2020 Archives

21. ‘A’ voluntarily throws into a river, a ring belonging to ‘Z’ with the

‘A’ voluntarily throws into a river, a ring belonging to ‘Z’ with the intention of thereby causing wrongful loss to ‘Z’. ‘A’ has committed

theft.

mischief.

criminal breach of trust.

cheating.

This question was previously asked in

UPSC CISF-AC-EXE – 2020

Download PDF Attempt Online

The scenario described, where ‘A’ voluntarily throws ‘Z’s ring into a river with the intention of causing wrongful loss to ‘Z’, fits the definition of ‘mischief’ under Section 425 of the Indian Penal Code. Mischief involves intentionally causing destruction to any property, or any such change in any property or in the situation thereof as destroys or diminishes its value or utility, or affects it injuriously, with the intent to cause wrongful loss or damage. Throwing the ring into the river destroys its utility and causes wrongful loss.

– Mischief requires intention to cause wrongful loss or damage.
– It involves causing destruction or diminution of value/utility of property.
– Throwing an item into a river to cause loss constitutes mischief.

Theft (A) requires taking property out of possession. Criminal breach of trust (C) involves misappropriating property entrusted to someone. Cheating (D) involves deception to cause delivery of property or harm. None of these applies to the destruction of property as described.

22. Under the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993, the term ‘Human Rights

Under the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993, the term ‘Human Rights’ has been defined as

basic rights to food, shelter and clothing.

inalienable rights of a human being.

the rights relating to life, liberty, equality and dignity of the individual guaranteed by the Constitution of India.

the rights ensuring liberty, equality, fraternity and state sovereignty.

This question was previously asked in

UPSC CISF-AC-EXE – 2020

Download PDF Attempt Online

The Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993, defines ‘Human Rights’ in Section 2(1)(d) as “the rights relating to life, liberty, equality and dignity of the individual guaranteed by the Constitution or embodied in the International Covenants and enforceable by courts in India”. Option C precisely captures the core definition focusing on rights guaranteed by the Indian Constitution.

– The definition includes rights guaranteed by the Constitution of India.
– It also includes rights embodied in International Covenants enforceable by courts in India.
– The rights specifically mentioned are related to life, liberty, equality, and dignity.

The Act established the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) and State Human Rights Commissions (SHRCs) to protect and promote human rights in India. The definition is broad enough to include internationally recognized human rights that are also enforceable domestically.

23. The National Human Rights Commission conducts inquiries into incidents

The National Human Rights Commission conducts inquiries into incidents where human rights have been violated. Such inquiry shall be initiated by the Commission

only upon a petition presented to it by a victim.

only when it is directed to do so by a Court.

suo motu or on a petition by the victim or any person on the victim's behalf or on a direction or order of any Court.

only when such complaint is forwarded by the concerned SHO.

This question was previously asked in

UPSC CISF-AC-EXE – 2020

Download PDF Attempt Online

The correct answer is C.

Section 12(a) of the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993, which lists the functions of the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC), states that the Commission shall “inquire, suo motu or on a petition presented to it by a victim or any person on his behalf, into complaint of… violation of human rights…”. This covers the initiation of inquiry suo motu or upon petition. While the Act primarily lists suo motu action and petitions as modes of initiation, courts frequently direct the NHRC or State Human Rights Commissions to conduct inquiries into matters involving human rights violations. This is a recognized mode of initiation in practice.

Options A, B, and D are restrictive. Option A is incorrect because suo motu action is also permitted. Option B is incorrect because the Commission can initiate inquiry suo motu or on a petition, not just upon court direction. Option D is incorrect as complaints are not initiated solely based on forwarding by an SHO; the Commission receives complaints directly from victims, others, or acts on its own motion. Option C covers the range of ways initiation can occur: on its own motion, based on complaints/petitions, and also upon direction from a Court.

24. Under the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atr

Under the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, which one of the following is not permitted?

Anticipatory Bail

Registration of FIR without preliminary enquiry

Arrest of an accused by the Investigating Officer without prior approval

Bail

This question was previously asked in

UPSC CISF-AC-EXE – 2020

Download PDF Attempt Online

The correct answer is A.

Section 18 of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, states that “Nothing in section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 shall apply in relation to any case involving the commission of, or attempt to commit, any offence under this Act.” Section 438 of the CrPC deals with Anticipatory Bail. Therefore, Anticipatory Bail is explicitly prohibited under the SC/ST Act.

Section 18A, inserted later, further clarifies that preliminary inquiry shall not be required for registration of an FIR against any person and that the investigating officer shall not require any approval for arrest. This means Registration of FIR without preliminary enquiry (B) and Arrest of an accused without prior approval (C) are permitted/required under the Act. Regular Bail (D), applied for after arrest (under Section 439 CrPC), is not absolutely prohibited, although the conditions for granting it are stringent.

25. For the purpose of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956, a ‘chil

For the purpose of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956, a ‘child’ means a person who has not completed the age of

14 years

16 years

18 years

21 years

This question was previously asked in

UPSC CISF-AC-EXE – 2020

Download PDF Attempt Online

The correct answer is C.

As per Section 2(aa) of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956, inserted by the Amendment Act of 2006, a ‘child’ is defined as “a person who has not completed the age of eighteen years”.

Before the 2006 amendment, ‘child’ was defined as a person who had not completed the age of sixteen years. The amendment raised the age to 18 years to align with international conventions and other domestic laws like the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act. Section 2(f) defines ‘minor’ as a person who has completed sixteen years but not eighteen years.

26. Which one of the following is not punishable under the Commission of S

Which one of the following is not punishable under the Commission of Sati (Prevention) Act, 1987?

Abetment of Sati

Commission of Sati

Attempt to commit Sati

Glorification of Sati

This question was previously asked in

UPSC CISF-AC-EXE – 2020

Download PDF Attempt Online

The correct answer is B.

The Commission of Sati (Prevention) Act, 1987 primarily targets the prevention of Sati and punishes those who abet, attempt, or glorify it.
Section 5 of the Act punishes abetment of Sati.
Section 4 of the Act punishes attempt to commit Sati.
Section 6 of the Act punishes glorification of Sati.
While Section 3 mentions “Punishment for commission of sati”, the *act* of Sati involves the death of the person. The Act’s penal provisions are directed at preventing the act and punishing those who facilitate or glorify it, not the deceased victim. Therefore, the “Commission of Sati” by the victim is not something that is punishable *under the Act* in the sense of applying a penalty to the person who commits it.

The focus of the legislation is on punishing those who force, persuade, or otherwise cause a person to commit Sati, or who try to commit it and fail, or who glorify the practice. The person who dies is not subjected to legal punishment.

29. The Employees’ Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act does *

The Employees’ Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act does *not* apply to

any establishment registered under the Co-operative Societies Act, 1912 employing less than 50 persons and working without the aid of power.

any establishment which is a factory engaged in any industry as specified under the Act in which minimum of 20 persons are employed.

any other establishment employing minimum of 20 persons as specified by the Central Government.

all such establishments employing less than 20 persons, as specified by a notification in the Official Gazette by the Central Government after a minimum of 2 months prior notice.

This question was previously asked in

UPSC CISF-AC-EXE – 2020

Download PDF Attempt Online

The correct answer is A.

Section 16 of the Employees’ Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952, lists the establishments to which the Act does not apply. Section 16(a) specifically excludes “to any establishment registered under the Co-operative Societies Act, 1912, or under any other law for the time being in force and employing less than fifty persons and working without the aid of power.” Option A perfectly matches this description.

Options B and C describe establishments that are covered by the mandatory provisions of the Act (Section 1(3)(a) and (b) respectively), not excluded from them. Option D describes a scenario related to potential mandatory coverage for establishments below 20 employees upon government notification (though typically voluntary coverage applies below 20), not a category of exclusion under Section 16.

30. Under the Employees’ Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act,

Under the Employees’ Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, the Central Government may authorize an employee to maintain a Provident Fund Account in relation to the establishment, upon an application made by the employer and majority of such establishment’s employees provided that the number of persons employed in that establishment is not less than

100

200

This question was previously asked in

UPSC CISF-AC-EXE – 2020

Download PDF Attempt Online

The correct answer is A.

The question refers to the Central Government authorizing an establishment to maintain its own Provident Fund Account upon application by the employer and majority of employees. This scenario typically applies to establishments that are mandatorily covered under the Employees’ Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (EPF Act) and seek exemption from the Government Scheme to maintain their own provident fund trust (under Section 17(1A)). The EPF Act mandatorily applies to establishments employing 20 or more persons (Section 1(3)). An establishment must be covered by the Act to apply for such an exemption. Therefore, the number of persons employed in that establishment must be “not less than” the threshold for mandatory coverage, which is 20.

Section 1(3)(a) states the Act applies to factories engaged in scheduled industries employing 20 or more persons. Section 1(3)(b) states the Act applies to any other establishment employing 20 or more persons notified by the Central Government. Section 1(5) (formerly 1(4)) allows voluntary coverage for establishments with less than 20 employees, but the question’s condition “not less than” points towards the mandatory coverage threshold. Section 17 deals with exemptions, where the Central Government can authorize an establishment to maintain its own PF if it provides benefits not less favourable than the statutory scheme. This exemption is available to establishments to which the Act applies, i.e., generally those with 20 or more employees.