Miscellaneous Archives

181. The horizontal component of the earth’s magnetic field is zero at

The horizontal component of the earth’s magnetic field is zero at

[amp_mcq option1=”magnetic equator” option2=”magnetic poles” option3=”South and North Poles” option4=”nowhere” correct=”option2″]

This question was previously asked in

UPSC CISF-AC-EXE – 2019

Download PDF Attempt Online

The horizontal component of the earth’s magnetic field is zero at magnetic poles.

The Earth’s magnetic field lines emerge from near the geographic South Pole (which is the North magnetic pole) and enter near the geographic North Pole (which is the South magnetic pole).
– At the magnetic poles (where a compass needle points vertically downwards or upwards), the magnetic field lines are essentially perpendicular to the Earth’s surface. Therefore, the magnetic field vector has only a vertical component, and the horizontal component is zero.
– At the magnetic equator, the magnetic field lines are approximately parallel to the Earth’s surface. Therefore, the magnetic field vector is primarily horizontal, and the vertical component is zero.
– The geographic poles (South and North Poles) are points on the Earth’s rotational axis and do not necessarily coincide with the magnetic poles. The horizontal component is generally not zero at the geographic poles unless they happen to coincide perfectly with the magnetic poles (which they do not).

The Earth’s magnetic poles are not fixed and drift over time. The angle between the magnetic north and geographic north is called the magnetic declination. The angle between the horizontal plane and the Earth’s magnetic field line is called the magnetic dip or inclination; the dip is 90 degrees at the magnetic poles and 0 degrees at the magnetic equator.

182. In which one of the following cases is it mandatory for the appropriat

In which one of the following cases is it mandatory for the appropriate Government to make reference of an industrial dispute for adjudication/settlement to the Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court/Arbitration ?

[amp_mcq option1=”A dispute regarding compensatory allowance in respect of 50 workmen” option2=”A dispute relating to rules of discipline in the organization employing 100 workmen” option3=”An industrial dispute involving any question of national importance” option4=”An industrial dispute in a municipality” correct=”option4″]

This question was previously asked in

UPSC CISF-AC-EXE – 2018

Download PDF Attempt Online

The correct option is D) An industrial dispute in a municipality.

– Under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, the appropriate Government has discretion to refer an industrial dispute for adjudication (Section 10(1)).
– However, the proviso to Section 10(1) mandates the government to make a reference (“shall”) if the dispute relates to a public utility service and a notice under Section 22 has been given.
– A municipality is often listed as a public utility service in Schedule I of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (e.g., services relating to sanitation, water supply).
– While the option doesn’t explicitly state that notice under Section 22 was given, among the given options, a dispute in a municipality is the only one that involves a public utility service, which is the condition that triggers mandatory reference *if* the other condition (notice) is met. The other options describe types or sizes of disputes that do not automatically mandate reference.

– Disputes regarding allowances, discipline rules, or involving a certain number of workmen (A and B) do not, by themselves, make reference mandatory.
– Disputes of national importance (C) can be referred to a National Tribunal, but the reference is discretionary (“may”), not mandatory (“shall”), based solely on national importance.
– Therefore, a dispute in a municipality (a public utility service) is the scenario where mandatory reference is potentially applicable, assuming the required procedural conditions (like notice) are fulfilled.

183. The process by which a third party persuades and facilitates the dispu

The process by which a third party persuades and facilitates the disputants for mediating and promoting the settlement of an industrial dispute is called

[amp_mcq option1=”Conciliation” option2=”Arbitration” option3=”Collective Bargaining” option4=”Compulsory Adjudication” correct=”option1″]

This question was previously asked in

UPSC CISF-AC-EXE – 2018

Download PDF Attempt Online

The correct option is A) Conciliation.

– Conciliation is a process in industrial relations where a neutral third party (conciliator) helps the disputing parties (employer and workmen) to communicate, understand each other’s viewpoints, and explore possible solutions to reach a voluntary settlement of their industrial dispute. The conciliator facilitates discussions and may suggest terms of settlement but does not impose a decision. This matches the description of a third party persuading and facilitating settlement.

– Arbitration involves a third party (arbitrator) hearing the arguments of both sides and giving a binding decision (award) to resolve the dispute, based on the agreement of the parties to refer the dispute to arbitration.
– Collective Bargaining is a process of negotiation between the management and trade union representatives to determine terms and conditions of employment. It does not involve a third-party facilitator in the negotiation itself.
– Compulsory Adjudication is a process where the government refers an industrial dispute to a Labour Court or Industrial Tribunal for a binding decision. This is a form of compulsory dispute resolution, not facilitation for voluntary settlement.

184. Which one of the following offences under the Indian Penal Code, 1860,

Which one of the following offences under the Indian Penal Code, 1860, is not compoundable by the parties in terms of Section 320(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 ?

[amp_mcq option1=”Voluntarily causing grievous hurt on grave and sudden provocation” option2=”Adultery” option3=”Cheating” option4=”Voluntarily causing grievous hurt and miscarriage” correct=”option4″]

This question was previously asked in

UPSC CISF-AC-EXE – 2018

Download PDF Attempt Online

The correct option is D) Voluntarily causing grievous hurt and miscarriage.

– Section 320 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, lists offences compoundable by parties. Section 320(1) lists offences compoundable *without* court permission, and Section 320(2) lists offences compoundable *with* court permission.
– Voluntarily causing grievous hurt (e.g., Section 325 IPC) is compoundable *with* the permission of the Court under Section 320(2).
– Causing miscarriage (e.g., Section 312 IPC) is compoundable *with* the permission of the Court under Section 320(2). More severe forms of causing miscarriage (Sections 313, 314, 315, 316 IPC) are not compoundable at all. Similarly, grievous hurt caused by dangerous weapons (Section 326 IPC) is not compoundable.
– An offence involving both voluntarily causing grievous hurt and miscarriage is a severe offence. While some less severe forms might be compoundable with court permission (falling under 320(2)), the combination or more severe forms would likely be entirely non-compoundable. An offence that is non-compoundable or compoundable only under Section 320(2) is *not* compoundable in terms of Section 320(1).
– Option C, Cheating (specifically Section 417 IPC), is listed under Section 320(1) as compoundable *without* the permission of the Court. Therefore, Option C *is* compoundable under Section 320(1).
– Options A and B are compoundable, but only under Section 320(2), not 320(1). Option D represents a combination of offences, where at least one component is in 320(2), and potentially other components (depending on severity) are non-compoundable altogether. Thus, D is definitely *not* compoundable under Section 320(1). Given that only one option can be correct and C is compoundable under 320(1), A, B, and D are candidates for being not compoundable under 320(1). D is the most likely intended answer as it can easily encompass non-compoundable sections altogether, making it unambiguously *not* compoundable under 320(1) or 320(2).

– S. 320(1) lists relatively less severe offences like simple hurt, defamation, criminal trespass, insult intended to provoke breach of peace, etc.
– S. 320(2) lists more severe offences like grievous hurt, adultery, criminal breach of trust by clerk/servant, etc., which require court permission for compounding.
– Offences not listed in S. 320 are not compoundable.

185. The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, does not expressly provide for

The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, does *not* expressly provide for which one of the following?

[amp_mcq option1=”Identification of an arrested person” option2=”Detention of an arrested person beyond 24 hours with an order of the Magistrate” option3=”Health of an arrested person” option4=”Bail to a person arrested under Preventive Detention Law” correct=”option4″]

This question was previously asked in

UPSC CISF-AC-EXE – 2018

Download PDF Attempt Online

The correct option is D) Bail to a person arrested under Preventive Detention Law.

– The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, deals primarily with the procedure for investigation, inquiry, and trial of offences.
– Preventive detention is governed by specific laws like the National Security Act, COFEPOSA, etc., enacted under the powers provided by the Constitution (Article 22). These laws have their own procedures for detention, review, and limited rights of the detenu.
– The provisions for bail in the CrPC (Sections 436-439) apply to persons accused of having committed offences, allowing for their release during the pendency of investigation, inquiry, or trial, often upon furnishing security. These provisions do not apply to persons detained under preventive detention laws, which operate outside the normal criminal process based on suspicion of future acts.

– Section 54-A of CrPC expressly provides for the identification of an arrested person.
– Section 57 of CrPC limits detention by police to 24 hours in the absence of a special order from a Magistrate. Section 167 provides for detention beyond 24 hours with the Magistrate’s order (police custody or judicial custody). The CrPC expressly provides for detention beyond 24 hours *with* a Magistrate’s order.
– Section 54 of CrPC mandates the medical examination of an arrested person, thereby providing for the health of the arrested person by ensuring a medical record.

186. The term ‘workman’ under the Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923, include

The term ‘workman’ under the Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923, includes who among the following persons?

[amp_mcq option1=”A person whose employment is of a casual nature” option2=”A person employed as a personal cook by the Managing Director of a company” option3=”A person employed for repairing an article in any premises wherein 15 persons are employed” option4=”The Captain of an aircraft” correct=”option3″]

This question was previously asked in

UPSC CISF-AC-EXE – 2018

Download PDF Attempt Online

The correct option is C) A person employed for repairing an article in any premises wherein 15 persons are employed.

– The Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923 (now Employees’ Compensation Act, 1923) covers persons employed in scheduled employments listed in Schedule II of the Act.
– Employment in factories, workshops, or other premises where manufacturing or other operations are carried on and where a certain number of persons are employed (thresholds varied over time but premises with 15 employees suggest a formal workplace) are typically included in Schedule II. Repairing an article in such a premises is likely employment for the purpose of the employer’s trade or business and falls within the scope of scheduled employments.

– A person whose employment is of a casual nature and who is employed otherwise than for the purposes of the employer’s trade or business is excluded from the definition of ‘workman’/’employee’. Option A is ambiguous but suggests potential exclusion.
– Persons employed in domestic service (like a personal cook for a Managing Director) are generally excluded from the definition. Option B is excluded.
– The Captain of an aircraft, while employed in a scheduled employment (operation of aircraft), might be excluded if they were in a managerial, administrative, or supervisory capacity drawing wages above a certain limit (as per the Act before 2000 amendment which removed the wage ceiling). Option D is potentially excluded depending on specifics.
– Option C describes employment in a setting typically covered by the Act, performing work related to the premises’ activity, making the person a ‘workman’.

187. ‘A’ with the intention of murdering ‘Z’, instigates ‘B’, a child under

‘A’ with the intention of murdering ‘Z’, instigates ‘B’, a child under seven years of age, to do an act which causes ‘Z’s death. ‘B’ in consequence of the abetment, does the act in the absence of ‘A’ and thereby causes ‘Z’s death. Here ‘A’ is liable under which one of the following Sections of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 ?

[amp_mcq option1=”Section 109″ option2=”Section 115″ option3=”Section 120″ option4=”Section 302″ correct=”option1″]

This question was previously asked in

UPSC CISF-AC-EXE – 2018

Download PDF Attempt Online

The correct option is A) Section 109.

– Section 109 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, provides for the punishment of abetment when the act abetted is committed in consequence of the abetment and where no express provision is made for the punishment of such abetment.
– In this case, ‘A’ instigated ‘B’ to murder ‘Z’. ‘B’, in consequence of this abetment, committed the act causing ‘Z’s death. The act abetted is murder, which is punishable under Section 302.
– Explanation 3 to Section 108 of the IPC clarifies that it is not necessary for the person abetted to be capable by law of committing an offence. Since ‘B’ is a child under seven, ‘B’ is legally incapable of committing murder (as a child under seven is presumed ‘doli incapax’ – incapable of having criminal intent, by Section 82 IPC). However, ‘A’ is still liable for abetting the act that resulted in Z’s death.
– Since murder is committed in consequence of ‘A’s abetment, ‘A’ is punishable under Section 109 with the punishment provided for murder (Section 302). Thus, ‘A’ is liable under Section 109.

– Section 115 deals with abetment of an offence punishable with death or life imprisonment if the offence is *not* committed. This is not applicable here as Z’s death occurred.
– Section 120 relates to criminal conspiracy, which is a different form of inchoate offence from abetment by instigation.
– Section 302 provides the punishment for murder itself. While ‘A’ receives this punishment, the liability as an abettor for the committed act arises under Section 109.

188. Which one of the following offences under the Indian Penal Code, 1860,

Which one of the following offences under the Indian Penal Code, 1860, is cognizable and non-bailable?

[amp_mcq option1=”Sedition” option2=”Joining an unlawful assembly armed with a gun” option3=”Rioting with a deadly weapon” option4=”Bribery” correct=”option3″]

This question was previously asked in

UPSC CISF-AC-EXE – 2018

Download PDF Attempt Online

The question asks which of the listed offences under the Indian Penal Code, 1860, is cognizable and non-bailable. The classification of offences (cognizable/non-cognizable, bailable/non-bailable) is provided in the First Schedule of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

A) Sedition (Section 124A IPC) is classified as Cognizable, Non-bailable, and triable by the Court of Session.
B) Joining an unlawful assembly armed with a deadly weapon (Section 144 IPC) is classified as Cognizable, but Bailable, and triable by a Magistrate of the first class. A gun is a deadly weapon, so option B describes an offence under Section 144.
C) Rioting, armed with a deadly weapon (Section 148 IPC) is classified as Cognizable, Non-bailable, and triable by a Magistrate of the first class.
D) Bribery: If referring to Election Bribery (Section 171E IPC), it is classified as Non-cognizable and Bailable. If referring to bribery involving public servants under the Prevention of Corruption Act, such offences are generally Cognizable and Non-bailable. However, the question specifies offences “under the Indian Penal Code, 1860”, making Section 171E the relevant reference, which is Non-cognizable and Bailable.

Based on the CrPC First Schedule classification of IPC offences, both Sedition (Section 124A) and Rioting, armed with a deadly weapon (Section 148) are Cognizable and Non-bailable. Given that only one option can be correct, and both A and C fit the criteria, there might be an ambiguity in the question as presented. However, comparing the typical examples of such offences in legal studies, Section 148 is a standard illustration of a Cognizable, Non-bailable offence related to public order, triable by a Magistrate. Section 124A, while also C&NB, is triable by the Court of Session and relates to offences against the State. Without further context or clarification, both A and C are legally classified as Cognizable and Non-bailable. If forced to choose one, C is often cited as a clear example of a C&NB offence triable by a Magistrate.

189. ‘A’ was at work with a hatchet with full precautions. While working, t

‘A’ was at work with a hatchet with full precautions. While working, the head of the hatchet flies off and kills a man who was standing nearby. ‘A’ has committed no crime under which one of the following Sections of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 ?

[amp_mcq option1=”Section 80″ option2=”Section 81″ option3=”Section 86″ option4=”Section 89″ correct=”option1″]

This question was previously asked in

UPSC CISF-AC-EXE – 2018

Download PDF Attempt Online

The scenario describes an act done by ‘A’ with full precautions, resulting in an accidental death when the hatchet head flies off. This falls under the general exception of ‘Accident’ in the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

Section 80 of the IPC states that “Nothing is an offence which is done by accident or misfortune, and without any criminal intention or knowledge in the doing of a lawful act in a lawful manner, by lawful means, and with proper care and caution.” ‘A’ was engaged in a lawful act (working with a tool) in a lawful manner (“with full precautions” – implying proper care and caution). The death was caused by an accident or misfortune (hatchet head flying off) without criminal intention or knowledge. Therefore, under Section 80, ‘A’ has committed no crime.

Section 81 applies when an act is done to prevent other harm. Section 86 relates to offences committed while intoxicated. Section 89 relates to acts done for the benefit of a child or insane person with guardian’s consent. None of these apply to the given scenario.

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

Which one of the following statements is not correct ?

[amp_mcq option1=”The Industrial Tribunal constituted under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, exercises powers under the Employees’ Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952.” option2=”The members of the Industrial Tribunal hold office for a maximum period of five years.” option3=”The Chairperson and members of the Industrial Tribunal cannot hold office after 65 years of age.” option4=”The presiding officer of the Industrial Tribunal must be an independent person.” correct=”option1″]

This question was previously asked in

UPSC CISF-AC-EXE – 2018

Download PDF Attempt Online

The question asks which statement is *not correct* about Industrial Tribunals under the ID Act, 1947.

A) Industrial Tribunals are constituted under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 to adjudicate industrial disputes falling under the Second and Third Schedules of the Act. The Employees’ Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 has its own enforcement machinery and an Appellate Tribunal under Section 7D to hear appeals against orders of the Central Provident Fund Commissioner or other officers. Industrial Tribunals do *not* exercise powers under the EPF Act. This statement is incorrect.
B) Section 8 of the ID Act states that the presiding officer holds office for the period specified in the appointment order. While the Act doesn’t fix a maximum of five years, rules framed under the Act often specify a tenure, typically around three years, which may be extended. So, a maximum of five years might be true in practice under rules, making this statement potentially correct depending on the specific rules being referred to.
C) Section 7A(3) states that a person shall not be appointed as the presiding officer of a Tribunal if he has attained the age of sixty-five years. This implies they cannot hold office after 65. This statement is correct.
D) Section 7A specifies the qualifications for the presiding officer, which include judicial experience. While the Act doesn’t explicitly use the word “independent” in qualifications for Industrial Tribunals (unlike for assessors in National Tribunals under Section 7B), the role requires impartiality, inherent in a judicial position. This statement is generally considered correct in spirit.

Statement A is factually incorrect regarding the jurisdiction of Industrial Tribunals. They deal with industrial disputes under the ID Act, not matters under the EPF Act.