2018 Archives

151. Notice with respect to any change which affects the conditions of serv

Notice with respect to any change which affects the conditions of service applicable to any workman in respect of any matter specified in the IV Schedule of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, shall not be effected within

[amp_mcq option1=”21 days” option2=”60 days” option3=”90 days” option4=”30 days” correct=”option1″]

This question was previously asked in

UPSC CISF-AC-EXE – 2018

Download PDF Attempt Online

The correct answer is A) 21 days.

Section 9A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 deals with the notice of change in conditions of service. It stipulates that an employer who proposes to effect any change in the conditions of service applicable to any workman in respect of any matter specified in the Fourth Schedule shall not effect such change without giving to the workmen likely to be affected a notice in the prescribed manner of the nature of the change proposed to be effected; and within twenty-one days of giving such notice. This means the change cannot be implemented within 21 days of serving the notice.

The Fourth Schedule lists various matters concerning conditions of service that require a notice of change, such as wages, compensatory and other allowances, hours of work and rest intervals, leave with wages and holidays, etc. The purpose of the notice period is to allow for discussion, negotiation, or conciliation before the changes are unilaterally implemented by the employer, thereby promoting industrial peace.

152. ‘A’ is charged with travelling on a train without a ticket. As per the

‘A’ is charged with travelling on a train without a ticket. As per the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, who among the following has to prove that he had a ticket?

[amp_mcq option1=”‘A’ has to prove it” option2=”Guilt is always to be proved by the prosecution” option3=”The Court will decide it” option4=”It is proved the moment ‘A’ is caught without ticket” correct=”option1″]

This question was previously asked in

UPSC CISF-AC-EXE – 2018

Download PDF Attempt Online

The correct answer is A) ‘A’ has to prove it.

Under the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, the general rule is that the burden of proof lies on the person who asserts a fact. However, Section 106 of the Act provides an important exception: “When any fact is especially within the knowledge of any person, the burden of proving that fact is upon him.” Whether a person has a ticket for travelling on a train is a fact that is specifically within their personal knowledge. Therefore, if charged with travelling without a ticket, the burden of proving that they did possess a ticket rests upon the accused (‘A’ in this case).

This principle is applied in various situations where the truth of a matter is peculiarly within the knowledge of one party. It’s an exception to the general rule that the prosecution must prove the guilt beyond reasonable doubt. In this specific scenario, proving the negative (that ‘A’ did *not* have a ticket) is difficult for the prosecution, while proving the positive (that ‘A’ *did* have a ticket) is straightforward for ‘A’ if it is true.

153. As per the provisions of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, if a contract

As per the provisions of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, if a contract is contained in several letters, what must be proved?

[amp_mcq option1=”Any one letter in which the contract is contained must be proved” option2=”Any letter which has the conclusion of the letter must be proved” option3=”All the letters in which the contract is contained must be proved” option4=”Only that letter of contract must be proved which has the disputed portion” correct=”option3″]

This question was previously asked in

UPSC CISF-AC-EXE – 2018

Download PDF Attempt Online

The correct answer is C) All the letters in which the contract is contained must be proved.

When a contract is contained in a series of letters, the entire series of letters collectively constitutes the documentary evidence of the contract. According to the principles of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, particularly Section 91, when the terms of a contract have been reduced to the form of a document or a series of documents, no evidence shall be given in proof of the terms of such contract except the document itself or secondary evidence where permissible. If the contract is formed through correspondence, all the letters that form part of and evidence the terms of the contract must be produced or accounted for (if the original is lost, secondary evidence may be given). Proving only one letter, or only the concluding one, or only the disputed portion in isolation would not give a complete and accurate picture of the entire contractual agreement.

This principle ensures that the court considers the entirety of the written agreement to understand its true nature and effect. The court must look at the whole correspondence to determine if a contract was formed and what its terms are.

154. How much information received from an accused may be proved when the a

How much information received from an accused may be proved when the accused is in police custody?

[amp_mcq option1=”All relevant information” option2=”His confession to commit the crime” option3=”Information distinctly relates to the discovery of something” option4=”None, because he is in police custody” correct=”option3″]

This question was previously asked in

UPSC CISF-AC-EXE – 2018

Download PDF Attempt Online

The correct answer is C) Information distinctly relates to the discovery of something.

Sections 25 and 26 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 generally make confessions made to a police officer or while in police custody inadmissible. However, Section 27 provides an exception: “Provided 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 only the part of the information given by the accused in custody that leads to the discovery of a relevant fact (like the weapon, stolen goods, or the body) is admissible in court.

This provision is based on the principle that the reliability of the information leading to a discovery serves as a guarantee of its truthfulness, distinguishing it from mere confessions which might be obtained under duress. The discovery must be a consequence of the information provided by the accused.

155. The question is whether ‘A’ stole the Laptop of ‘B’. Which one of the

The question is whether ‘A’ stole the Laptop of ‘B’. Which one of the following is not relevant as per the Indian Evidence Act, 1872?

[amp_mcq option1=”‘A’ knows how to operate the Laptop.” option2=”‘A’ sold the same Laptop to his friend.” option3=”Only ‘A’ was authorized to use his Laptop by using his finger impressions.” option4=”‘A’ had the key of ‘B’s room.” correct=”option1″]

This question was previously asked in

UPSC CISF-AC-EXE – 2018

Download PDF Attempt Online

The correct answer is A) ‘A’ knows how to operate the Laptop.

Under the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, facts are relevant if they are connected to the fact in issue in ways specified by Sections 6 to 55. The fact in issue is whether ‘A’ stole the Laptop of ‘B’.
– B) ‘A’ sold the same Laptop to his friend: Highly relevant as it shows possession and disposition of the stolen property (relevant under Section 8 – conduct, or Section 14 – state of mind).
– C) Only ‘A’ was authorized to use his Laptop by using his finger impressions: Highly relevant as it suggests exclusive access and opportunity (relevant under Section 7 – occasion, cause or effect). This fact might suggest that only ‘A’ could have stolen and then used the laptop easily.
– D) ‘A’ had the key of ‘B’s room: Highly relevant as it suggests opportunity and access to the location where the laptop was kept (relevant under Section 7).
– A) ‘A’ knows how to operate the Laptop: This fact, by itself, is not directly relevant to the *act of stealing*. Many people know how to operate a laptop. It does not prove opportunity, motive, preparation, or conduct related to the theft itself. It might be relevant if the charge involved illegal *use* of the laptop after theft, but the question is about *stealing*. Compared to the other options, knowing how to operate the device is the least, if at all, relevant fact concerning the theft itself.

Relevance is a key concept in the Evidence Act. Facts that are relevant are those that make the existence or non-existence of a fact in issue probable. While knowing how to operate a laptop might be a necessary skill to *use* it after theft, it doesn’t directly point to ‘A’ being the person who committed the theft itself.

156. In which one of the following cases is the offence of criminal breach

In which one of the following cases is the offence of criminal breach of trust not committed?

[amp_mcq option1=”‘A’, the delivery boy of ‘B’ (B’ is an online retailer), does not deliver the package of a mobile phone and uses it himself.” option2=”A postman does not deliver the money order and misappropriates the money.” option3=”‘A’ finds a ring near the shop of a jeweler and gives it to his wife.” option4=”‘A’, an employee of the Employees’ State Insurance Corporation, does not deposit the contribution of an employee and misappropriates it.” correct=”option3″]

This question was previously asked in

UPSC CISF-AC-EXE – 2018

Download PDF Attempt Online

The correct answer is C) ‘A’ finds a ring near the shop of a jeweler and gives it to his wife.

Criminal breach of trust, as defined under Section 405 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, requires the essential element of “entrustment”. This means that the property must be handed over to the accused or they must have dominion over it, and they accept it under circumstances implying a trust. In option C, ‘A’ simply *finds* a ring. There is no entrustment of the ring to ‘A’ by its owner. Finding a lost item and misappropriating it may constitute other offences like dishonest misappropriation of movable property (Section 403 IPC) or potentially theft depending on the circumstances, but it does not fit the definition of criminal breach of trust due to the absence of entrustment.

In options A, B, and D, there is clear entrustment: the delivery boy is entrusted with the package, the postman is entrusted with the money order funds, and the employee is entrusted with the contribution money. Their subsequent misappropriation of these entrusted properties constitutes criminal breach of trust.

157. ‘A’ kills the hen of ‘B’. The value of the hen is above two hundred fi

‘A’ kills the hen of ‘B’. The value of the hen is above two hundred fifty rupees. What is the offence committed by ‘A’?

[amp_mcq option1=”No offence under the IPC” option2=”Mischief under Section 429 of the IPC” option3=”Misappropriation of property” option4=”Trespass of the property of ‘B'” correct=”option2″]

This question was previously asked in

UPSC CISF-AC-EXE – 2018

Download PDF Attempt Online

The correct answer is B) Mischief under Section 429 of the IPC.

Section 425 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 defines “Mischief”. Section 428 punishes mischief by killing or maiming any animal of the value of ten rupees or upwards (fifty rupees or upwards in some states). Section 429, which carries a higher punishment, specifically deals with mischief by killing or maiming cattle, etc., or any animal of the value of fifty rupees or upwards. A hen is an “animal”. Since its value is stated as above two hundred fifty rupees (which is “fifty rupees or upwards”), the act of killing it falls under the ambit of Section 429 IPC.

Section 428 is typically used for killing or maiming animals of lesser value (like a dog or cat worth less than fifty rupees), while Section 429 applies to specified animals (like cattle) irrespective of value, or any other animal whose value is fifty rupees or more. The higher value of the hen places the offence under Section 429.

158. If, during dispersal of an unlawful assembly, an army officer, command

If, during dispersal of an unlawful assembly, an army officer, commanded to disperse it, exceeds his power which had resulted into the death of four women and three children, that army officer can be prosecuted with the sanction of

[amp_mcq option1=”his Commanding Officer” option2=”the District Magistrate” option3=”the Central Government” option4=”the concerned State Government” correct=”option3″]

This question was previously asked in

UPSC CISF-AC-EXE – 2018

Download PDF Attempt Online

The correct answer is C) the Central Government.

Section 132 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 provides protection against prosecution for acts done in good faith to disperse an unlawful assembly. Section 132(3) specifically states that “No prosecution shall be instituted in any Criminal Court against any person for any act done in good faith in pursuance of this section… (c) if such person is a member of the armed forces of the Union, without the sanction of the Central Government.” In this scenario, the army officer is a member of the armed forces acting (though exceeding power) in the course of dispersing an unlawful assembly.

This provision grants special protection to members of the armed forces when acting to maintain public order, requiring the highest level of executive sanction (Central Government) before they can be prosecuted for such actions, provided the act was done in pursuance of Section 132, even if power was exceeded. The intention is to protect them from vexatious litigation while ensuring accountability through a high-level review process.

159. Any book or newspaper or document can be forfeited and seized by an or

Any book or newspaper or document can be forfeited and seized by an order of the State Government under Section 95 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, if the same contains any matter, the publication of which is punishable under Sections

[amp_mcq option1=”124A, 122, 292 and 354A of the IPC” option2=”124A, 153A, 153B, 292, 293 and 295A of the IPC” option3=”124A, 153B, 509, 376 and 377 of the IPC” option4=”124A, 153A, 153B, 354 and 509 of the IPC” correct=”option2″]

This question was previously asked in

UPSC CISF-AC-EXE – 2018

Download PDF Attempt Online

The correct answer is B) 124A, 153A, 153B, 292, 293 and 295A of the IPC.

Section 95 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 empowers the State Government to declare certain publications forfeited if they contain any matter whose publication is punishable under specific sections of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. These sections are Section 124A (Sedition), Section 153A (Promoting enmity between different groups), Section 153B (Imputations, assertions prejudicial to national integration), Section 292 (Sale, etc., of obscene books, etc.), Section 293 (Sale of obscene objects to young person), and Section 295A (Deliberate and malicious acts, intended to outrage religious feelings of any class by insulting its religion or religious beliefs).

This power allows the government to take action against publications deemed inflammatory or harmful without immediate judicial intervention, though the affected party has a right to apply to the High Court to set aside the order of forfeiture under Section 96 CrPC. The listed IPC sections cover offences related to public order, national integration, obscenity, and religious feelings.

160. When was the CISF inducted at airports ?

When was the CISF inducted at airports ?

[amp_mcq option1=”1999″ option2=”2001″ option3=”2002″ option4=”2000″ correct=”option4″]

This question was previously asked in

UPSC CISF-AC-EXE – 2018

Download PDF Attempt Online

The correct answer is D) 2000.

Following the hijacking of Indian Airlines Flight 814 in December 1999, the Indian government decided to induct the Central Industrial Security Force (CISF) for security duties at major airports across the country to enhance airport security. The process of deploying CISF personnel at sensitive airports began in the year 2000.

Prior to the induction of CISF, airport security in India was primarily handled by the state police. The decision to hand over security duties to a professional federal force like CISF was a significant step towards modernizing airport security management in the wake of increased threats. The deployment was phased, starting with the more sensitive and busy airports.