2020

31. Which one of the following is a condition precedent for appointment as

Which one of the following is a condition precedent for appointment as the presiding officer of a labour court under Section 7 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947?

Subscribe on YouTube
Holding judicial office in India for a minimum of 15 years
Having minimum experience of 5 years as a District Judge or Additional District Judge
Minimum 20 years of experience as presiding officer of a labour court constituted under any State Act
Minimum 3 years of experience as an officer of the Indian Judicial Service in Grade III
This question was previously asked in
UPSC CISF-AC-EXE – 2020
Download PDFAttempt Online
The correct answer is B.
Section 7(3) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, specifies the qualifications for appointment as the presiding officer of a Labour Court. One of the conditions listed in Section 7(3)(b) is that the person “has, for a period of not less than three years, been a District Judge or an Additional District Judge”. Option B states “Having minimum experience of 5 years as a District Judge or Additional District Judge”. Since 5 years is “not less than three years”, this condition is fulfilled by a person with 5 years of experience as a District Judge or Additional District Judge.
Other qualifications under Section 7(3) include being a High Court Judge (a), holding any judicial office in India for not less than seven years (c), or being the presiding officer of a State Labour Court for not less than five years (d). Options A and C list judicial office and State Labour Court PO experience, respectively, but with incorrect minimum durations (15 years vs 7 years for judicial office; 20 years vs 5 years for State Labour Court PO). Option D, minimum 3 years of experience as an officer of the Indian Judicial Service in Grade III, is a specific rank which usually falls under the general category of “judicial office” requiring 7 years experience under Section 7(3)(c); 3 years in IJS Grade III typically does not meet the 7-year threshold for judicial office, nor is it usually equivalent to District Judge experience. While technically options A and C also state durations exceeding the minimum requirements of the Act, implying they are also valid conditions, the question asks for “which one of the following is a condition precedent”. Option B presents a specific category (DJ/Addl DJ) with a duration (5 years) that clearly meets the minimum requirement (3 years) for that category as listed in the Act. Assuming the question is well-posed and intends a single correct answer, Option B is the most direct representation of a valid condition derived from the Act’s specified categories, despite the duration being higher than the minimum.

Join Our Telegram Channel

32. According to the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, which one of the follo

According to the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, which one of the following is a condition precedent to retrenchment of a workman employed in any industry for not less than one year ?

Subscribe on YouTube
Three months' notice in writing
One month's notice in writing
Wages equivalent to minimum three months' average pay for every year of completed service to be paid
Wages equivalent to minimum one month's average pay for every year of completed service to be paid
This question was previously asked in
UPSC CISF-AC-EXE – 2020
Download PDFAttempt Online
The correct answer is B.
Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, lays down the conditions precedent to retrenchment of a workman who has been in continuous service for not less than one year. These conditions are:
(a) the workman has been given one month’s notice in writing indicating the reasons for retrenchment and the period of notice has expired, or the workman has been paid, in lieu of such notice, wages for the period of the notice;
(b) the workman has been paid, at the time of retrenchment, compensation which shall be equivalent to fifteen days’ average pay for every completed year of continuous service or any part thereof in excess of six months; and
(c) notice in the prescribed manner has been served on the appropriate Government or such authority as may be specified by the appropriate Government by notification in the Official Gazette.

Join Our Telegram Channel

Option B directly corresponds to condition (a) of Section 25F.

Retrenchment compensation (condition b) is 15 days’ average pay per year of service, not minimum one or three months’ average pay per year as stated in options C and D. Option A states three months’ notice, which is incorrect; the requirement is one month’s notice or pay in lieu.

33. What is the penalty prescribed under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947

What is the penalty prescribed under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 for a person who commits any unfair labour practices ?

Join Our Telegram Channel
Imprisonment up to 2 months or fine up to ₹ 1,000 or both
Imprisonment up to 3 months or fine up to ₹ 1,000 or both
Imprisonment up to 6 months or fine up to ₹ 1,000 or both
Imprisonment up to 1 year or fine up to ₹ 1,000 or both
This question was previously asked in
UPSC CISF-AC-EXE – 2020
Download PDFAttempt Online
Section 25U of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 prescribes the penalty for committing any unfair labour practice. The penalty is imprisonment for a term which may extend to six months, or with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees, or with both.
– Chapter V-C (Sections 25T and 25U) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, deals with unfair labour practices.
– Section 25T prohibits any employer or workman or a trade union from committing any unfair labour practice.
– Section 25U provides the punishment for violating Section 25T.
– Unfair labour practices are listed in the Fifth Schedule to the Act. These include actions like interfering with the right of workmen to organize, dominating or interfering with a trade union, discriminating against workmen for union activities, or engaging in certain forms of coercive or threatening behaviour.
– The prescribed penalty serves as a deterrent against engaging in practices that are considered detrimental to healthy industrial relations.

Subscribe on YouTube

34. ‘A’, a carrier, is entrusted by ‘Z’ with property to be carried by lan

‘A’, a carrier, is entrusted by ‘Z’ with property to be carried by land or by water. ‘A’ dishonestly misappropriates the property. Which one of the following offences was committed by ‘A’ ?

Join Our Telegram Channel
Criminal breach of trust
Dishonest misappropriation of property
Mischief
Theft
This question was previously asked in
UPSC CISF-AC-EXE – 2020
Download PDFAttempt Online
When a carrier is entrusted by a person with property to be carried, and the carrier dishonestly misappropriates that property, this act constitutes the offence of Criminal Breach of Trust under Section 405 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
– Section 405 IPC defines Criminal Breach of Trust. The key elements are: (1) entrustment of property or dominion over property, and (2) dishonest misappropriation or conversion of that property, or dishonest use or disposal of that property in violation of any legal direction or contract.
– In the given scenario, the carrier (‘A’) is entrusted with the property (‘Z’s property) for a specific purpose (carriage). When ‘A’ dishonestly misappropriates it, all elements of criminal breach of trust are met.
– Theft (Option D) involves taking property out of possession without consent, not necessarily after entrustment. Dishonest misappropriation of property (Section 403 IPC, Option B) is a less severe offence and applies when property is found and then dishonestly misappropriated, not typically when it is acquired through entrustment for a purpose. Mischief (Option C) involves causing destruction or damage to property.
– The relationship between the entruster and the person entrusted is crucial in Criminal Breach of Trust. The property is voluntarily handed over or control is given, unlike theft where property is taken from possession without consent.
– Section 407 IPC specifically deals with Criminal Breach of Trust by a carrier, wharfinger or warehouse-keeper, prescribing a higher punishment (up to seven years imprisonment and fine) compared to general criminal breach of trust (up to three years imprisonment and fine). The act itself is Criminal Breach of Trust; Section 407 is an aggravated form of it.

Subscribe on YouTube

35. Which one of the following with regards to offence of theft is correct

Which one of the following with regards to offence of theft is correct ?

Join Our Telegram Channel
Theft is always an offence against ownership.
Dishonest intention is the gist of offence of theft.
Theft may or may not include moving of property in order to take the property away.
Theft may be of movable as well as immovable properties.
This question was previously asked in
UPSC CISF-AC-EXE – 2020
Download PDFAttempt Online
Under the Indian Penal Code, 1860, theft is defined in Section 378. The gist of the offence of theft is the dishonest intention to take movable property out of the possession of any person without that person’s consent.
– Section 378 IPC defines theft. The key elements are: (1) dishonest intention, (2) to take movable property, (3) out of the possession of any person, (4) without that person’s consent, and (5) there must be a moving of the property in order to effect such taking.
– Option A is incorrect because theft is an offence against *possession*, not necessarily ownership. One can steal from a person who is lawfully in possession but not the owner.
– Option C is incorrect because the definition explicitly requires the *moving* of the property (Section 378 Explanation 5). The taking must be accompanied by motion.
– Option D is incorrect because theft applies only to *movable* property (Section 378). Immovable property cannot be stolen under the IPC definition of theft.
– Option B is correct as dishonest intention is the fundamental mental element (mens rea) required for the offence of theft.
– The term “dishonestly” is defined in Section 24 IPC as doing anything with the intention of causing wrongful gain to one person or wrongful loss to another person.
– “Movable property” is defined in Section 22 IPC to include corporeal property of every description, except land and things attached to the earth, or permanently fastened to anything which is attached to the earth.

Subscribe on YouTube

36. ‘A’ sues ‘B’ for a libel imputing disgraceful conduct to ‘A’. ‘B’ affi

‘A’ sues ‘B’ for a libel imputing disgraceful conduct to ‘A’. ‘B’ affirms that the matter alleged to be libelous is true. Which one of the following is not a relevant fact ?

Join Our Telegram Channel
Position of parties at the time when the libel was published
The relations of the parties at the time when the libel was published
Particulars of some dispute between A and B about a matter unconnected with the libel
Facts of some dispute between A and B which affected relations between them
This question was previously asked in
UPSC CISF-AC-EXE – 2020
Download PDFAttempt Online
In a libel suit where the defense is that the matter alleged to be libelous is true, facts showing the position and relations of the parties at the time the libel was published, and facts of any dispute between them that affected their relations are generally relevant to establish context, motive, or the state of feelings, which might be relevant to the publication or its impact. However, particulars of a dispute between A and B about a matter *unconnected* with the libel are typically not relevant facts in determining the truth of the alleged libel or assessing damages, unless that unconnected dispute somehow provides a motive for the libel itself (which is not suggested here).
– Relevancy of facts in a court case is governed by the Indian Evidence Act, 1872.
– Facts forming part of the same transaction, facts showing motive, preparation, conduct, or relationship of parties are often relevant under Sections 6-16 of the Act.
– In a defamation case, facts related to the relationship, background, and circumstances surrounding the publication of the statement are relevant to understand the context and evaluate the claim and defense.
– A dispute on an entirely unrelated matter, without a link to the alleged libel, is generally considered irrelevant as it does not help prove or disprove the truth of the libel or the circumstances of its publication.
– The defense of truth (justification) in a defamation case requires the defendant to prove that the statement published was substantially true.
– Facts that provide context for the relationship between the parties (options A, B, D) can be relevant for various aspects of the case, including potential motive, the impact of the statement, or assessing damages, depending on the specifics.

Subscribe on YouTube

37. Under Section 354A of the IPC 1860, who can be a victim of the crime o

Under Section 354A of the IPC 1860, who can be a victim of the crime of sexual harassment ?

Subscribe on YouTube
Only a woman
Only a man
Both men as well as women
Only transgenders
This question was previously asked in
UPSC CISF-AC-EXE – 2020
Download PDFAttempt Online
Under Section 354A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, the victim of the crime of sexual harassment, as defined by this section, is exclusively a woman. The section defines the acts of sexual harassment when committed by a man against a woman.
– Section 354A of the IPC was introduced specifically to define and criminalise sexual harassment against women.
– The language of the section explicitly refers to acts committed by a man which constitute sexual harassment towards a woman.
– While other provisions of law or different interpretations might address similar acts against other genders, Section 354A itself is gender-specific in defining the victim as a woman.
– The section lists various acts that constitute sexual harassment, including physical contact and advances involving unwelcome and explicit sexual overtures, demanding or requesting sexual favours, showing pornography against the will of a woman, and making sexually coloured remarks.
– Sections 354B, 354C, and 354D were also introduced/amended around the same time (post-Nirbhaya case amendments) to address related offences against women (assault or use of criminal force with intent to disrobe, voyeurism, and stalking, respectively).

Join Our Telegram Channel

38. Refusal to answer questions asked by a public servant in exercise of h

Refusal to answer questions asked by a public servant in exercise of his legal powers, by a person legally bound to state the truth on that particular subject is

Subscribe on YouTube
not a punishable offence.
punishable with maximum one month of imprisonment.
punishable with imprisonment for a term extending up to three months.
punishable with imprisonment up to six months.
This question was previously asked in
UPSC CISF-AC-EXE – 2020
Download PDFAttempt Online
Refusal to answer questions asked by a public servant in exercise of his legal powers, by a person legally bound to state the truth on that particular subject is a punishable offence under Section 179 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The prescribed punishment is imprisonment for a term which may extend to six months, or with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees, or with both.
– Section 179 IPC deals with the offence of refusing to answer a public servant authorised to question.
– Two key conditions must be met: the person must be legally bound to state the truth on the subject, and the public servant must be asking the question in the exercise of their legal powers.
– The penalty is imprisonment up to six months or a fine up to ₹1,000, or both.
– This section aims to ensure cooperation with public servants who are legally authorised to gather information for official purposes.
– It is important to note that the person must be *legally bound* to answer the question; not all questions asked by public servants impose a legal obligation to answer truthfully.

Join Our Telegram Channel

39. Which of the following has the power to pass orders prohibiting any pe

Which of the following has the power to pass orders prohibiting any person from repeating or continuing a public nuisance ?

Subscribe on YouTube
A District Magistrate
Any Executive Magistrate empowered by the State Government or the District Magistrate in this behalf
A Sub-Divisional Magistrate
All of the above
This question was previously asked in
UPSC CISF-AC-EXE – 2020
Download PDFAttempt Online
Under Section 144 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, a District Magistrate, a Sub-Divisional Magistrate, or any other Executive Magistrate specially empowered by the State Government in this behalf, has the power to issue orders prohibiting any person from repeating or continuing a public nuisance or apprehended danger. Therefore, all of the listed authorities possess this power.
– Section 144 CrPC grants powers to Executive Magistrates to issue urgent orders in cases of nuisance or apprehended danger.
– This power is specifically vested in the District Magistrate and the Sub-Divisional Magistrate.
– The State Government also has the authority to empower other Executive Magistrates to exercise this power.
– Orders under Section 144 are typically prohibitory in nature and are aimed at preventing public nuisance or disturbances of public tranquility.
– Such orders are generally in force for a period not exceeding two months, but can be extended by the State Government under certain conditions.

Join Our Telegram Channel

40. Which one of the following is *not* correct ? Under the Code of Crimin

Which one of the following is *not* correct ? Under the Code of Criminal Procedure, no person who has been arrested by a police officer shall be discharged except

Subscribe on YouTube
on his own bond.
under the special orders of a magistrate.
on bail.
upon the completion of trial.
This question was previously asked in
UPSC CISF-AC-EXE – 2020
Download PDFAttempt Online
Under the Code of Criminal Procedure, no person who has been arrested by a police officer shall be discharged except on his own bond, or on bail, or under the special orders of a Magistrate. Discharge upon the completion of trial is *not* a condition for discharge by a police officer as per the specified sections dealing with police arrest procedures.
– Section 59 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 specifies the circumstances under which a person arrested without warrant shall be discharged by a police officer. These are: on execution of his bond, on bail, or under the special order of a Magistrate.
– Discharge upon completion of trial is a judicial process that occurs after the trial proceedings are over, resulting in acquittal or conviction. This is not a decision or action taken by the arresting police officer regarding the initial custody.
– Sections like 57 (person arrested not to be detained for more than twenty-four hours) and 59 deal with the initial custody and release by the police.
– The option “upon the completion of trial” describes a judicial outcome (acquittal), not a method of discharge by the police after arrest and before being produced in court or remanded.

Join Our Telegram Channel
Page 1Page 2Page 3Page 4Page 5