The Parliamentary Act Archives

81. The power of the police officer to seize certain property has been giv

The power of the police officer to seize certain property has been given under

[amp_mcq option1=”Section 102 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973.” option2=”Section 101 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973.” option3=”Section 103 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973.” option4=”Section 104 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973.” correct=”option1″]

This question was previously asked in

UPSC CISF-AC-EXE – 2021

Download PDF Attempt Online

Section 102 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 empowers a police officer to seize any property that is alleged or suspected to have been stolen, or which is found under circumstances that create suspicion of the commission of any offence.

Section 102 CrPC is the principal statutory provision enabling police officers to seize suspicious property during an investigation.

Section 101 deals with the procedure on arrest by a private person; Section 103 deals with the procedure for search (witnesses, list, Magistrate’s presence); Section 104 deals with the power to impound documents.

82. According to the Prevention of Corruption (Amendment) Act, 2018, who a

According to the Prevention of Corruption (Amendment) Act, 2018, who among the following can be held liable?

Any person who induces a public servant to perform improperly a public duty by giving or promising to give any undue advantage
Any public servant who obtains or accepts or attempts to obtain from any person any undue advantage
A person who is compelled to give undue advantage and has reported the same to the concerned authority
A commercial organisation offering undue advantage to any public servant

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 4 only” option4=”1, 2, 3 and 4″ correct=”option3″]

This question was previously asked in

UPSC CISF-AC-EXE – 2021

Download PDF Attempt Online

The Prevention of Corruption (Amendment) Act, 2018 introduced liability for bribe givers (Section 8), maintained liability for public servants accepting bribes (Section 7), and added liability for commercial organisations involved in bribing public servants (Section 9). However, Section 8 provides a defence for a person who is compelled to give undue advantage if they report the matter to the law enforcement agency within a specified period. Thus, while the act of being compelled and giving the bribe occurs, reporting it provides immunity from prosecution, meaning they are *not* held liable if they fulfil the condition. Therefore, statements 1, 2, and 4 describe parties who can be held liable under the Act.

The 2018 amendment made bribe givers and commercial organisations liable, alongside public servants. A key defence for compelled givers is prompt reporting.

Section 7 deals with the offence committed by a public servant (taking a bribe). Section 8 deals with the offence of giving a bribe or inducing a public servant. Section 9 deals with offences by commercial organisations. The proviso to Section 8(1) offers protection to victims of bribery who are compelled to pay and report the incident.

83. Under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 “Gratification” means

Under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 “Gratification” means

[amp_mcq option1=”pecuniary gratification only.” option2=”non-pecuniary gratification only.” option3=”gratification estimable in money only.” option4=”not restricted to pecuniary gratification or to a gratification estimable in money.” correct=”option4″]

This question was previously asked in

UPSC CISF-AC-EXE – 2021

Download PDF Attempt Online

While the original 1988 Act defined “gratification” to include pecuniary gratification or gratification estimable in money, the Prevention of Corruption (Amendment) Act, 2018 significantly broadened the scope by replacing “gratification” with “undue advantage” in operative sections and defining “undue advantage” under Section 2(d) as “any gratification whatever, other than legal remuneration”. This indicates a legislative intent to cover a wide range of benefits, not limited strictly to monetary forms or those easily estimable in money. Therefore, “gratification” (in the broader sense now covered by “undue advantage”) is not restricted to pecuniary forms or those only estimable in money.

The 2018 amendment’s definition of “undue advantage” as “any gratification whatever” signifies a broad interpretation extending beyond strictly monetary or estimable-in-money benefits.

The amendment aimed to align the Indian anti-corruption law with international standards set by the United Nations Convention against Corruption (UNCAC), which requires parties to criminalise a broad range of benefits given or received corruptly.

84. An “Industrial Establishment” for the purpose of the CISF Act, 1968 me

An “Industrial Establishment” for the purpose of the CISF Act, 1968 means

an industrial undertaking engaged in Trade, Business and Services.
a company defined under the Companies Act.
a partnership firm registered under the Indian Partnership Act.

Select the correct answer using the code given below :

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

This question was previously asked in

UPSC CISF-AC-EXE – 2021

Download PDF Attempt Online

The correct answer is D) 1, 2 and 3.

Section 2(g) of the Central Industrial Security Force Act, 1968, defines “industrial establishment” as “any industrial undertaking, business, trade or service in India;”. This definition is broad and encompasses various types of entities engaged in these activities.

Option 1 directly lists components mentioned in the definition (industrial undertaking, trade, business, service). Options 2 (a company) and 3 (a partnership firm) describe common legal structures that can operate as industrial undertakings, businesses, trades, or services. Therefore, companies and partnership firms engaged in such activities would fall under the definition of an “Industrial Establishment” for the purpose of the Act. All three options describe aspects or forms that constitute an industrial establishment under the Act.

85. For adjudication of Industrial Disputes, which one of the following ma

For adjudication of Industrial Disputes, which one of the following machineries has been established ?

[amp_mcq option1=”The Industrial Tribunal” option2=”National Commission on Labour” option3=”Labour Committee” option4=”Wage Board” correct=”option1″]

This question was previously asked in

UPSC CISF-AC-EXE – 2021

Download PDF Attempt Online

The correct answer is A) The Industrial Tribunal.

– The Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 provides a framework for the investigation and settlement of industrial disputes. It establishes various authorities for this purpose.
– For the adjudication of industrial disputes, the Act provides for Labour Courts, Industrial Tribunals, and National Industrial Tribunals.
– Labour Courts adjudicate disputes relating to matters specified in the Second Schedule of the Act.
– Industrial Tribunals adjudicate disputes relating to matters specified in both the Second and Third Schedules of the Act, typically dealing with more complex and significant disputes than Labour Courts.
– National Industrial Tribunals are constituted by the Central Government to adjudicate disputes involving questions of national importance or those affecting industrial establishments in more than one State.
– Among the given options, the Industrial Tribunal is a direct machinery established under the Act specifically for the adjudication of industrial disputes.

Other mechanisms under the Act include Conciliation Officers and Boards of Conciliation (for settlement through agreement) and Courts of Inquiry (for investigating and reporting on disputes). Wage Boards are extra-statutory bodies for wage fixation, and National Commissions on Labour are ad-hoc bodies for reviewing labour laws, not primary dispute adjudication mechanisms under the ID Act.

86. Which one of the following does not fall within the scope of technical

Which one of the following does not fall within the scope of technical consultancy services provided by the CISF ?

[amp_mcq option1=”Planning for defence against nuclear, biological and chemical attack on the Undertaking” option2=”Study of fire protection related problems and suggesting appropriate measures” option3=”Planning and designing of communication network and preparation of related operating instructions” option4=”Preparation of disaster management and contingency plan and supervision of rehearsals of such plans” correct=”option1″]

This question was previously asked in

UPSC CISF-AC-EXE – 2020

Download PDF Attempt Online

Planning for defence against nuclear, biological and chemical attack on the Undertaking does not fall within the standard scope of technical consultancy services provided by the CISF.

CISF’s technical consultancy services primarily focus on providing expertise in industrial security, fire protection, and disaster management for critical infrastructure and industrial undertakings. These services aim at assessing security vulnerabilities, suggesting mitigation measures, and preparing for various emergencies within the typical threats faced by such establishments.

CISF’s consultancy wing offers services like security surveys, risk assessment, planning and designing integrated security systems (physical, electronic, access control), fire safety audits, fire fighting system design, communication network planning, and comprehensive disaster management planning. Defence against specialized threats like nuclear, biological, or chemical (NBC) attacks requires highly specialized expertise and is typically handled by dedicated national agencies like the National Disaster Response Force (NDRF) for response, or specialized wings within defense/security establishments for prevention and mitigation strategies. While CISF is involved in overall disaster management plans, the technical consultancy scope generally does not extend to the specific, highly complex domain of NBC attack defence planning.

87. Which one of the following statements is correct ?

Which one of the following statements is correct ?

[amp_mcq option1=”The Assistant and Deputy Commandants do not have the power to suspend the enrolled members of the CISF.” option2=”The Senior Commandants and Commandants have the power to dismiss enrolled members of the CISF except the Inspectors.” option3=”Only the Sector Inspector General/ Inspector General (Headquarters) has the power to withhold promotion of the enrolled members.” option4=”Removal of enrolled members from an office of distinction or deprivation of special emoluments can be ordered only by the Director General and Additional Director General.” correct=”option2″]

This question was previously asked in

UPSC CISF-AC-EXE – 2020

Download PDF Attempt Online

The correct statement is that Senior Commandants and Commandants have the power to dismiss enrolled members of the CISF except for Inspectors.

This question relates to the disciplinary powers vested in different ranks of the Central Industrial Security Force (CISF) under the CISF Act and Rules. The specific powers for imposing penalties, including dismissal, suspension, withholding promotion, etc., are outlined in the CISF Rules, 2001, particularly Rule 40 and Schedule II.

Schedule II of the CISF Rules, 2001 lists the competent authorities for imposing various penalties on enrolled members (Constable to Subedar). According to this schedule, Commandants are competent to impose major penalties including dismissal on Constables and Head Constables. Senior Commandants are competent to impose major penalties including dismissal on Constables, Head Constables, Assistant Sub-Inspectors, and Sub-Inspectors. Neither Commandants nor Senior Commandants are listed as competent authorities for the dismissal of Inspectors. Therefore, the statement that they can dismiss enrolled members except Inspectors is correct. Options A, C, and D are incorrect because disciplinary powers for suspension, withholding promotion, removal from office of distinction, and deprivation of special emoluments are delegated to various ranks, not exclusively as stated in those options.

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

Which one of the following statements is not correct ?

[amp_mcq option1=”The CISF deputed to an Undertaking shall work under the general supervision, direction and control of the Managing Director of the Undertaking.” option2=”The Unit Commander of the CISF shall keep the Managing Director fully informed of all developments including the state of the CISF.” option3=”The Managing Director shall inspect the posts of the CISF situated in his Undertaking at least once a year.” option4=”The Managing Director may require the Unit Commander to report directly to his superiors in the CISF in regard to all matters mentioned above.” correct=”option1″]

This question was previously asked in

UPSC CISF-AC-EXE – 2020

Download PDF Attempt Online

The CISF deputed to an Undertaking functions under its own command structure within the Ministry of Home Affairs. While there is close coordination with the Managing Director of the Undertaking regarding security requirements and deployment, the CISF unit is not under the general supervision, direction, and control of the MD in terms of operational command, administration, or discipline.

CISF units operate under their own chain of command. The Undertaking’s management provides input on security needs, but the actual command and control of the CISF personnel rest with the CISF authorities.

Options B, C, and D describe aspects of the necessary cooperation and reporting relationship between the CISF Unit Commander and the Undertaking’s management. The Unit Commander keeps the MD informed, the MD inspects posts, and the MD may raise issues through the CISF hierarchy, reflecting a collaborative relationship based on mutual responsibilities, not direct subordination of the CISF to the MD.

89. Which one of the following statements is correct ?

Which one of the following statements is correct ?

[amp_mcq option1=”Grant of such a local rank is not subject to confirmation by the Central Government.” option2=”Local rank can be conferred by the Director General up to and including the rank of Senior Commandant/Assistant Inspector General.” option3=”An officer of the CISF who has been granted a local rank is not entitled to any extra pay and allowances for holding such a rank.” option4=”The power to grant a local rank can be delegated by the Director General to the Additional Director General, if considered necessary.” correct=”option3″]

This question was previously asked in

UPSC CISF-AC-EXE – 2020

Download PDF Attempt Online

A common characteristic of local or acting ranks in uniformed forces is that they confer the authority and responsibilities of the higher rank for a specific period or duty but do not necessarily entitle the holder to the extra pay and allowances associated with the regular substantive rank.

Local rank is temporary and functional, allowing an officer to perform duties of a higher rank. Financial benefits (pay/allowances) are usually linked to the substantive rank unless explicitly provided otherwise.

While the specifics of local rank in CISF depend on the force’s rules, the statement about lack of extra pay/allowances (C) is a widely applicable principle for temporary/local ranks in many services. Details regarding confirmation (A), rank limits (B), and delegation powers (D) would be defined in the specific CISF rules.

90. Certain offences can be tried by an ordinary Criminal Court having jur

Certain offences can be tried by an ordinary Criminal Court having jurisdiction in the matter, if the prescribed authority under whose jurisdiction the offence was committed so requires. Which of the following offences do not fall in this category?

[amp_mcq option1=”Offences committed while the offender is absent from duty” option2=”When the offence is not connected with the offender’s duties as an enrolled member of the CISF” option3=”When the offence is connected with the offender’s duties as an enrolled member of the CISF but is a petty offence” option4=”When the offence is of such a nature that the Commandant invested with the powers of the Magistrate to try the offence considers it appropriate to recuse himself/herself” correct=”option2″]

This question was previously asked in

UPSC CISF-AC-EXE – 2020

Download PDF Attempt Online

The question asks which offences *do not* fall in the category where the prescribed authority *requires* them to be tried by an ordinary Criminal Court. Offences not connected with the offender’s duties as an enrolled member (B) are generally already under the jurisdiction of ordinary criminal courts by default, not by specific requirement of the CISF authority to *send* it there.

The CISF Act typically provides for internal trial (by Commandants with Magistrate powers or other internal mechanisms) for offences committed by members, especially those related to duty or discipline. However, it also allows for serious offences or those unrelated to duty to be tried by ordinary criminal courts. The provision allowing the prescribed authority to *require* trial by an ordinary court usually applies to offences that *could* have been tried internally but are deemed more suitable for external trial.

Offences committed while absent from duty (A) or those connected with duties but petty (C) are often disciplinary in nature and could potentially be tried internally or, depending on rules, sent to ordinary courts. Option D describes a scenario where the internal mechanism is unavailable, necessitating trial by an ordinary court. Option B represents offences outside the scope of the member’s official duties, which are naturally subject to the general criminal law and jurisdiction of ordinary courts. The CISF authority would hand over the person to the police, not *require* the ordinary court to try it; that’s its inherent jurisdiction.