Miscellaneous

191. ‘A’ cuts down a tree on ‘B’s land with the intention of dishonestly ta

‘A’ cuts down a tree on ‘B’s land with the intention of dishonestly taking the tree out of ‘B’s possession without ‘B’s consent. What offence is committed by ‘A’ ?

[amp_mcq option1=”No offence until the tree is taken away” option2=”The offence of mischief” option3=”The offence of breach of trust” option4=”The offence of theft as soon as the tree is severed” correct=”option4″]

This question was previously asked in
UPSC CISF-AC-EXE – 2018
Download PDFAttempt Online
The scenario describes ‘A’ cutting down a tree on ‘B’s land with the intention of dishonestly taking it without ‘B’s consent. This constitutes the offence of theft under the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
Theft is defined under Section 378 of the IPC as the dishonest intention of taking any movable property out of the possession of any person without that person’s consent, and moving that property in order to effect such taking. Explanation 1 to Section 378 states that a thing attached to the earth, not being movable property, becomes capable of being the subject of theft as soon as it is severed from the earth. In this case, the tree, once severed by cutting, becomes movable property. The act of cutting down the tree causes it to be moved (e.g., it falls). Since this movement is done with the dishonest intention of taking the tree out of B’s possession without consent, the offence of theft is complete as soon as the tree is severed and consequently moved.
Option A is incorrect because the offence of theft is completed upon severance and movement with dishonest intent, not upon the final carrying away of the property. Option B (mischief) might also be committed by damaging the tree, but the focus of the question is on the dishonest taking, which is theft. Option C (breach of trust) is not applicable as there was no entrustment of property.

192. Which one of the following statements about layoff as stated in Chapte

Which one of the following statements about layoff as stated in Chapter V B of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 is not correct ?

[amp_mcq option1=”This is applicable to industrial establishments employing not less than 100 workmen on an average per working day for the preceding 12 months.” option2=”Prior permission of the appropriate Government or specified authority is necessary before layoff.” option3=”The compensation for layoff is twice the compensation as in Chapter V A.” option4=”If the Government does not respond within 60 days of receiving the application for permission to layoff, the permission shall be deemed to have been granted.” correct=”option3″]

This question was previously asked in
UPSC CISF-AC-EXE – 2018
Download PDFAttempt Online
The question asks which statement about layoff in Chapter VB of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 is *not correct*.
A) Section 25K states that Chapter VB applies to industrial establishments (other than seasonal/intermittent) employing not less than one hundred workmen on an average per working day for the preceding twelve months. This statement is correct.
B) Section 25M(1) requires an employer to obtain prior permission of the appropriate Government or such authority before laying off a workman to whom Chapter VB applies. This statement is correct.
C) Section 25M(6) states that where permission for lay-off is granted, the workman shall be entitled to compensation as specified in Section 25C. Section 25C, which is in Chapter VA, provides compensation for lay-off at the rate of fifty per cent. of the total of the basic wages and dearness allowance. Therefore, the compensation for layoff under Chapter VB is the *same* as under Chapter VA (Section 25C), i.e., 50% of wages. The statement that the compensation is *twice* the compensation as in Chapter VA is incorrect.
D) Section 25M(4) states that if the appropriate Government does not communicate refusal within sixty days of the application for permission, the permission applied for shall be deemed to have been granted on the expiration of the said period. This statement is correct.
Chapter VB imposes more stringent conditions (like prior permission) for lay-off, retrenchment, and closure in larger establishments compared to Chapter VA, but the compensation for lay-off itself remains the same (50% of wages) as in Chapter VA.

193. Under the Employees’ Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act,

Under the Employees’ Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952, which of the following is the appropriate Government for the employees of an establishment having branches in more than one State ?

[amp_mcq option1=”The State Government where the dispute has arisen” option2=”The Central Government” option3=”As decided by the Central Government” option4=”The State Government, where the head office of the establishment is situated” correct=”option2″]

This question was previously asked in
UPSC CISF-AC-EXE – 2018
Download PDFAttempt Online
Section 2(a) of the Employees’ Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 defines “appropriate Government”.
According to Section 2(a), for an establishment having branches in more than one State, the Central Government is the appropriate Government.
For other establishments (not having branches in more than one State), the appropriate Government is the State Government if the establishment is one specified in the notification by the Central Government, or the Central Government in other cases.

194. Who among the following is not an employee under Section 2 (F) of the

Who among the following is not an employee under Section 2 (F) of the Employees’ Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 ?

[amp_mcq option1=”Any person employed for wages in any kind of work, manual or otherwise” option2=”Any person who gets his salary directly or indirectly from the employer” option3=”Any person employed by or through a contractor for his work” option4=”Any person engaged as an apprentice, not being an apprentice engaged under the Apprentices Act, 1961″ correct=”option2″]

This question was previously asked in
UPSC CISF-AC-EXE – 2018
Download PDFAttempt Online
Section 2(f) of the Employees’ Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 defines ’employee’. It states: “’employee’ means any person who is employed for wages in any kind of work, manual or otherwise, in or in connection with the work of an establishment, and who gets his wages directly or indirectly from the employer, and includes any person – (i) employed by or through a contractor in or in connection with the work of the establishment; (ii) engaged as an apprentice, not being an apprentice engaged under the Apprentices Act, 1961, or under the standing orders of the establishment;”.
Options C and D describe persons explicitly included in the definition of ’employee’ under Section 2(f). Option C covers employees employed by or through a contractor [Section 2(f)(i)]. Option D covers apprentices not engaged under the Apprentices Act, 1961 [Section 2(f)(ii)]. Therefore, persons described in C and D are employees.

The main part of the definition requires a person to be “employed for wages in any kind of work… in connection with the work of an establishment” AND to “get his wages directly or indirectly from the employer”. Option A describes the first part of this conjunctive requirement. Option B describes the second part (using “salary” for “wages”). A person must satisfy *both* for the main definition to apply.

Option B describes “Any person who gets his salary directly or indirectly from the employer”. Simply receiving a salary (or wages) from the employer does not, in itself, guarantee that the person is “employed for wages in any kind of work… in connection with the work of the establishment” as required by the Act. For instance, a non-executive director receiving director’s fees, or a consultant receiving a fixed monthly payment, might receive funds from the employer but may not be considered “employed for wages” in the specific sense of the Act’s definition covering regular employment relationships in connection with the establishment’s work. Therefore, a person fitting only the description in B is not necessarily an employee under Section 2(f).

Option A (“Any person employed for wages in any kind of work, manual or otherwise”) strongly implies the existence of an employment relationship and engagement in the work of the establishment, which is the fundamental basis of the EPF coverage. While incomplete without the condition of getting wages from the employer, it’s a stronger indicator of being a potential employee under the core definition than merely receiving salary. The question asks who is *not* an employee; Option B describes a category where inclusion as an employee is less certain based *solely* on that description, compared to A, C, or D.

195. Notice with respect to any change which affects the conditions of serv

Notice with respect to any change which affects the conditions of service applicable to any workman in respect of any matter specified in the IV Schedule of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, shall not be effected within

[amp_mcq option1=”21 days” option2=”60 days” option3=”90 days” option4=”30 days” correct=”option1″]

This question was previously asked in
UPSC CISF-AC-EXE – 2018
Download PDFAttempt Online
The correct answer is A) 21 days.
Section 9A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 deals with the notice of change in conditions of service. It stipulates that an employer who proposes to effect any change in the conditions of service applicable to any workman in respect of any matter specified in the Fourth Schedule shall not effect such change without giving to the workmen likely to be affected a notice in the prescribed manner of the nature of the change proposed to be effected; and within twenty-one days of giving such notice. This means the change cannot be implemented within 21 days of serving the notice.
The Fourth Schedule lists various matters concerning conditions of service that require a notice of change, such as wages, compensatory and other allowances, hours of work and rest intervals, leave with wages and holidays, etc. The purpose of the notice period is to allow for discussion, negotiation, or conciliation before the changes are unilaterally implemented by the employer, thereby promoting industrial peace.

196. ‘A’ is charged with travelling on a train without a ticket. As per the

‘A’ is charged with travelling on a train without a ticket. As per the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, who among the following has to prove that he had a ticket?

[amp_mcq option1=”‘A’ has to prove it” option2=”Guilt is always to be proved by the prosecution” option3=”The Court will decide it” option4=”It is proved the moment ‘A’ is caught without ticket” correct=”option1″]

This question was previously asked in
UPSC CISF-AC-EXE – 2018
Download PDFAttempt Online
The correct answer is A) ‘A’ has to prove it.
Under the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, the general rule is that the burden of proof lies on the person who asserts a fact. However, Section 106 of the Act provides an important exception: “When any fact is especially within the knowledge of any person, the burden of proving that fact is upon him.” Whether a person has a ticket for travelling on a train is a fact that is specifically within their personal knowledge. Therefore, if charged with travelling without a ticket, the burden of proving that they did possess a ticket rests upon the accused (‘A’ in this case).
This principle is applied in various situations where the truth of a matter is peculiarly within the knowledge of one party. It’s an exception to the general rule that the prosecution must prove the guilt beyond reasonable doubt. In this specific scenario, proving the negative (that ‘A’ did *not* have a ticket) is difficult for the prosecution, while proving the positive (that ‘A’ *did* have a ticket) is straightforward for ‘A’ if it is true.

197. As per the provisions of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, if a contract

As per the provisions of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, if a contract is contained in several letters, what must be proved?

[amp_mcq option1=”Any one letter in which the contract is contained must be proved” option2=”Any letter which has the conclusion of the letter must be proved” option3=”All the letters in which the contract is contained must be proved” option4=”Only that letter of contract must be proved which has the disputed portion” correct=”option3″]

This question was previously asked in
UPSC CISF-AC-EXE – 2018
Download PDFAttempt Online
The correct answer is C) All the letters in which the contract is contained must be proved.
When a contract is contained in a series of letters, the entire series of letters collectively constitutes the documentary evidence of the contract. According to the principles of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, particularly Section 91, when the terms of a contract have been reduced to the form of a document or a series of documents, no evidence shall be given in proof of the terms of such contract except the document itself or secondary evidence where permissible. If the contract is formed through correspondence, all the letters that form part of and evidence the terms of the contract must be produced or accounted for (if the original is lost, secondary evidence may be given). Proving only one letter, or only the concluding one, or only the disputed portion in isolation would not give a complete and accurate picture of the entire contractual agreement.
This principle ensures that the court considers the entirety of the written agreement to understand its true nature and effect. The court must look at the whole correspondence to determine if a contract was formed and what its terms are.

198. How much information received from an accused may be proved when the a

How much information received from an accused may be proved when the accused is in police custody?

[amp_mcq option1=”All relevant information” option2=”His confession to commit the crime” option3=”Information distinctly relates to the discovery of something” option4=”None, because he is in police custody” correct=”option3″]

This question was previously asked in
UPSC CISF-AC-EXE – 2018
Download PDFAttempt Online
The correct answer is C) Information distinctly relates to the discovery of something.
Sections 25 and 26 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 generally make confessions made to a police officer or while in police custody inadmissible. However, Section 27 provides an exception: “Provided 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 only the part of the information given by the accused in custody that leads to the discovery of a relevant fact (like the weapon, stolen goods, or the body) is admissible in court.
This provision is based on the principle that the reliability of the information leading to a discovery serves as a guarantee of its truthfulness, distinguishing it from mere confessions which might be obtained under duress. The discovery must be a consequence of the information provided by the accused.

199. The question is whether ‘A’ stole the Laptop of ‘B’. Which one of the

The question is whether ‘A’ stole the Laptop of ‘B’. Which one of the following is not relevant as per the Indian Evidence Act, 1872?

[amp_mcq option1=”‘A’ knows how to operate the Laptop.” option2=”‘A’ sold the same Laptop to his friend.” option3=”Only ‘A’ was authorized to use his Laptop by using his finger impressions.” option4=”‘A’ had the key of ‘B’s room.” correct=”option1″]

This question was previously asked in
UPSC CISF-AC-EXE – 2018
Download PDFAttempt Online
The correct answer is A) ‘A’ knows how to operate the Laptop.
Under the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, facts are relevant if they are connected to the fact in issue in ways specified by Sections 6 to 55. The fact in issue is whether ‘A’ stole the Laptop of ‘B’.
– B) ‘A’ sold the same Laptop to his friend: Highly relevant as it shows possession and disposition of the stolen property (relevant under Section 8 – conduct, or Section 14 – state of mind).
– C) Only ‘A’ was authorized to use his Laptop by using his finger impressions: Highly relevant as it suggests exclusive access and opportunity (relevant under Section 7 – occasion, cause or effect). This fact might suggest that only ‘A’ could have stolen and then used the laptop easily.
– D) ‘A’ had the key of ‘B’s room: Highly relevant as it suggests opportunity and access to the location where the laptop was kept (relevant under Section 7).
– A) ‘A’ knows how to operate the Laptop: This fact, by itself, is not directly relevant to the *act of stealing*. Many people know how to operate a laptop. It does not prove opportunity, motive, preparation, or conduct related to the theft itself. It might be relevant if the charge involved illegal *use* of the laptop after theft, but the question is about *stealing*. Compared to the other options, knowing how to operate the device is the least, if at all, relevant fact concerning the theft itself.
Relevance is a key concept in the Evidence Act. Facts that are relevant are those that make the existence or non-existence of a fact in issue probable. While knowing how to operate a laptop might be a necessary skill to *use* it after theft, it doesn’t directly point to ‘A’ being the person who committed the theft itself.

200. In which one of the following cases is the offence of criminal breach

In which one of the following cases is the offence of criminal breach of trust not committed?

[amp_mcq option1=”‘A’, the delivery boy of ‘B’ (B’ is an online retailer), does not deliver the package of a mobile phone and uses it himself.” option2=”A postman does not deliver the money order and misappropriates the money.” option3=”‘A’ finds a ring near the shop of a jeweler and gives it to his wife.” option4=”‘A’, an employee of the Employees’ State Insurance Corporation, does not deposit the contribution of an employee and misappropriates it.” correct=”option3″]

This question was previously asked in
UPSC CISF-AC-EXE – 2018
Download PDFAttempt Online
The correct answer is C) ‘A’ finds a ring near the shop of a jeweler and gives it to his wife.
Criminal breach of trust, as defined under Section 405 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, requires the essential element of “entrustment”. This means that the property must be handed over to the accused or they must have dominion over it, and they accept it under circumstances implying a trust. In option C, ‘A’ simply *finds* a ring. There is no entrustment of the ring to ‘A’ by its owner. Finding a lost item and misappropriating it may constitute other offences like dishonest misappropriation of movable property (Section 403 IPC) or potentially theft depending on the circumstances, but it does not fit the definition of criminal breach of trust due to the absence of entrustment.
In options A, B, and D, there is clear entrustment: the delivery boy is entrusted with the package, the postman is entrusted with the money order funds, and the employee is entrusted with the contribution money. Their subsequent misappropriation of these entrusted properties constitutes criminal breach of trust.
Page 1Page 2Page 3Page 4Page 5