UPSC CISF-AC-EXE Archives

31. Which one of the following is not correct with respect to the offence

Which one of the following is not correct with respect to the offence of mischief by fire or explosive substance with intent to destroy house?

Join Our Telegram Channel

Imprisonment for life or imprisonment for 10 years and fine

Non-cognizable offence

Triable by Court of Sessions

Non-compoundable offence

Answer is Right!

Answer is Wrong!

This question was previously asked in

UPSC CISF-AC-EXE – 2019

Download PDF Attempt Online

The offence of mischief by fire or explosive substance with intent to destroy a house (Section 436 IPC) is a serious offence. As per the First Schedule of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC), this offence is classified as Cognizable, Non-bailable, Triable by Court of Session, and Non-compoundable. Therefore, the statement that it is a Non-cognizable offence is incorrect.

– Section 436 IPC deals with mischief by fire or explosive substance intending to destroy a house, etc.
– The punishment under Section 436 is imprisonment for life or imprisonment for 10 years and fine (Statement A is correct).
– Classification under CrPC: Cognizable, Non-bailable, Triable by Court of Session, Non-compoundable.

Statement A correctly lists the punishment. Statement C correctly states it is triable by the Court of Sessions. Statement D correctly states it is non-compoundable. Statement B incorrectly states it is non-cognizable; it is a cognizable offence, meaning a police officer can arrest without a warrant.

32. What is the punishment provided for theft committed by clerk or servan

What is the punishment provided for theft committed by clerk or servant of property in possession of master?

Imprisonment for a term which may extend to 7 years and fine

Imprisonment for a term which may extend to 3 years and fine

Imprisonment for a term which may extend to 5 years and fine

Imprisonment for a term which may extend to 8 years and fine

Answer is Right!

Answer is Wrong!

This question was previously asked in

UPSC CISF-AC-EXE – 2019

Download PDF Attempt Online

Section 381 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) provides the punishment for theft by clerk or servant of property in possession of master. It states that whoever, being a clerk or servant, or being employed in the capacity of a clerk or servant, commits theft in respect of any property in the possession of his master or employer, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine.

– Section 381 IPC specifically addresses theft committed by a clerk or servant against their master or employer.
– This is an aggravated form of simple theft (punished under Section 379 IPC with up to 3 years imprisonment).
– The maximum imprisonment term is seven years, in addition to fine.

Options B, C, and D specify incorrect maximum imprisonment terms for this specific offence under Section 381 IPC. Option A correctly states the maximum term as 7 years and liability to fine.

Join Our Telegram Channel

33. A finds a ring belonging to Z on a table in Z’s house. A dishonestly r

A finds a ring belonging to Z on a table in Z’s house. A dishonestly removes the ring. A has committed the offence of

criminal breach of trust

extortion

theft

misappropriation of property

Answer is Right!

Answer is Wrong!

This question was previously asked in

UPSC CISF-AC-EXE – 2019

Download PDF Attempt Online

A finds a ring belonging to Z on a table in Z’s house and dishonestly removes it. The ring is movable property. It is in Z’s possession (even though on a table in his house). A takes it out of Z’s possession without Z’s consent and with a dishonest intention (implied by ‘dishonestly removes’). This perfectly fits the definition of theft under Section 378 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).

– Theft requires dishonest taking of movable property out of the possession of another person without consent.
– Property found within someone’s house is considered to be in their possession.
– Dishonest intention is a key element.

Criminal breach of trust (Section 405 IPC) requires entrustment of property. Extortion (Section 383 IPC) involves inducing delivery of property by putting someone in fear. Misappropriation of property (Section 403 IPC) applies when someone dishonestly misappropriates or converts property to their own use, often after lawfully coming into its possession (e.g., finding lost property and then deciding to keep it dishonestly). While dishonest misappropriation is involved, the act of taking the ring from Z’s possession in his house without consent constitutes theft first and foremost.

Join Our Telegram Channel

34. Who among the following officers is not authorized to dispense an unla

Who among the following officers is not authorized to dispense an unlawful assembly by the use of civil force?

Join Our Telegram Channel

Executive Magistrate

Officer in-charge of the police station

Any police officer not below the rank of a sub-inspector in the absence of officer in-charge of the police station

Any constable attached to a police station

Answer is Right!

Answer is Wrong!

This question was previously asked in

UPSC CISF-AC-EXE – 2019

Download PDF Attempt Online

Section 129 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) specifies the authorities who can command an unlawful assembly to disperse using civil force. These authorities are any Executive Magistrate, or the officer in charge of a police station, or in the absence of such officer, any police officer not below the rank of a Sub-Inspector. A police constable is not vested with this power under Section 129.

– Section 129 CrPC deals with the dispersal of unlawful assembly by civil force.
– The authorized officers are Executive Magistrates, Officers in charge of police stations, and Police Officers not below the rank of Sub-Inspector (in the absence of the officer in charge).
– A police constable is not included among these authorized officers.

Option A (Executive Magistrate), Option B (Officer in-charge of the police station), and Option C (Any police officer not below the rank of a sub-inspector in the absence of officer in-charge) are all authorized under Section 129 CrPC. Option D (Any constable attached to a police station) is not authorized.

35. What is the maximum time limit given under the Workmen’s Compensation

What is the maximum time limit given under the Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923, for the dependent to claim compensation in the event of death of the workman arising out of or in course of employment?

Six months

One year

Two years

Three years

Answer is Right!

Answer is Wrong!

This question was previously asked in

UPSC CISF-AC-EXE – 2019

Download PDF Attempt Online

As per Section 10 of the Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923 (now called the Employees’ Compensation Act, 1923), a claim for compensation shall be preferred before the Commissioner within two years of the accident or, in the case of death, within two years of the date of death.

– The time limit for filing a claim for compensation under the Act is specified in Section 10.
– The standard time limit is two years.
– The period runs from the date of the accident or, if death results from the injury, from the date of the death.

There are provisions for condonation of delay if sufficient cause is shown for not preferring the claim within the stipulated period, but the standard time limit is two years. Options A, B, and D are incorrect regarding the maximum time limit provided by the Act.

Join Our Telegram Channel

36. Which one of the following statements is not correct?

Which one of the following statements is not correct?

The contribution payable by the employer to the Provident Fund will be 10 percent of basic wages only.

The contribution payable by the employer to the Provident Fund will be 10 percent of the basic wages, dearness allowance and retaining allowance.

The contribution of the employees to the Provident Fund will be also minimum 10 percent.

If an employee so desires, he/she can contribute more, but the employer will not match this contribution beyond 10 percent.

Answer is Right!

Answer is Wrong!

This question was previously asked in

UPSC CISF-AC-EXE – 2019

Download PDF Attempt Online

The Employees’ Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (EPF Act) generally requires contributions to be calculated on basic wages, dearness allowance, and retaining allowance. While the standard rate is 12%, the question posits a 10% scenario, which is applicable to certain establishments (e.g., those employing less than 20 persons or specified sick industries). However, the base for calculation remains basic wages, dearness allowance, and retaining allowance, not just basic wages. Therefore, the statement that the contribution is 10 percent of basic wages *only* is incorrect.

– EPF contributions are typically calculated on the total of basic wages, dearness allowance, and retaining allowance.
– The standard contribution rate is 12%, but a 10% rate is applicable under specific conditions.
– Even at the 10% rate, the calculation base usually includes DA and retaining allowance, not just basic wages.
– Employee contribution is generally equal to the employer’s contribution.
– Employees can voluntarily contribute more than the statutory minimum, but employers are not obligated to match the excess amount.

Statement B correctly identifies the base for calculation. Statement C is correct as the employee contribution matches the employer’s minimum (10% in this scenario) and can be higher. Statement D correctly describes the rule regarding voluntary higher contributions. Statement A incorrectly limits the calculation base to basic wages *only*.

Join Our Telegram Channel

37. As per the provisions of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, opinion of exp

As per the provisions of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, opinion of experts is relevant when it is related to

Join Our Telegram Channel

foreign law or of science or of art or as to identity of handwriting or finger impressions

law or medical science

finger impressions or art or medical science

None of the above

Answer is Right!

Answer is Wrong!

This question was previously asked in

UPSC CISF-AC-EXE – 2019

Download PDF Attempt Online

Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 deals with the opinion of experts. It states that when the Court has to form an opinion upon a point of foreign law or of science or art, or as to the identity of handwriting or finger impressions, the opinions upon that point of persons specially skilled in such foreign law, science or art, or in questions as to identity of handwriting or finger impressions are relevant facts. Option A lists all these specific areas where expert opinion is considered relevant under this section.

– Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 makes the opinions of experts relevant.
– The specified fields for expert opinion relevance are foreign law, science, art, identity of handwriting, and identity of finger impressions.

Options B and C are incomplete or partially correct but do not cover the full scope mentioned in Section 45. Option B mentions law (without specifying foreign law) and medical science (which falls under science). Option C mentions finger impressions, art, and medical science (science). Only option A comprehensively covers all the categories explicitly listed in Section 45.

38. A is a driver of a van which carries cash to refill ATMs of a bank. B

A is a driver of a van which carries cash to refill ATMs of a bank. B is security personnel and authorized to refill that cash in ATMs. At a red light when B steps down to ease himself, A on the pretext of taking turn, runs away with the cash van. At which of the following points is the commission of theft completed?

When A unloaded the cash from the van

When A turns the vehicle in a direction other than the pre-determined route

When B steps down from his van

None of the above

Answer is Right!

Answer is Wrong!

This question was previously asked in

UPSC CISF-AC-EXE – 2019

Download PDF Attempt Online

The commission of theft is completed at the moment the movable property is taken out of the possession of another person with dishonest intention. In this scenario, A is the driver of the van carrying cash, which is in the legal possession of the bank through its personnel (B). When A, with the dishonest intention of stealing the cash, turns the vehicle away from the predetermined route, he is taking the van (and the cash inside) out of the lawful possession of the bank/B without their consent. This movement of the vehicle constitutes the ‘taking’ element of theft.

– Theft is defined under Section 378 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) as the dishonest taking of movable property out of the possession of any person without that person’s consent.
– The ‘taking’ element involves the movement of the property.
– In this case, the van carrying cash is the movable property.
– The dishonest intention is formed when A decides to run away with the van.
– The theft is complete when A performs the first act of moving the van with this dishonest intention, which is turning the vehicle away from its route.

Options A and C are incorrect. Unloading the cash (A) happens after the theft is complete. B stepping down (C) merely provides the opportunity; it is A’s subsequent action of moving the van dishonestly that constitutes the theft. Option D is incorrect because the commission of theft is completed at a specific point.

Join Our Telegram Channel

39. Who among the following can apply to the High Court to set aside a dec

Who among the following can apply to the High Court to set aside a declaration of State Government under Section 95 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 to forfeit any newspaper?

Editor of the newspaper

Publishing house of the newspaper

Any employee of the newspaper

Any person having any interest in that newspaper

Answer is Right!

Answer is Wrong!

This question was previously asked in

UPSC CISF-AC-EXE – 2019

Download PDF Attempt Online

Section 95(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), 1973 explicitly states that “Any person having any interest in any such newspaper, book or document” in respect of which a declaration of forfeiture has been made under Section 95(1) may apply to the High Court to set aside such declaration. This wording encompasses individuals or entities with a proprietary, financial, or other significant legal interest in the publication.

– Section 95 of CrPC allows the State Government to declare certain publications forfeited for containing seditious matter or matter promoting enmity between different groups, etc.
– Section 95(2) provides a legal remedy for challenging this forfeiture order in the High Court.
– The right to apply is granted to “Any person having any interest” in the publication.
– This includes the editor, publisher, owner, or anyone else with a direct stake in the newspaper or publication.

This provision serves as a safeguard against arbitrary state action by allowing affected parties to seek judicial review of the forfeiture order. The High Court examines the content of the publication to determine if it falls within the prohibited categories.

Join Our Telegram Channel

40. As per the doctrine of ‘added peril’, as applied to the Workmen’s Comp

As per the doctrine of ‘added peril’, as applied to the Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923, a workman cannot hold his employer liable for the risk if at the time of accident the employee

undertakes to do something which the employee is not ordinarily required to do and involves extra danger

remains absent from place where he/she is supposed to work

is under the influence of alcohol on duty

is working on an overtime assignment

Answer is Right!

Answer is Wrong!

This question was previously asked in

UPSC CISF-AC-EXE – 2019

Download PDF Attempt Online

The doctrine of ‘added peril’ under the Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923 (now Employee’s Compensation Act, 1923) states that if a workman, while performing their duty, introduces a new risk or danger which is not part of their ordinary employment, and an accident occurs due to this added risk, the employer is generally not held liable for compensation. Option A accurately describes this: the employee undertakes something not ordinarily required, involving extra danger. Options B, C, and D might relate to potential defenses or considerations in a compensation claim (like being outside the scope of employment, misconduct, or working hours), but they do not define the doctrine of ‘added peril’.

– The doctrine applies when a workman increases the risk of injury by doing something outside the scope of their normal duties or in a manner not required or expected.
– The added peril must be the direct cause of the accident.
– If the employer authorized or acquiesced in the activity, the doctrine may not apply.

The Employee’s Compensation Act, 1923 provides for compensation to workmen (now employees) and their dependents in case of injury or death caused by an accident arising out of and in the course of employment. The doctrine of added peril is a common law concept applied in the interpretation of “arising out of employment”.

Join Our Telegram Channel