UPSC CISF-AC-EXE Archives

21. Privileged communication between husband and wife can be admitted as e

Privileged communication between husband and wife can be admitted as evidence in a

charge of murder against the husband

case of embezzlement by the husband

case of matrimonial dispute between them

charge of sedition against the husband

This question was previously asked in

UPSC CISF-AC-EXE – 2019

Download PDF Attempt Online

Option C is correct. Section 122 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 provides privilege for communications made between husband and wife during marriage. However, it explicitly contains exceptions. The privilege does *not* apply in “suits between married persons”, or in “proceedings in which one married person is prosecuted for any crime committed against the other”. A case of matrimonial dispute between them is a “suit between married persons”, where such communications can be admitted as evidence.

– Communications between spouses during marriage are generally privileged and cannot be compelled or permitted to be disclosed without consent.
– This privilege is subject to exceptions, including legal proceedings directly between the spouses or where one is accused of a crime against the other.

– The privilege continues even after the dissolution of the marriage.
– The purpose of this privilege is to protect the privacy and confidence of the marital relationship. However, this protection is lifted when the dispute is between the spouses themselves or when one harms the other.

22. Under the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, ‘Public Documents’ include

Under the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, ‘Public Documents’ include

records of sovereign authority, official bodies, tribunals, legislatures, Judiciary of India or the Commonwealth or of a foreign country, and agreements of public bank

records of sovereign authority, official bodies, tribunals, legislatures, Judiciary of India or the Commonwealth or of a foreign country, and registered agreements

records of sovereign authority, official bodies, tribunals, legislatures, Judiciary of India or the Commonwealth or of a foreign country, and also public records of private documents

only records signed by public officers and in custody of a government office

This question was previously asked in

UPSC CISF-AC-EXE – 2019

Download PDF Attempt Online

Option C is correct. Section 74 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 defines ‘Public Documents’. It includes documents forming the acts or records of the acts of sovereign authority, official bodies and tribunals, and public officers, legislative, judicial and executive, of India, the Commonwealth, or a foreign country (Part 1), AND public records kept in any State of private documents (Part 2).

– Public documents primarily relate to official acts and records of governmental/public authorities.
– Crucially, records of private documents (like registered deeds) maintained in public offices (like Registration departments) are also considered public documents.

– Examples of public documents include Acts of Parliament, judgments of courts, entries in public registers (births, deaths, marriages), records of official surveys, etc.
– While bank records and agreements might involve a public entity, they are not necessarily public documents in the sense defined by Section 74, unless they form a record of an official act or are registered documents kept in a public record. Option C correctly captures both limbs of the definition.

23. A sues B for trespass on his land. B alleges the existence of a public

A sues B for trespass on his land. B alleges the existence of a public right of way over the land, which A denies. The existence of a decree in favour of the defendant in a suit by A against C for a trespass on the same land in which C alleged the existence of the same right of way is

relevant, but it will not operate as estoppels

irrelevant, but it may be considered

a conclusive proof that the right of way exists

relevant, but not a conclusive proof that the right of way exists

This question was previously asked in

UPSC CISF-AC-EXE – 2019

Download PDF Attempt Online

Option D is correct. The relevancy of judgments relating to matters of a public nature is governed by Section 42 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. It states that judgments, orders, or decrees which relate to matters of a public nature relevant to the inquiry are relevant, but they are *not conclusive proof* of that which they state.

– The existence of a public right of way is a matter of public nature.
– A previous decree concerning the same public right of way in a suit between one party and a third party is relevant in a subsequent suit.
– However, such a previous decree is only admissible as evidence and does not conclusively prove the existence of the right; other evidence is still required to establish the fact.

– Section 40 deals with relevancy of judgments as res judicata. Section 41 deals with relevancy of certain judgments in probate, matrimonial, admiralty or insolvency jurisdiction (judgments in rem). Section 42 deals with judgments relating to matters of public nature. Section 43 makes all other judgments irrelevant, unless they are relevant under some other section of the Act. The scenario fits Section 42.
– Estoppel would apply between the parties to the *first* suit (A and C) or their representatives regarding the specific issue decided, but not automatically bind B in a separate suit (A vs B).

24. The Chairman and Vice-Chairman of the Central Board under the Employee

The Chairman and Vice-Chairman of the Central Board under the Employees’ Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 are to be appointed by

the State Government

the State Government in consultation with the Central Government

the Central Provident Fund Commissioner

the Central Government

This question was previously asked in

UPSC CISF-AC-EXE – 2019

Download PDF Attempt Online

Option D is correct. Section 5(1) of the Employees’ Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 states that the Central Government shall constitute a Central Board of Trustees. The Chairman and Vice-Chairman of this Central Board are appointed by the Central Government.

– The Central Board of Trustees manages the Provident Fund, Pension Fund, and Deposit Linked Insurance Fund established under the Act.
– The power to constitute the Board and appoint its key office bearers lies with the Central Government.

– The Central Board is a tripartite body with representatives from the government (Central and State), employers, and employees.
– The Central Provident Fund Commissioner (CPFC) is the chief executive officer of the Central Board and is also appointed by the Central Government.

25. The doctrine of notional extensions is applicable in which one of the

The doctrine of notional extensions is applicable in which one of the following Laws?

The Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923

The Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952

The Payment of Bonus Act, 1965

The Trade Unions Act, 1926

This question was previously asked in

UPSC CISF-AC-EXE – 2019

Download PDF Attempt Online

Option A is correct. The doctrine of notional extension is applicable under the Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923 (now largely replaced by the Employee’s Compensation Act, 1923). This doctrine is used to determine whether an accident causing injury or death to a workman arose “out of and in the course of employment”.

– The doctrine extends the area and time of employment beyond the strict physical boundaries of the workplace and working hours.
– It covers situations where an employee is injured while proceeding to or from the place of work through a route habitually used, or at a point close to the employer’s premises, immediately before starting work or immediately after finishing work.

– For an accident to be compensable under the Act, it must satisfy the twin conditions: “arising out of employment” and “arising in the course of employment”. The doctrine of notional extension helps in interpreting the latter condition broadly.
– This doctrine has been developed through judicial pronouncements interpreting the scope of employment under the Act.

26. The total number of members of the Grievance Redressal Committee in an

The total number of members of the Grievance Redressal Committee in an industrial establishment shall not exceed

two

eight

five

six

This question was previously asked in

UPSC CISF-AC-EXE – 2019

Download PDF Attempt Online

Option D is correct. Rule 10 of the Industrial Disputes (Central) Rules, 1957, which details the Grievance Redressal Machinery under Section 9C of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, states that the number of members of the Grievance Redressal Committee shall not exceed six.

– The Grievance Redressal Committee is mandated in industrial establishments employing 20 or more workmen.
– It consists of equal representatives of the employer and the workmen.
– The total number of members is capped at six.

– The representatives of the workmen on the Committee shall be chosen from amongst the workmen.
– The Committee is responsible for resolving individual grievances of workmen.

27. Who among the following is ineligible to be appointed as the Presiding

Who among the following is ineligible to be appointed as the Presiding Officer of a Labour Court?

He is or has been a Judge of a High Court

He has been a District Judge or Additional District Judge for a period of 3 years

He is a practicing lawyer for a period of 15 years

He is an officer of Indian Legal Service in Grade III with 3 years experience in the Grade

This question was previously asked in

UPSC CISF-AC-EXE – 2019

Download PDF Attempt Online

Option C is correct. Section 7(3) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 lists the qualifications required for a person to be appointed as the Presiding Officer of a Labour Court. Being a practicing lawyer for 15 years is *not* listed among these qualifications. It is a qualification for a Presiding Officer of a Tribunal (Section 7A).

– Qualifications for Presiding Officer of Labour Court include being a Judge of a High Court, District Judge or Additional District Judge for at least 3 years, or a Judicial Officer for at least 7 years, or an officer of the Indian Legal Service in Grade III with 3 years experience.
– A long period of practice as a lawyer, while relevant for other judicial/quasi-judicial roles, is not specified as a qualification for a Labour Court Presiding Officer under Section 7(3).

– Section 7A of the Act prescribes qualifications for Presiding Officers of Industrial Tribunals, where a practicing lawyer with 15 years experience is indeed an eligible category. The question specifically asks about a Labour Court (Section 7).

28. The Board of Conciliation under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 cons

The Board of Conciliation under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 consists of

a Chairman and two or four other members

a Chairman and two Deputy Chairmans

a Chairman and three other members

a Board of five members appointed by the Government

This question was previously asked in

UPSC CISF-AC-EXE – 2019

Download PDF Attempt Online

Option A is correct because Section 5 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 specifies the constitution of a Board of Conciliation. It consists of a Chairman and two or four other members.

– A Board of Conciliation is constituted for promoting the settlement of industrial disputes.
– Its composition is fixed by the appropriate government based on the specific dispute.

– The Chairman is appointed by the appropriate Government.
– The other members, equal in number (either two or four), are appointed by the Government, usually based on recommendations from the parties to the dispute to represent their interests equally.

29. Which one of the following statements with respect to confession under

Which one of the following statements with respect to confession under the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 is correct?

Confession made to a police officer under Section 25 is admissible.

Confession obtained by threat or inducement by a police officer is admissible.

Involuntary confession is admissible.

Confession under Section 27 is admissible.

This question was previously asked in

UPSC CISF-AC-EXE – 2019

Download PDF Attempt Online

Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 is an exception to Sections 25 and 26, which generally make confessions to police officers or while in police custody inadmissible. Section 27 states that when any fact is deposed to as discovered in consequence of information received from a person accused of any offence, in the custody of a police officer, so much of such information, whether it amounts to a confession or not, as relates distinctly to the fact thereby discovered, may be proved. This means that a part of a confession leading to the discovery of a fact is admissible.

– Section 25: Confession to police officer is inadmissible.
– Section 26: Confession while in police custody is inadmissible, unless made in the immediate presence of a Magistrate.
– Section 24: Confession caused by inducement, threat, or promise is irrelevant (involuntary).
– Section 27 is a proviso to Sections 25 and 26, making information leading to discovery admissible under specific conditions.

Option A is incorrect because Section 25 makes confessions to police officers inadmissible. Option B is incorrect because confessions obtained by threat or inducement are generally involuntary and inadmissible under Section 24. Option C is incorrect because involuntary confessions are not admissible. Option D correctly identifies that confessions (or parts thereof amounting to information) are admissible under the specific conditions laid down in Section 27, which is a crucial exception allowing for the admissibility of discovered facts based on information from the accused in custody.

30. X, a revenue officer, is entrusted with public money and is directed b

X, a revenue officer, is entrusted with public money and is directed by law to deposit the money into a certain treasury. X dishonestly appropriates the money. He has committed the offence of

misappropriation of property

criminal breach of trust

theft

cheating

This question was previously asked in

UPSC CISF-AC-EXE – 2019

Download PDF Attempt Online

The scenario describes X, a revenue officer, being entrusted with public money and directed by law to deposit it. By dishonestly appropriating this money instead of depositing it, X commits criminal breach of trust. Criminal breach of trust (Section 405 IPC) involves dishonest misappropriation or conversion of property that has been entrusted to a person. When committed by a public servant in respect of public money, it falls under the aggravated form of criminal breach of trust described in Section 409 IPC.

– Criminal breach of trust requires entrustment of property and subsequent dishonest misappropriation or conversion.
– X, as a revenue officer entrusted with public money, fits the description of someone entrusted with property.
– Dishonestly appropriating the money instead of following legal directions constitutes the breach of trust.
– This specific scenario involving a public servant and public money falls under Section 409 IPC, which is a form of criminal breach of trust.

Misappropriation of property (Section 403 IPC) usually applies where there is no initial entrustment, but the property comes into possession and is then dishonestly misappropriated. Theft (Section 378 IPC) involves taking property out of someone’s possession without consent. Cheating (Section 415 IPC) involves deception to induce delivery of property. Given the element of entrustment of the money to X as part of his duty, the offence is criminal breach of trust.