2019

31. 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?

Subscribe on YouTube
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 PDFAttempt 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).

Join Our Telegram Channel

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

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

Subscribe on YouTube
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 PDFAttempt 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.

Join Our Telegram Channel

33. 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?

Subscribe on YouTube
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 PDFAttempt 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.

Join Our Telegram Channel

34. 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

Join Our Telegram Channel
misappropriation of property
criminal breach of trust
theft
cheating
This question was previously asked in
UPSC CISF-AC-EXE – 2019
Download PDFAttempt 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.

Subscribe on YouTube

35. 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
This question was previously asked in
UPSC CISF-AC-EXE – 2019
Download PDFAttempt 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.

Subscribe on YouTube

36. 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?

Join Our Telegram Channel
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
This question was previously asked in
UPSC CISF-AC-EXE – 2019
Download PDFAttempt 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.

Subscribe on YouTube

37. 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

Subscribe on YouTube
criminal breach of trust
extortion
theft
misappropriation of property
This question was previously asked in
UPSC CISF-AC-EXE – 2019
Download PDFAttempt 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

38. 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
This question was previously asked in
UPSC CISF-AC-EXE – 2019
Download PDFAttempt 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.

Subscribe on YouTube

39. 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?

Subscribe on YouTube
Six months
One year
Two years
Three years
This question was previously asked in
UPSC CISF-AC-EXE – 2019
Download PDFAttempt 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

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

Which one of the following statements is not correct?

Subscribe on YouTube
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.
This question was previously asked in
UPSC CISF-AC-EXE – 2019
Download PDFAttempt 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
Page 1Page 2Page 3Page 4Page 5