The Parliamentary Act Archives

51. 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 correct?

1. Section 10 of the CISF Act deals with the duties of the members of the force.
2. Section 11 of the CISF Act deals with the powers of arrest without warrant.
3. Section 12 of the CISF Act deals with the procedure to be followed after arrest.
4. Section 13 of the CISF Act deals with the powers of search without warrant.

Select the correct answer using the code given below.

[amp_mcq option1=”1 and 4″ option2=”2 and 3″ option3=”1 and 2″ option4=”2 only” correct=”option2″]

This question was previously asked in

UPSC CISF-AC-EXE – 2024

Based on the Central Industrial Security Force Act, 1968: Section 11 deals with the power to arrest without warrant, and Section 12 deals with the procedure to be followed after arrest. Both statements 2 and 3 are correct descriptions of these sections.

Section 10 of the CISF Act deals with the duties of members of the force (protection of industrial undertakings, etc.). Section 11 deals with the power to arrest without warrant. Section 12 deals with the procedure after arrest (handing over to police, etc.). Section 13 deals with the power to search without warrant. All four statements are factually correct descriptions of the respective sections. However, since the options require selecting a subset, and option B combines Section 11 (power of arrest) and Section 12 (procedure after arrest), which are logically and procedurally linked, it is the most plausible intended correct answer among the choices provided, acknowledging potential ambiguity if all statements were intended to be selected.

The CISF Act provides the legal framework for the functioning of the force. Understanding the powers of arrest and the subsequent legal procedures is crucial for members of the force. Section 11 grants the power to arrest without warrant in specific circumstances, and Section 12 mandates the procedure to be followed to ensure legal compliance after an arrest is made. While Sections 10 (Duties) and 13 (Search) are also critical, the pairing of Section 11 and 12 represents a complete sequence of action (arrest and its legal follow-up) often tested together in legal contexts.

52. In which year did the amendment to the CISF Act, 1968 enhance the terr

In which year did the amendment to the CISF Act, 1968 enhance the territorial purview of the force by enabling the Central Government to deploy it outside the geographical jurisdiction of India?

[amp_mcq option1=”1983″ option2=”1989″ option3=”1999″ option4=”2009″ correct=”option4″]

This question was previously asked in

UPSC CISF-AC-EXE – 2024

Download PDF Attempt Online

The CISF Act, 1968 was amended significantly in 2009. This amendment broadened the scope of the force’s deployment, enabling the Central Government to deploy CISF personnel for providing security to joint ventures or subsidiaries located outside India where Indian interests are involved.

The CISF (Amendment) Act, 2009 allowed the force to be deployed outside India.

The 2009 amendment also extended CISF’s mandate to provide security cover to private sector undertakings in India upon request and payment. This amendment significantly expanded the operational domain of the force.

53. ‘Industrial undertaking’ means any undertaking pertaining to a schedul

‘Industrial undertaking’ means any undertaking pertaining to a scheduled industry, and includes an undertaking engaged in any other industry, or in any trade, business or service which may be regulated by the Parliament by law.
Which one among the following Sections of the CISF Act, 1968 defines this?

[amp_mcq option1=”Section 2(1)(a)” option2=”Section 2(1)(b)” option3=”Section 2(1)(c)” option4=”Section 2(1)(d)” correct=”option2″]

This question was previously asked in

UPSC CISF-AC-EXE – 2024

Download PDF Attempt Online

The definition of ‘industrial undertaking’ as provided in the question is found in Section 2(1)(b) of the CISF Act, 1968.

Section 2 of the CISF Act, 1968 deals with definitions. Section 2(1)(b) specifically defines ‘industrial undertaking’ as quoted.

Other definitions in Section 2 include ‘Director-General’, ‘Member of the Force’, ‘prescribed’, ‘scheduled industry’, etc. The Act outlines the constitution, regulation, and control of the Central Industrial Security Force.

54. What is the prescribed time limit within which a person may make appli

What is the prescribed time limit within which a person may make application to the High Court to set aside a declaration of forfeiture made under Section 95 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 ?

[amp_mcq option1=”Fifteen days from the date of publication of such declaration in the Official Gazette” option2=”Two months from the date of publication of such declaration in the Official Gazette” option3=”Three months from the date of publication of such declaration in the Official Gazette” option4=”Six months from the date of publication of such declaration in the Official Gazette” correct=”option2″]

This question was previously asked in

UPSC CISF-AC-EXE – 2023

Download PDF Attempt Online

Section 96(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, states that any person having an interest in any newspaper, book, or other document, in respect of which a declaration of forfeiture under Section 95 has been made, may, within two months from the date of publication of such declaration in the Official Gazette, apply to the High Court to set aside such declaration.

– The prescribed time limit for applying to the High Court against a Section 95 forfeiture declaration is two months.
– The time starts running from the date the declaration is published in the Official Gazette.

Section 96 provides a legal remedy against potentially infringing government action against publications, allowing a judicial review by the High Court.

55. Under Section 95 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the State Go

Under Section 95 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the State Government may declare forfeiture and authorize Police Officers to seize which of the following items ?
1. Paintings and drawings
2. Photographs or other visible representations
3. Newspapers and books
4. Pieces of metal made in contravention of the Metal Tokens Act, 1889

Select the correct answer using the code given below :

[amp_mcq option1=”1 and 2 only” option2=”3 and 4 only” option3=”1, 2 and 3 only” option4=”2 and 3 only” correct=”option4″]

This question was previously asked in

UPSC CISF-AC-EXE – 2023

Download PDF Attempt Online

Section 95(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, empowers the State Government to declare forfeiture of “any newspaper, or book or any document” which appears to contain matter whose publication is punishable under certain sections of the Indian Penal Code (like sedition, promoting enmity, obscenity, etc.). Based on this:
– 3. Newspapers and books: Explicitly mentioned and covered by Section 95.
– 4. Pieces of metal made in contravention of the Metal Tokens Act, 1889: These relate to counterfeiting currency, which is not the subject of Section 95. Not covered.
– 1. Paintings and drawings: While these can be the *content* that makes a document objectionable (e.g., obscene drawings in a book), Section 95 refers to the forfeiture of the *medium* (“newspaper, book, or document”). Whether a standalone painting or drawing qualifies as a “document” under this specific section can be debated, but the focus is on publications.
– 2. Photographs or other visible representations: Similar to paintings/drawings, these can be objectionable content. If considered a type of “document” or “visible representation” disseminated as a publication (like a poster or a photograph in a newspaper), they can be covered. Option 2 is a broader category that likely includes items like photographs disseminated as publications. Given the options and typical interpretation focusing on disseminated materials, items 2 (Photographs or other visible representations when they function as publications/documents) and 3 (Newspapers and books) are covered.

– Section 95 allows forfeiture of publications containing seditious, obscene, or other objectionable matter.
– The items covered are explicitly “newspaper, or book or any document”.
– Items not related to publications/documents containing such matter are not covered.

The State Government’s power under Section 95 is subject to challenge in the High Court under Section 96 of CrPC. The definition of ‘document’ can be broad, but in the context of Section 95 focusing on ‘publications’, it typically refers to materials disseminated in print or similar form. The distinction between 1 and 2 in this question, leading to the selection of D, suggests a specific interpretation where disseminated visual representations like photographs/posters (covered by 2) are included, while perhaps standalone art pieces (covered by 1) might not be, under this specific section’s scope.

56. Who among the following is authorized to grant a warrant to search for

Who among the following is authorized to grant a warrant to search for a document, parcel or other thing in the custody of the postal or telegraph authority ?

[amp_mcq option1=”Sub-divisional Magistrate” option2=”Judicial Magistrate first class” option3=”District Magistrate” option4=”Judicial Magistrate second class” correct=”option3″]

This question was previously asked in

UPSC CISF-AC-EXE – 2023

Download PDF Attempt Online

Section 92(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, states that if any document, parcel or other thing in the custody of the postal or telegraph authority is required for the purpose of any investigation, inquiry, trial or other proceeding, a District Magistrate, Chief Judicial Magistrate or Court of Session or High Court may require the authority to deliver it, or issue a search-warrant for it if delivery is refused. Among the options, only District Magistrate is listed in Section 92 as being authorized to issue such a warrant or order.

– Power to requisition or search for documents/parcels in postal/telegraph custody is vested in specific judicial and executive authorities.
– Section 92 lists District Magistrate, Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court of Session, or High Court.
– Sub-divisional Magistrates and Judicial Magistrates below CJM are not empowered under this section.

This provision allows law enforcement and courts to access communications or items sent via postal or telegraph services when necessary for legal proceedings, balancing privacy concerns with the needs of justice.

57. A Magistrate of first class may, under Section 94 of the Code of Crimi

A Magistrate of first class may, under Section 94 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, by warrant authorize any police officer above the rank of a Constable to search a place suspected to contain stolen property, forged documents, etc. Which of the following objectionable articles are not covered under this Section ?

[amp_mcq option1=”Counterfeit coin” option2=”False seals” option3=”Obscene objects” option4=”A controversial book” correct=”option3″]

This question was previously asked in

UPSC CISF-AC-EXE – 2023

Download PDF Attempt Online

Section 94(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, allows a court or a Magistrate to issue a search warrant for a place suspected to contain stolen property, forged documents, counterfeit coin, valuable security or article which there is reason to believe to be counterfeit, false seals, false stamps, or counterfeit currency notes. Obscene objects (Option C) and controversial books (Option D) are not included in this specific list of items covered by a search warrant under Section 94.

– Section 94 targets specific types of illegal articles related to property crimes and counterfeiting.
– The list in Section 94 is exhaustive for the purpose of search under this specific provision.
– Obscene objects and controversial books fall under different categories of potentially objectionable material, often dealt with under separate provisions or laws (e.g., obscenity laws, sedition laws).

While obsolete objects and controversial books might be subject to seizure under other sections of CrPC or specific acts (e.g., Section 95 CrPC for forfeiture of objectionable publications), they are not the articles for which a search warrant is issued specifically under Section 94. Both C and D are technically not covered by the list in Section 94, but option C (Obscene objects) represents a distinct category of prohibited material often addressed by specific laws.

58. Which of the following groups of provisions of the Indian Penal Code,

Which of the following groups of provisions of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 form the basis for the present Prevention of Corruption Act ?

[amp_mcq option1=”Section 58 to Section 62″ option2=”Section 161 to Section 165A” option3=”Section 216B to Section 226″ option4=”Section 478, 480, 490 and 492″ correct=”option2″]

This question was previously asked in

UPSC CISF-AC-EXE – 2023

Download PDF Attempt Online

The correct option is B, which refers to Sections 161 to 165A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

Before the enactment of dedicated anti-corruption legislation, provisions related to bribery and corruption involving public servants were primarily contained in the Indian Penal Code, 1860. Sections 161 to 165A specifically dealt with offences such as a public servant taking gratification other than legal remuneration in respect of an official act, abetment of such offences, and other related matters concerning corrupt practices by public servants.

The Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 was the first dedicated legislation dealing with corruption. It was later replaced by the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The 1988 Act consolidated and amended the law relating to the prevention of corruption and repealed the 1947 Act and also amended certain provisions of the Indian Penal Code and the Criminal Law Amendment Ordinance, 1944. Many definitions and concepts from the original IPC sections (161-165A) were carried over or adapted into the subsequent anti-corruption laws, forming their foundational basis regarding offences by public servants.

59. In cases triable by special judges under the Prevention of Corruption

In cases triable by special judges under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, what is ordinarily the prescribed time period during which the trial should be concluded ?

[amp_mcq option1=”2 years in aggregate” option2=”3 years in aggregate” option3=”4 years in aggregate” option4=”5 years in aggregate” correct=”option1″]

This question was previously asked in

UPSC CISF-AC-EXE – 2023

Download PDF Attempt Online

The correct answer is A) 2 years in aggregate.

Section 4(4) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, as amended, states that the trial of an offence punishable under this Act shall be concluded as expeditiously as possible and, ordinarily, within a period of two years from the date of filing of the case.

The provision emphasizes the need for speedy trial in corruption cases. While “ordinarily” implies it may take longer in exceptional circumstances, the prescribed target time for conclusion is two years. The section also provides for reasons to be recorded by the special judge if the trial is not concluded within this period.

60. Under the Prevention of Money-Laundering Act, 2002, any authority or o

Under the Prevention of Money-Laundering Act, 2002, any authority or officer, who without reasons recorded in writing, conducts vexatious search by exercising powers under the Act is liable for punishment of :

[amp_mcq option1=”Imprisonment up to 3 years or fine up to ₹ 50,000 or both” option2=”Imprisonment up to 2 years or fine up to ₹ 50,000 or both” option3=”Imprisonment up to 1 year or fine up to ₹ 50,000 or both” option4=”Imprisonment up to 6 months or fine up to ₹ 10,000 or both” correct=”option2″]

This question was previously asked in

UPSC CISF-AC-EXE – 2023

Download PDF Attempt Online

The correct answer is B) Imprisonment up to 2 years or fine up to ₹ 50,000 or both.

Section 62 of the Prevention of Money-Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA) prescribes the punishment for vexatious search or arrest conducted by an authority or officer without having reason recorded in writing or knowing that there are no grounds for doing so.

According to Section 62 of PMLA, any authority or officer who maliciously or vexatiously conducts any search or arrest under the Act, knowing that there are no grounds for doing so, shall be punishable with imprisonment which may extend to two years, or with fine which may extend to fifty thousand rupees, or with both.