Miscellaneous

The total number of members of the Grievance Redressal Committee in an industrial establishment shall not exceed

[amp_mcq option1=”two” option2=”eight” option3=”five” option4=”six” correct=”option4″]

Option D is correct. Rule 10 of the Industrial Disputes (Central) Rules, 1957, which details the Grievance Redressal Machinery under Section 9C of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, states that the number of members of the Grievance Redressal Committee shall not exceed six.

– The Grievance Redressal Committee is mandated in industrial establishments employing 20 or more workmen.
– It consists of equal representatives of the employer and the workmen.
– The total number of members is capped at six.

– The representatives of the workmen on the Committee shall be chosen from amongst the workmen.
– The Committee is responsible for resolving individual grievances of workmen.

Who among the following is ineligible to be appointed as the Presiding Officer of a Labour Court?

[amp_mcq option1=”He is or has been a Judge of a High Court” option2=”He has been a District Judge or Additional District Judge for a period of 3 years” option3=”He is a practicing lawyer for a period of 15 years” option4=”He is an officer of Indian Legal Service in Grade III with 3 years experience in the Grade” correct=”option3″]

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).

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

[amp_mcq option1=”a Chairman and two or four other members” option2=”a Chairman and two Deputy Chairmans” option3=”a Chairman and three other members” option4=”a Board of five members appointed by the Government” correct=”option1″]

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.

Which one of the following statements with respect to confession under the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 is correct?

[amp_mcq option1=”Confession made to a police officer under Section 25 is admissible.” option2=”Confession obtained by threat or inducement by a police officer is admissible.” option3=”Involuntary confession is admissible.” option4=”Confession under Section 27 is admissible.” correct=”option4″]

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.

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

[amp_mcq option1=”misappropriation of property” option2=”criminal breach of trust” option3=”theft” option4=”cheating” correct=”option2″]

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.

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?

[amp_mcq option1=”Imprisonment for life or imprisonment for 10 years and fine” option2=”Non-cognizable offence” option3=”Triable by Court of Sessions” option4=”Non-compoundable offence” correct=”option2″]

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.

What is the punishment provided for theft committed by clerk or servant of property in possession of master?

[amp_mcq option1=”Imprisonment for a term which may extend to 7 years and fine” option2=”Imprisonment for a term which may extend to 3 years and fine” option3=”Imprisonment for a term which may extend to 5 years and fine” option4=”Imprisonment for a term which may extend to 8 years and fine” correct=”option1″]

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.

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

[amp_mcq option1=”criminal breach of trust” option2=”extortion” option3=”theft” option4=”misappropriation of property” correct=”option3″]

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.

Who among the following officers is not authorized to dispense an unlawful assembly by the use of civil force?

[amp_mcq option1=”Executive Magistrate” option2=”Officer in-charge of the police station” option3=”Any police officer not below the rank of a sub-inspector in the absence of officer in-charge of the police station” option4=”Any constable attached to a police station” correct=”option4″]

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.

As per the provisions of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, opinion of experts is relevant when it is related to

[amp_mcq option1=”foreign law or of science or of art or as to identity of handwriting or finger impressions” option2=”law or medical science” option3=”finger impressions or art or medical science” option4=”None of the above” correct=”option1″]

Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 deals with the opinion of experts. It states that when the Court has to form an opinion upon a point of foreign law or of science or art, or as to the identity of handwriting or finger impressions, the opinions upon that point of persons specially skilled in such foreign law, science or art, or in questions as to identity of handwriting or finger impressions are relevant facts. Option A lists all these specific areas where expert opinion is considered relevant under this section.

– Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 makes the opinions of experts relevant.
– The specified fields for expert opinion relevance are foreign law, science, art, identity of handwriting, and identity of finger impressions.

Options B and C are incomplete or partially correct but do not cover the full scope mentioned in Section 45. Option B mentions law (without specifying foreign law) and medical science (which falls under science). Option C mentions finger impressions, art, and medical science (science). Only option A comprehensively covers all the categories explicitly listed in Section 45.