The Parliamentary Act Archives

41. Consider the following statements with regard to the Protection of Hum

Consider the following statements with regard to the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993:

1. It is mandatory to have at least one woman Member in the National Human Rights Commission having the knowledge of, or practical experience in, matters relating to human rights.
2. It is mandatory to have at least three Members in the National Human Rights Commission having the knowledge of, or practical experience in, matters relating to human rights.
3. The Chief Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities is deemed to be a Member of the National Human Rights Commission for certain purposes only.

Which of the statements given above is/are correct?

1 only

2 only

2 and 3 only

1, 2 and 3

This question was previously asked in

UPSC CISF-AC-EXE – 2024

Download PDF Attempt Online

The correct answer is D.

Based on the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993 (as amended in 2019):
1. Section 3(2)(d) mandates the appointment of three Members from amongst persons having knowledge of, or practical experience in, matters relating to human rights, and the proviso states that at least one person out of these three Members shall be a woman. Thus, statement 1 is correct.
2. Section 3(2)(d) requires the appointment of exactly three Members with knowledge or experience in human rights. Stating “at least three” is technically correct as three fulfills the condition of being “at least three”. Thus, statement 2 is correct.
3. Section 3(3) lists the Chairpersons of various National Commissions (including the Chief Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities) who shall be deemed to be Members of the Commission *for the discharge of functions specified in clauses (b) to (j) of sub-section (1) of section 12*. This means they are members for specific investigative and recommending functions, aligning with the phrase “for certain purposes only”. Thus, statement 3 is correct.

The National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) comprises a Chairperson and five full-time Members, plus seven *ex officio* Members who are chairpersons of other national commissions. The five full-time Members include two judicial members and three members with knowledge or experience in human rights, one of whom must be a woman. The *ex officio* members participate in specific functions. All three statements accurately reflect provisions related to the composition or membership of the NHRC under the amended Act.

42. Which one of the following with regard to the Protection of Human Righ

Which one of the following with regard to the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993 is correct?

The Chairman and Members of a State Human Rights Commission hold office for a term of five years only.

The Chairman and Members of a State Human Rights Commission hold office for a term of six years only.

The Chairman and Members of a State Human Rights Commission hold office for a term of three years and are eligible for reappointment.

The Chairman and Members of a State Human Rights Commission can be reappointed for one more term of five years.

This question was previously asked in

UPSC CISF-AC-EXE – 2024

Download PDF Attempt Online

The correct answer is C.

The Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993, as amended by the Protection of Human Rights (Amendment) Act, 2019, changed the term of office for the Chairman and Members of a State Human Rights Commission. The term is now three years or until they attain the age of seventy years, whichever is earlier. They are also eligible for reappointment.

Prior to the 2019 amendment, the term of office for the Chairman and Members of an SHRC was five years or until the age of seventy. The 2019 amendment reduced the term to three years but allowed for reappointment, aligning the term with that of the Chairman and Members of the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC). Options A, B, and D reflect terms or reappointment conditions that are incorrect under the amended Act.

43. Bribery, under the Indian Penal Code, 1860, includes which of the foll

Bribery, under the Indian Penal Code, 1860, includes which of the following?

1. Giving a gratification to any person with the object of inducing him to exercise any electoral right or rewarding any person for having exercised any such right
2. Making of a declaration of public policy or making of a promise of public action
3. Giving or accepting a treat in the form of food, drink or entertainment

Select the correct answer using the code given below.

1 and 2

1 and 3

3 only

2 and 3

This question was previously asked in

UPSC CISF-AC-EXE – 2024

Download PDF Attempt Online

The correct answer is B as bribery under the Indian Penal Code, 1860, in the context of elections, includes giving gratification to influence voting rights and giving/accepting treats as a form of gratification, but excludes declarations of public policy or promises of public action.

– Bribery in the context of elections is defined in Section 171B of the IPC (Chapter IXA).
– Statement 1: Section 171B(1)(i) explicitly defines bribery as giving gratification to induce the exercise of an electoral right or rewarding someone for having exercised it. This is correct.
– Statement 2: Explanation to Section 171C (Undue Influence at Elections) states that “A declaration of public policy or a promise of public action… shall not be deemed to be interference [undue influence]”. These are considered legitimate actions by candidates or parties and are expressly excluded from the definition of undue influence and by implication, not considered bribery under this chapter either. This statement is incorrect as part of the definition of bribery.
– Statement 3: Explanation 1 to Section 171B clarifies that “Gratification is not limited to pecuniary gratifications… and it extends to all forms of entertainment…”. Giving or accepting a treat (food, drink, entertainment) with the object of influencing an electoral right constitutes giving or receiving gratification, and thus falls under the definition of bribery. This is correct.

Chapter IXA of the IPC deals specifically with offences relating to elections, including bribery, undue influence, personation, false statements, illegal payments, etc. The definition of bribery here is specific to electoral contexts. Gratification is broadly defined to cover anything valuable or beneficial, not just money, when given or received to influence voting behaviour.

44. Which one among the following statements is not correct?

Which one among the following statements is not correct?

A Magistrate may issue a warrant to search a document or parcel in the custody of Postal or Telegraph authority.

A search warrant may be issued when it is not known to the court that a particular document or thing necessary for the purpose of any investigation or trial is in the possession of any person.

A search warrant may be issued when the court has reason to believe that the person who has been issued summons to produce a document necessary for any investigation or trial will not produce the same.

A search warrant may be issued for general search of a particular place.

This question was previously asked in

UPSC CISF-AC-EXE – 2024

Download PDF Attempt Online

The correct answer is A because under Section 92 of CrPC, a Magistrate requires the postal or telegraph authority to *deliver* a document or parcel, rather than issuing a search warrant to search their custody.

– Statement A: Section 92 of CrPC deals with obtaining documents or parcels from Postal or Telegraph authorities. It empowers specified courts (High Court, Court of Session) or Magistrates (District Magistrate, Chief Judicial Magistrate, etc.) to *require* the Postal or Telegraph authority to deliver the document, parcel, or thing. This is done via requisition, not typically through a search warrant directed at the authority’s premises. Therefore, stating that a Magistrate may issue a *warrant to search* is incorrect as per Section 92.
– Statement B: Section 93(1)(c) of CrPC allows a search warrant when the Court considers a general search necessary, which includes situations where the Court does not know who possesses the required document or thing (Explanation to Section 93).
– Statement C: Section 93(1)(a) of CrPC allows a search warrant if the Court believes that a person who has been issued a summons or order to produce a document/thing will not produce it.
– Statement D: Section 93(1)(c) allows the Court to issue a search warrant for a “general search or inspection” of a place.

Section 91 and 92 of CrPC provide mechanisms for securing documents and things through summons/order (to persons) or requisition (to Postal/Telegraph authorities). Section 93 provides for search warrants as an alternative method when summons/order/requisition is unlikely to be effective, when the location of the item is unknown, or when a general search is necessary. Statement A incorrectly describes the process under Section 92 as a search warrant.

45. A District Magistrate may by warrant authorize a police officer above

A District Magistrate may by warrant authorize a police officer above the rank of a constable to take possession of an objectionable article deposited in any place. These articles include

1. forged documents
2. false seals
3. obscene objects

Select the correct answer using the code given below.

1 only

2 only

2 and 3 only

1, 2 and 3

This question was previously asked in

UPSC CISF-AC-EXE – 2024

Download PDF Attempt Online

The correct answer is D as all the articles listed (forged documents, false seals, and obscene objects) are specified as “objectionable articles” under Section 94(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, for which a District Magistrate may issue a search warrant.

– Section 94 of CrPC allows a District Magistrate, Sub-divisional Magistrate, or Magistrate of the first class to issue a warrant authorizing a police officer above the rank of constable to search a place suspected to contain stolen property or “objectionable articles”.
– Section 94(2) lists the articles considered “objectionable articles” for the purpose of this section. These include: counterfeit coin, counterfeit currency notes, forged documents, false seals, obscene objects, and certain articles possession of which is punishable under specific acts (like those related to obscene publications, dangerous drugs, arms, explosives, etc.).

The power under Section 94 allows Magistrates to order searches for specific types of illegal items or items used in criminal activities, which are generally concealed or deposited in specific places. The rank requirement for the executing police officer (above the rank of constable) ensures that the search is conducted by a more responsible officer.

46. With regard to seizure of property under the Code of Criminal Procedur

With regard to seizure of property under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, consider the following statements :

1. A police officer not below the rank of Sub-Inspector of Police conducting an investigation for identifying unlawfully acquired property can make an order for seizing the property under investigation if he has reason to believe that the property in question may be concealed or transferred in any manner.
2. An order made as above shall have no effect unless the same is confirmed by an order of the court within thirty days of its being made.

Which of the statements given above is/are correct?

1 only

2 only

Both 1 and 2

Neither 1 nor 2

This question was previously asked in

UPSC CISF-AC-EXE – 2024

Download PDF Attempt Online

The correct answer is A because only statement 1 is correct regarding seizure of property under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 in the context described.

– Statement 1: Section 102(1) of CrPC allows any police officer to seize any property found under circumstances that create suspicion of the commission of any offence. Unlawfully acquired property is property acquired through the commission of an offence (e.g., corruption, fraud). Therefore, a police officer can seize such property. The condition about the rank of Sub-Inspector might be based on specific police rules or state amendments, or simply indicative of the level of investigation where such property is typically identified. Assuming this specific context is valid for the question, the core power to seize suspected property exists. The reason for belief about concealment or transfer is a valid ground for exercising seizure power.
– Statement 2: CrPC does not contain a general provision requiring an order of seizure made by a police officer under Section 102 to be confirmed by a court within thirty days to have effect. A police officer seizing property under Section 102 must report the seizure to the Magistrate (Section 102(3)). The Magistrate then takes appropriate action regarding custody and disposal (Sections 451-457). This requirement for court confirmation within a specific timeframe is found in special laws like the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) for attachment of property, but not as a general rule for seizures under CrPC Section 102.

While CrPC provides general powers of seizure, specific procedures for dealing with ‘unlawfully acquired property’, particularly in the context of economic and anti-corruption offences, are often detailed in special laws (like Prevention of Corruption Act, PMLA) which may incorporate or supplement CrPC provisions. However, the question asks specifically under CrPC, where Section 102 is the primary basis for police seizure of suspected property.

47. The punishment of imprisonment for life can be awarded for which of th

The punishment of imprisonment for life can be awarded for which of the following offences?

1. Mischief by fire to destroy a building used as a place of worship
2. Mischief by explosive substance to destroy a human dwelling house

Select the correct answer using the code given below.

1 only

2 only

Both 1 and 2

Neither 1 nor 2

This question was previously asked in

UPSC CISF-AC-EXE – 2024

Download PDF Attempt Online

The correct answer is C as both listed offences can be punished with imprisonment for life under the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

– Statement 1: Mischief by fire to destroy a building used as a place of worship. While Section 436 of IPC specifically mentions destruction of a human dwelling or a place for custody of property by fire/explosive with life imprisonment, Section 438 applies the punishment of Section 436 to mischief by fire or explosive substance intending to cause damage to any property, provided the mischief is punishable under Section 435 (mischief causing damage of Rs. 100 or more, or Rs. 10 or more in case of agricultural produce). Destruction of a building by fire is mischief causing significant damage, falling under Section 435. Section 438 states that whoever commits such mischief by fire/explosive and *commits thereby mischief punishable under section 436*, shall be punished with life imprisonment or 10 years + fine. This phrasing is interpreted to mean that if the *nature* of the mischief (destruction of a building by fire/explosive) is of the degree contemplated by Section 436, the punishment under 436 applies even if the property is not a dwelling or custody place, provided it falls under Section 435. Thus, destroying a place of worship by fire can be punishable with life imprisonment under Section 438 read with Section 436.
– Statement 2: Mischief by explosive substance to destroy a human dwelling house. Section 436 of IPC directly covers “mischief by fire or any explosive substance… intending to cause… the destruction of any building which is ordinarily used as a human dwelling”. The punishment prescribed is imprisonment for life, or rigorous imprisonment for up to ten years, and fine.

Section 435 IPC deals with mischief by fire or explosive substance causing damage of a specified amount (₹100 or more) to any property, punishable with imprisonment up to 7 years. Section 436 deals with a graver form targeting human dwellings or places of custody of property. Section 438 extends the severe punishment of Section 436 to other types of property when the mischief is committed by fire or explosive substance causing damage above the threshold mentioned in Section 435. Therefore, destruction of a place of worship (a building) by fire falls under Section 438 read with 436, and destruction of a human dwelling by explosive substance falls directly under Section 436, both carrying potential life imprisonment.

48. An employer of an establishment deducts an employee’s contribution fro

An employer of an establishment deducts an employee’s contribution from his wages for crediting the same to the Family Pension Fund as per law but does not credit the same as required by law. The employer

would be guilty of committing no offence under any law on his promise to deposit the amount

would be guilty of having violated the law and would be punishable only under the relevant labour legislation

would be guilty of having committed the offence of criminal breach of trust under the Indian Penal Code, 1860

would not be guilty of having committed the offence of criminal breach of trust under the Indian Penal Code, 1860

This question was previously asked in

UPSC CISF-AC-EXE – 2024

Download PDF Attempt Online

The correct answer is C. An employer who deducts employee contributions (such as for Family Pension Fund, Provident Fund, etc.) from wages but fails to deposit them with the appropriate authority commits the offence of criminal breach of trust under the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

– Section 405 of the IPC defines criminal breach of trust. It involves a person being entrusted with property or dominion over property, and then dishonestly misappropriating it or converting it to their own use, or dishonestly using or disposing of that property in violation of a legal contract or mode of discharge of trust.
– When an employer deducts contributions from an employee’s wage, they are temporarily holding that money in trust for the purpose of depositing it into the relevant fund. Failure to deposit it amounts to dishonest misappropriation or conversion of this entrusted money.

Various court judgments in India have held that failure by an employer to deposit employee contributions after deducting them constitutes criminal breach of trust under Section 406 (punishment for criminal breach of trust) read with Section 405 of the IPC. While there might also be penalties under relevant labour legislation (like the Employees’ Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952, or the Employees’ State Insurance Act, 1948), the act can also constitute a criminal offence under the IPC. Promising to deposit later does not absolve the employer of the offence once the deduction has been made and not deposited as required by law.

49. With reference to the CISF Act, 1968, which of the following statement

With reference to the CISF Act, 1968, which of the following statements is/are not correct?

1. Section 8 deals with the superintendence and administration of the Force.
2. The superintendence of the Force shall vest in the Central Government.
3. The command and supervision of the Force shall vest in the Director General.
4. The administration of the Force shall vest in the Inspector General.

Select the correct answer using the code given below.

1 and 4

2 and 4

2 and 3

1 only

This question was previously asked in

UPSC CISF-AC-EXE – 2024

Download PDF Attempt Online

The incorrect statements are 1 and 4.
Statement 1 is incorrect: Section 8 of the CISF Act, 1968 deals with the “General power of Director-General” and vests the command, supervision, and administration of the Force in the Director General, subject to rules made by the Central Government. It doesn’t solely deal with superintendence and administration in the manner implied, and it’s not the only section dealing with these aspects (e.g., Section 4 deals with Superintendence).
Statement 4 is incorrect: The administration of the Force vests in the Director General (DG), as per Section 8, subject to the superintendence of the Central Government. The Inspector General is a subordinate rank and does not hold the ultimate administrative authority for the entire Force.
Statement 2 is correct: Section 4 of the CISF Act, 1968 states that the superintendence of the Force shall vest in the Central Government.
Statement 3 is correct: Section 8 of the CISF Act, 1968 states that the command and supervision of the Force shall vest in the Director General.

The CISF Act establishes a clear hierarchy of control: Superintendence lies with the Central Government, while Command, Supervision, and Administration of the Force are entrusted to the Director General. Subordinate officers like the Inspector General exercise powers delegated by the DG.

Understanding the specific roles and authorities defined in the founding Act of a force like CISF is crucial for comprehending its functioning and command structure. The Act details the powers, duties, and discipline of the Force and its members.

50. The Police (Incitement to Disaffection) Act, 1922 shall apply to membe

The Police (Incitement to Disaffection) Act, 1922 shall apply to members of the CISF as it applies to members of a Police Force. Which Section of the CISF Act, 1968 says this?

Section 18

Section 19

Section 20

Section 21

This question was previously asked in

UPSC CISF-AC-EXE – 2024

Download PDF Attempt Online

The correct option is B) Section 19. Section 19 of the Central Industrial Security Force Act, 1968 specifically states that the Police (Incitement to Disaffection) Act, 1922 (Act 22 of 1922) and section 3 of the Police Act, 1850 (Act 18 of 1850) shall apply to members of the Force as they apply to members of a police force.

This section legally binds CISF members under the purview of the Police (Incitement to Disaffection) Act, 1922, which prohibits activities that cause disaffection among police personnel.

Section 18 of the CISF Act deals with punishment for certain offences. Section 20 deals with the power to arrest without warrant. Section 21 deals with the power to use arms. Section 19 is the specific provision that applies the 1922 Act to CISF.