2022 Archives

21. To prosecute a public servant, prior sanction from the Central or Stat

To prosecute a public servant, prior sanction from the Central or State Government is necessary. The provision for previous sanction necessary for prosecution of public servant for offences punishable under Sections 7, 11, 13 and 15 of the Prevention of Corruption Act is mentioned under which one of the following Sections of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 ?

Join Our Telegram Channel

Section 19

Section 18A

Section 20

Section 22

Answer is Right!

Answer is Wrong!

This question was previously asked in

UPSC CISF-AC-EXE – 2022

Download PDF Attempt Online

The correct answer is Section 19.

– Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 specifically deals with the necessity of obtaining prior sanction from the Central Government or the State Government, as the case may be, before prosecuting a public servant for offences punishable under Sections 7, 11, 13 and 15 of the Act.
– This provision is a safeguard for public servants against vexatious prosecution, ensuring that the decision to prosecute is taken by a competent authority after due consideration.

– Section 7 pertains to the offence of taking gratification other than legal remuneration by a public servant in respect of an official act.
– Section 11 pertains to the offence committed by a public servant who obtains any valuable thing, without consideration, from a person concerned in any proceeding or business transacted by him.
– Section 13 pertains to the offence of criminal misconduct by a public servant.
– Section 15 pertains to the offence of attempt to commit offences referred to in Section 13(1)(c) and (d).
– Section 18A deals with the power to appoint special counsel.
– Section 20 deals with the presumption where a public servant accepts illegal gratification.
– Section 22 deals with the procedure and powers of special judges.

22. Which one of the following statements with respect to number of witnes

Which one of the following statements with respect to number of witnesses is not correct ?

Join Our Telegram Channel

No particular number of witnesses shall in any case be required for the proof of any fact.

It is the quality of the evidence and not the quantity of the evidence which is required to be judged by the court.

It is held in many judgments that reliance cannot be based on the solitary statement of a witness in any situation.

The legal system has laid emphasis on value provided by each witness, rather than multiplicity or plurality of witness.

Answer is Right!

Answer is Wrong!

This question was previously asked in

UPSC CISF-AC-EXE – 2022

Download PDF Attempt Online

The statement that is not correct is “It is held in many judgments that reliance cannot be based on the solitary statement of a witness in any situation.”

Section 134 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 expressly states, “No particular number of witnesses shall in any case be required for the proof of any fact.” This statutory provision establishes the principle that evidence is weighed, not counted. The court can base its decision on the testimony of a single witness if it finds that witness to be credible and reliable. Statements A, B, and D all reflect this principle – that the law does not require a minimum number of witnesses and emphasizes the quality or value of the evidence over the quantity. Statement C directly contradicts this principle by claiming that reliance cannot be based on a solitary statement in *any* situation, which is incorrect under Indian law.

While courts often prefer corroboration, especially in certain types of cases, the evidence of a single credible witness is sufficient to establish a fact. There is no rule of law requiring multiple witnesses for proof; it is a matter for the court to decide based on its assessment of the reliability of the witness’s testimony.

23. Which one of the following pairs is not correctly matched as per the I

Which one of the following pairs is not correctly matched as per the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 ?

Join Our Telegram Channel

Section 101 : Burden of Proof

Section 135 : Order of Production and Examination of Witnesses

Section 120 : Dying Declaration

Section 129 : Confidential Communication with Legal Advisors

Answer is Right!

Answer is Wrong!

This question was previously asked in

UPSC CISF-AC-EXE – 2022

Download PDF Attempt Online

The pair that is not correctly matched is Section 120 : Dying Declaration.

– Section 101 deals with the Burden of Proof, stating who must prove a fact. This is correctly matched.
– Section 135 deals with the Order of Production and Examination of Witnesses, stating that the order is regulated by procedural law or discretion of the court. This is correctly matched.
– Section 129 deals with Confidential Communication with Legal Advisors, providing privilege to such communications. This is correctly matched.
– Section 120 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 deals with the competency of parties to a civil suit, and their wives or husbands, and the husband or wife of a person under criminal trial, to be witnesses. It does not deal with Dying Declarations. Dying Declarations are covered under Section 32(1) of the Act.

Section 32(1) makes statements by persons who are dead (among other conditions) relevant in certain cases, including statements as to the cause of death or circumstances leading to death, which forms the basis for the admissibility of dying declarations.

24. Which one of the following is not a public document ?

Which one of the following is not a public document ?

Documents forming the acts, or records of the acts of the sovereign authority

Documents of unregistered will

Public records of private documents

Records of acts of tribunals

Answer is Right!

Answer is Wrong!

This question was previously asked in

UPSC CISF-AC-EXE – 2022

Download PDF Attempt Online

Among the given options, an unregistered will is not a public document.

Section 74 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 defines what constitutes public documents. These include documents forming the acts or records of acts of sovereign authority, official bodies and tribunals, and public officers (legislative, judicial, executive). It also includes public records kept in any State of private documents.
An unregistered will is a private document created by an individual. It does not fall under any of the categories listed in Section 74.

Options A, C, and D are explicitly covered by Section 74:
A) Documents forming the acts, or records of the acts of the sovereign authority are public documents under Section 74(1)(i).
C) Public records of private documents are public documents under Section 74(2). For example, registered sale deeds, registered mortgages etc., where a public record of a private transaction is maintained.
D) Records of acts of tribunals are public documents under Section 74(1)(ii).

Join Our Telegram Channel

25. When is a confessional statement by an accused to be proved against hi

When is a confessional statement by an accused to be proved against him in criminal proceedings ?

1. When it is made to a police officer
2. When it is made in the immediate presence of a Magistrate
3. When it is made to a respectable person of the locality where he resides

Select the correct answer using the code given below :

1 only

2 only

3 only

1, 2 and 3

Answer is Right!

Answer is Wrong!

This question was previously asked in

UPSC CISF-AC-EXE – 2022

Download PDF Attempt Online

Under the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, a confessional statement made by an accused while in the custody of a police officer can be proved against him if it is made in the immediate presence of a Magistrate. This corresponds to point 2.

Section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 explicitly states that “No confession made to a police officer, shall be proved as against a person accused of any offence.” This rules out point 1. Section 26 states that “No confession made by any person whilst he is in the custody of a police officer, unless it be made in the immediate presence of a Magistrate, shall be proved as against such person.” This means that a confession made while in police custody *is* admissible if made in the immediate presence of a Magistrate. Point 2 describes this specific exception. While a confession to a respectable person (point 3) might be admissible if voluntary and not hit by Section 24 (inducement, threat, or promise), Section 26 provides a statutory condition for admissibility even when in police custody, making point 2 the most clearly and specifically admissible scenario described among the options in the context of the restrictions imposed by Sections 25 and 26.

The rationale behind Sections 25 and 26 is to prevent confessions from being extracted by coercion or undue influence by police officers. The presence of a Magistrate is considered a safeguard to ensure the confession is voluntary. Section 27 is an exception to Sections 25 and 26, allowing the portion of information received from an accused in police custody to be proved if it relates distinctly to the fact thereby discovered.

Join Our Telegram Channel

26. Any fact from which, either by itself or in connection with other fact

Any fact from which, either by itself or in connection with other facts, the existence, non-existence, nature or extent of any right, liability, or disability, asserted or denied in any suit or proceeding, necessarily follows is known as :

Join Our Telegram Channel

Relevant fact.

Irrelevant fact.

Fact in issue.

Fact in law.

Answer is Right!

Answer is Wrong!

This question was previously asked in

UPSC CISF-AC-EXE – 2022

Download PDF Attempt Online

The definition provided in the question precisely matches the definition of a “Fact in issue” as per the Indian Evidence Act, 1872.

Section 3 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 defines several terms. The expression “facts in issue” is defined as follows: “The expression ‘facts in issue’ means and includes any fact from which, either by itself or in connection with other facts, the existence, non-existence, nature or extent of any right, liability, or disability, asserted or denied in any suit or proceeding, necessarily follows.”

“Relevant fact” is defined as one fact being connected with another in any of the ways referred to in the Act’s provisions on relevancy. Facts in issue are the principal facts that a party must prove to establish their claim or defence, forming the points of contention in the suit or proceeding. Relevant facts are those that tend to prove or disprove the facts in issue.

27. The Chairperson of the Central Vigilance Commission is also known as :

The Chairperson of the Central Vigilance Commission is also known as :

Join Our Telegram Channel

Vigilance Commissioner.

Chief Vigilance Officer.

Central Vigilance Officer.

Central Vigilance Commissioner.

Answer is Right!

Answer is Wrong!

This question was previously asked in

UPSC CISF-AC-EXE – 2022

Download PDF Attempt Online

The Chairperson of the Central Vigilance Commission is known as the Central Vigilance Commissioner.

The Central Vigilance Commission (CVC) is headed by a Central Vigilance Commissioner. The Commission can also have not more than two Vigilance Commissioners. The CVC Act, 2003 establishes this structure.

The Central Vigilance Commissioner is appointed by the President on the recommendation of a committee consisting of the Prime Minister (Chairperson), the Minister of Home Affairs, and the Leader of the Opposition in the House of the People. Vigilance Commissioners are also appointed similarly. Chief Vigilance Officer (CVO) is a post within an organization (usually public sector undertakings or government departments) who acts as the extended arm of the CVC.

28. When is the employer not liable for payment of compensation to an empl

When is the employer not liable for payment of compensation to an employee ?

Join Our Telegram Channel

If personal injury is caused to an employee during the course of his employment

If the employee has contracted a disease specified as an occupational disease peculiar to that employment

If the injury resulting in partial disablement was caused by accident that happened due to the wilful disobedience of the employee to an order expressly given for the purpose of securing the safety of the employees

In respect of any injury which resulted in the partial disablement of the employee during the course of employment for more than three days

Answer is Right!

Answer is Wrong!

This question was previously asked in

UPSC CISF-AC-EXE – 2022

Download PDF Attempt Online

An employer is generally not liable for payment of compensation if the injury, not resulting in death or permanent total disablement, was caused by an accident directly attributable to the wilful disobedience of the employee to an order expressly given for the purpose of securing the safety of the employee. Option C describes this scenario where the employer is not liable.

Section 3(1) of the Employees’ Compensation Act, 1923 (formerly Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923) makes the employer liable for personal injury caused to an employee by accident arising out of and in the course of employment. However, the proviso to Section 3(1) lists exceptions where the employer is *not* liable. Clause (b)(iii) of this proviso states that the employer shall not be liable in respect of any injury, not resulting in death or permanent total disablement, caused by an accident which is directly attributable to the wilful disobedience of the employee to an order expressly given for the purpose of securing the safety of the employee. Option C fits this exception as it specifies partial disablement, meaning it didn’t result in death or permanent total disablement, allowing the exception for wilful disobedience to apply.

Option A describes the general rule of liability under Section 3(1). Option B refers to occupational diseases covered under Section 3(2) read with Schedule III, which also create employer liability. Option D describes disablement for more than three days, which is the condition that makes the employer liable; the exception under Section 3(1)(b)(i) applies only if the disablement is for three days or less.

29. Which of the following is/are the condition(s) precedent to valid retr

Which of the following is/are the condition(s) precedent to valid retrenchment of a workman under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ?

Join Our Telegram Channel

1. The workman has been given one month’s notice in writing indicating the reasons for retrenchment
2. The workman has been paid at the time of retrenchment compensation which shall be equivalent to fifteen days’ average wages for every completed year of continuous service
3. The workman has been paid at the time of retrenchment, compensation which shall be equivalent to wages of thirty days service

Select the correct answer using the code given below :

1 only

1 and 2 only

2 only

1 and 3 only

Answer is Right!

Answer is Wrong!

This question was previously asked in

UPSC CISF-AC-EXE – 2022

Download PDF Attempt Online

The conditions precedent to valid retrenchment of a workman under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 are primarily contained in Section 25F. Options 1 and 2 correctly state two of these conditions.

Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 lays down the conditions precedent to retrenchment of workmen. For a workman who has been in continuous service for not less than one year, no employer shall retrench any such workman unless:
(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; (Matches point 1)
(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; (Matches point 2)
(c) notice in the prescribed manner is served on the appropriate Government or such authority as may be specified by the appropriate Government by notification in the Official Gazette.
Point 3 is incorrect as the compensation is fifteen days’ average wages per year of service, not thirty days’ wages.

Compliance with these conditions is mandatory for a retrenchment to be considered valid. Failure to comply renders the retrenchment illegal and the workman is entitled to reinstatement with full back wages. Chapter V-A of the Act (Sections 25A to 25J) deals specifically with lay-off and retrenchment.