment Act of 2018, then NCBC would have been a statutory body, making NCST the only constitutional body among the options. Assuming the question is intended to have a single correct answer and may reflect an older context, B is the appropriate choice. If the question is from post-2018 and strictly asks for *a* constitutional body, then both A and B fit, but B is the most definitively correct answer that has been constitutional for a longer period. In typical UPSC style multiple-choice questions with a single best answer, there might be a historical context or a subtlety intended. Given the common pre-2018 questions in older test series materials, option B is the likely intended answer.

22. Which one of the following with regard to the Protection of Human Righ

Which one of the following with regard to the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993 is correct?

The Chairman and Members of a State Human Rights Commission hold office for a term of five years only.

The Chairman and Members of a State Human Rights Commission hold office for a term of six years only.

The Chairman and Members of a State Human Rights Commission hold office for a term of three years and are eligible for reappointment.

The Chairman and Members of a State Human Rights Commission can be reappointed for one more term of five years.

Answer is Right!

Answer is Wrong!

This question was previously asked in

UPSC CISF-AC-EXE – 2024

Download PDF Attempt Online

The correct answer is C.

The Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993, as amended by the Protection of Human Rights (Amendment) Act, 2019, changed the term of office for the Chairman and Members of a State Human Rights Commission. The term is now three years or until they attain the age of seventy years, whichever is earlier. They are also eligible for reappointment.

Prior to the 2019 amendment, the term of office for the Chairman and Members of an SHRC was five years or until the age of seventy. The 2019 amendment reduced the term to three years but allowed for reappointment, aligning the term with that of the Chairman and Members of the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC). Options A, B, and D reflect terms or reappointment conditions that are incorrect under the amended Act.

Join Our Telegram Channel

23. Bribery, under the Indian Penal Code, 1860, includes which of the foll

Bribery, under the Indian Penal Code, 1860, includes which of the following?

Join Our Telegram Channel

1. Giving a gratification to any person with the object of inducing him to exercise any electoral right or rewarding any person for having exercised any such right
2. Making of a declaration of public policy or making of a promise of public action
3. Giving or accepting a treat in the form of food, drink or entertainment

Select the correct answer using the code given below.

1 and 2

1 and 3

3 only

2 and 3

Answer is Right!

Answer is Wrong!

This question was previously asked in

UPSC CISF-AC-EXE – 2024

Download PDF Attempt Online

The correct answer is B as bribery under the Indian Penal Code, 1860, in the context of elections, includes giving gratification to influence voting rights and giving/accepting treats as a form of gratification, but excludes declarations of public policy or promises of public action.

– Bribery in the context of elections is defined in Section 171B of the IPC (Chapter IXA).
– Statement 1: Section 171B(1)(i) explicitly defines bribery as giving gratification to induce the exercise of an electoral right or rewarding someone for having exercised it. This is correct.
– Statement 2: Explanation to Section 171C (Undue Influence at Elections) states that “A declaration of public policy or a promise of public action… shall not be deemed to be interference [undue influence]”. These are considered legitimate actions by candidates or parties and are expressly excluded from the definition of undue influence and by implication, not considered bribery under this chapter either. This statement is incorrect as part of the definition of bribery.
– Statement 3: Explanation 1 to Section 171B clarifies that “Gratification is not limited to pecuniary gratifications… and it extends to all forms of entertainment…”. Giving or accepting a treat (food, drink, entertainment) with the object of influencing an electoral right constitutes giving or receiving gratification, and thus falls under the definition of bribery. This is correct.

Chapter IXA of the IPC deals specifically with offences relating to elections, including bribery, undue influence, personation, false statements, illegal payments, etc. The definition of bribery here is specific to electoral contexts. Gratification is broadly defined to cover anything valuable or beneficial, not just money, when given or received to influence voting behaviour.

24. Which one among the following statements is not correct?

Which one among the following statements is not correct?

Join Our Telegram Channel

A Magistrate may issue a warrant to search a document or parcel in the custody of Postal or Telegraph authority.

A search warrant may be issued when it is not known to the court that a particular document or thing necessary for the purpose of any investigation or trial is in the possession of any person.

A search warrant may be issued when the court has reason to believe that the person who has been issued summons to produce a document necessary for any investigation or trial will not produce the same.

A search warrant may be issued for general search of a particular place.

Answer is Right!

Answer is Wrong!

This question was previously asked in

UPSC CISF-AC-EXE – 2024

Download PDF Attempt Online

The correct answer is A because under Section 92 of CrPC, a Magistrate requires the postal or telegraph authority to *deliver* a document or parcel, rather than issuing a search warrant to search their custody.

– Statement A: Section 92 of CrPC deals with obtaining documents or parcels from Postal or Telegraph authorities. It empowers specified courts (High Court, Court of Session) or Magistrates (District Magistrate, Chief Judicial Magistrate, etc.) to *require* the Postal or Telegraph authority to deliver the document, parcel, or thing. This is done via requisition, not typically through a search warrant directed at the authority’s premises. Therefore, stating that a Magistrate may issue a *warrant to search* is incorrect as per Section 92.
– Statement B: Section 93(1)(c) of CrPC allows a search warrant when the Court considers a general search necessary, which includes situations where the Court does not know who possesses the required document or thing (Explanation to Section 93).
– Statement C: Section 93(1)(a) of CrPC allows a search warrant if the Court believes that a person who has been issued a summons or order to produce a document/thing will not produce it.
– Statement D: Section 93(1)(c) allows the Court to issue a search warrant for a “general search or inspection” of a place.

Section 91 and 92 of CrPC provide mechanisms for securing documents and things through summons/order (to persons) or requisition (to Postal/Telegraph authorities). Section 93 provides for search warrants as an alternative method when summons/order/requisition is unlikely to be effective, when the location of the item is unknown, or when a general search is necessary. Statement A incorrectly describes the process under Section 92 as a search warrant.

25. Consider the following statements with regard to seizure of property u

Consider the following statements with regard to seizure of property under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973:

1. Any police officer may seize any property which may be suspected to be stolen.
2. Any police officer may seize any property which may be found under circumstances which create suspicion of the commission of any offence.
3. If the value of the property seized is less than one thousand rupees and the person entitled to its possession is absent, the court may direct its sale by auction forthwith.

Which of the statements given above is/are correct?

1 only

1 and 2 only

1, 2 and 3

3 only

Answer is Right!

Answer is Wrong!

This question was previously asked in

UPSC CISF-AC-EXE – 2024

Download PDF Attempt Online

The correct answer is B as statements 1 and 2 are correct regarding seizure of property by police under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, while statement 3 is incorrect.

– Statement 1: Section 102(1) of CrPC explicitly empowers any police officer to seize “any property which may be alleged or suspected to have been stolen”. This statement is correct.
– Statement 2: Section 102(1) further empowers any police officer to seize “any property which may be found under circumstances which create suspicion of the commission of any offence”. This covers a broad range of properties involved in or connected to crimes. This statement is correct.
– Statement 3: CrPC provides procedures for the custody and disposal of seized property (Sections 451-459). While Magistrates have the power to order the sale of property, particularly if it is subject to speedy and natural decay or if its value is less than ₹500 (as per Section 457(1) in some versions, though the threshold varies and may be updated) or if no claimant appears within six months (Section 458), there is no general provision stating that property less than ₹1000 in value with an absent owner *must* or *may* be sold by auction forthwith. The procedure typically involves reporting to the Magistrate, proclamation, and waiting for claimants before final disposal, including sale. The condition of “forthwith” sale based solely on value and absence is not a standard provision in CrPC.

The primary purpose of police seizure under Section 102 is to secure property that is suspected to be stolen or linked to an offence, preventing its disposal or concealment, and making it available for investigation and potential production in court. The subsequent procedures under CrPC focus on ensuring proper custody and eventual legal disposal of the seized property.

Join Our Telegram Channel

26. Consider the following statements with regard to search under the Code

Consider the following statements with regard to search under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973:

1. A search warrant remains in force until cancelled by the court issuing it or the same is executed.
2. A search warrant cannot be executed at any place if the place concerned falls outside the jurisdiction of the court issuing it.
3. A search warrant may be issued by the District Magistrate for search of a person who has been confined where such confinement amounts to an offence.

Which of the statements given above is/are correct?

Join Our Telegram Channel

1 only

2 only

2 and 3

1 and 3

Answer is Right!

Answer is Wrong!

This question was previously asked in

UPSC CISF-AC-EXE – 2024

Download PDF Attempt Online

The correct answer is D as statements 1 and 3 are correct regarding search warrants under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, while statement 2 is incorrect.

– Statement 1: A search warrant remains in force until it is executed or cancelled by the Court which issued it. This is a general principle applicable to warrants under CrPC (similar to warrant of arrest under Section 70(2)). Unless a specific period is mentioned in the warrant or the relevant section, it remains valid until served or withdrawn.
– Statement 2: While a search warrant is usually issued by a Magistrate having jurisdiction over the place to be searched, CrPC contains provisions for execution of search warrants outside the local limits of the issuing court’s jurisdiction. For example, Section 101 allows a Magistrate issuing a search warrant for execution outside his local jurisdiction to forward it to a Magistrate or police officer within whose jurisdiction the place is located, for execution or endorsement. Specific sections like 95 (objectionable publications) and 98 (persons wrongfully confined) also allow warrants to be executed anywhere in India, with appropriate procedures for transmission/execution. Therefore, statement 2 is incorrect.
– Statement 3: Section 97 of CrPC allows a search warrant to be issued for a person confined under circumstances amounting to an offence. This power is given to Magistrates of the first class or Sub-divisional Magistrates. Additionally, Section 98 empowers a District Magistrate or Chief Judicial Magistrate to issue a search warrant for a woman or female minor suspected to be kidnapped or abducted, which is a specific type of wrongful confinement amounting to an offence. Therefore, a District Magistrate *can* issue a search warrant for search of a person confined where such confinement amounts to an offence, specifically under Section 98.

Search warrants are issued by courts to authorize police officers to search a specified place for specified things or persons. They are crucial tools in investigation and legal proceedings for gathering evidence or locating individuals. The rules governing their issuance and execution balance the needs of law enforcement with the protection of citizens’ privacy rights.

27. A District Magistrate may by warrant authorize a police officer above

A District Magistrate may by warrant authorize a police officer above the rank of a constable to take possession of an objectionable article deposited in any place. These articles include

Join Our Telegram Channel

1. forged documents
2. false seals
3. obscene objects

Select the correct answer using the code given below.

1 only

2 only

2 and 3 only

1, 2 and 3

Answer is Right!

Answer is Wrong!

This question was previously asked in

UPSC CISF-AC-EXE – 2024

Download PDF Attempt Online

The correct answer is D as all the articles listed (forged documents, false seals, and obscene objects) are specified as “objectionable articles” under Section 94(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, for which a District Magistrate may issue a search warrant.

– Section 94 of CrPC allows a District Magistrate, Sub-divisional Magistrate, or Magistrate of the first class to issue a warrant authorizing a police officer above the rank of constable to search a place suspected to contain stolen property or “objectionable articles”.
– Section 94(2) lists the articles considered “objectionable articles” for the purpose of this section. These include: counterfeit coin, counterfeit currency notes, forged documents, false seals, obscene objects, and certain articles possession of which is punishable under specific acts (like those related to obscene publications, dangerous drugs, arms, explosives, etc.).

The power under Section 94 allows Magistrates to order searches for specific types of illegal items or items used in criminal activities, which are generally concealed or deposited in specific places. The rank requirement for the executing police officer (above the rank of constable) ensures that the search is conducted by a more responsible officer.

28. With regard to seizure of property under the Code of Criminal Procedur

With regard to seizure of property under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, consider the following statements :

1. A police officer not below the rank of Sub-Inspector of Police conducting an investigation for identifying unlawfully acquired property can make an order for seizing the property under investigation if he has reason to believe that the property in question may be concealed or transferred in any manner.
2. An order made as above shall have no effect unless the same is confirmed by an order of the court within thirty days of its being made.

Which of the statements given above is/are correct?

Join Our Telegram Channel

1 only

2 only

Both 1 and 2

Neither 1 nor 2

Answer is Right!

Answer is Wrong!

This question was previously asked in

UPSC CISF-AC-EXE – 2024

Download PDF Attempt Online

The correct answer is A because only statement 1 is correct regarding seizure of property under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 in the context described.

– Statement 1: Section 102(1) of CrPC allows any police officer to seize any property found under circumstances that create suspicion of the commission of any offence. Unlawfully acquired property is property acquired through the commission of an offence (e.g., corruption, fraud). Therefore, a police officer can seize such property. The condition about the rank of Sub-Inspector might be based on specific police rules or state amendments, or simply indicative of the level of investigation where such property is typically identified. Assuming this specific context is valid for the question, the core power to seize suspected property exists. The reason for belief about concealment or transfer is a valid ground for exercising seizure power.
– Statement 2: CrPC does not contain a general provision requiring an order of seizure made by a police officer under Section 102 to be confirmed by a court within thirty days to have effect. A police officer seizing property under Section 102 must report the seizure to the Magistrate (Section 102(3)). The Magistrate then takes appropriate action regarding custody and disposal (Sections 451-457). This requirement for court confirmation within a specific timeframe is found in special laws like the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) for attachment of property, but not as a general rule for seizures under CrPC Section 102.

While CrPC provides general powers of seizure, specific procedures for dealing with ‘unlawfully acquired property’, particularly in the context of economic and anti-corruption offences, are often detailed in special laws (like Prevention of Corruption Act, PMLA) which may incorporate or supplement CrPC provisions. However, the question asks specifically under CrPC, where Section 102 is the primary basis for police seizure of suspected property.

29. The punishment of imprisonment for life can be awarded for which of th

The punishment of imprisonment for life can be awarded for which of the following offences?

1. Mischief by fire to destroy a building used as a place of worship
2. Mischief by explosive substance to destroy a human dwelling house

Select the correct answer using the code given below.

Join Our Telegram Channel

1 only

2 only

Both 1 and 2

Neither 1 nor 2

Answer is Right!

Answer is Wrong!

This question was previously asked in

UPSC CISF-AC-EXE – 2024

Download PDF Attempt Online

The correct answer is C as both listed offences can be punished with imprisonment for life under the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

– Statement 1: Mischief by fire to destroy a building used as a place of worship. While Section 436 of IPC specifically mentions destruction of a human dwelling or a place for custody of property by fire/explosive with life imprisonment, Section 438 applies the punishment of Section 436 to mischief by fire or explosive substance intending to cause damage to any property, provided the mischief is punishable under Section 435 (mischief causing damage of Rs. 100 or more, or Rs. 10 or more in case of agricultural produce). Destruction of a building by fire is mischief causing significant damage, falling under Section 435. Section 438 states that whoever commits such mischief by fire/explosive and *commits thereby mischief punishable under section 436*, shall be punished with life imprisonment or 10 years + fine. This phrasing is interpreted to mean that if the *nature* of the mischief (destruction of a building by fire/explosive) is of the degree contemplated by Section 436, the punishment under 436 applies even if the property is not a dwelling or custody place, provided it falls under Section 435. Thus, destroying a place of worship by fire can be punishable with life imprisonment under Section 438 read with Section 436.
– Statement 2: Mischief by explosive substance to destroy a human dwelling house. Section 436 of IPC directly covers “mischief by fire or any explosive substance… intending to cause… the destruction of any building which is ordinarily used as a human dwelling”. The punishment prescribed is imprisonment for life, or rigorous imprisonment for up to ten years, and fine.

Section 435 IPC deals with mischief by fire or explosive substance causing damage of a specified amount (₹100 or more) to any property, punishable with imprisonment up to 7 years. Section 436 deals with a graver form targeting human dwellings or places of custody of property. Section 438 extends the severe punishment of Section 436 to other types of property when the mischief is committed by fire or explosive substance causing damage above the threshold mentioned in Section 435. Therefore, destruction of a place of worship (a building) by fire falls under Section 438 read with 436, and destruction of a human dwelling by explosive substance falls directly under Section 436, both carrying potential life imprisonment.

30. An employer of an establishment deducts an employee’s contribution fro

An employer of an establishment deducts an employee’s contribution from his wages for crediting the same to the Family Pension Fund as per law but does not credit the same as required by law. The employer

Join Our Telegram Channel

would be guilty of committing no offence under any law on his promise to deposit the amount

would be guilty of having violated the law and would be punishable only under the relevant labour legislation

would be guilty of having committed the offence of criminal breach of trust under the Indian Penal Code, 1860

would not be guilty of having committed the offence of criminal breach of trust under the Indian Penal Code, 1860

Answer is Right!

Answer is Wrong!

This question was previously asked in

UPSC CISF-AC-EXE – 2024

Download PDF Attempt Online

The correct answer is C. An employer who deducts employee contributions (such as for Family Pension Fund, Provident Fund, etc.) from wages but fails to deposit them with the appropriate authority commits the offence of criminal breach of trust under the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

– Section 405 of the IPC defines criminal breach of trust. It involves a person being entrusted with property or dominion over property, and then dishonestly misappropriating it or converting it to their own use, or dishonestly using or disposing of that property in violation of a legal contract or mode of discharge of trust.
– When an employer deducts contributions from an employee’s wage, they are temporarily holding that money in trust for the purpose of depositing it into the relevant fund. Failure to deposit it amounts to dishonest misappropriation or conversion of this entrusted money.

Various court judgments in India have held that failure by an employer to deposit employee contributions after deducting them constitutes criminal breach of trust under Section 406 (punishment for criminal breach of trust) read with Section 405 of the IPC. While there might also be penalties under relevant labour legislation (like the Employees’ Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952, or the Employees’ State Insurance Act, 1948), the act can also constitute a criminal offence under the IPC. Promising to deposit later does not absolve the employer of the offence once the deduction has been made and not deposited as required by law.