Definitions MCQ Quiz in मल्याळम - Objective Question with Answer for Definitions - സൗജന്യ PDF ഡൗൺലോഡ് ചെയ്യുക

Key Points

• According to Section 11 of the IPC, the term “person” includes any company or association or body of persons, whether incorporated or not.
• This definition is significant as it clarifies that the provisions of the IPC apply not only to individuals but also to other entities like companies and associations.
• The definition of “person” is wide-ranging and comprehensive, covering both incorporated and unincorporated entities.

The correct answer is Option 2.

Key PointsIn Parichhat v. State of M.P., 1972 it was observed by the Supreme court that Section 34 will not be attracted unless first it is established that: 

• Criminal act was done by several persons 
• There was a common intention 
• pre-arranged plan to commit an offence 
• There was participation in the commission of the offence in furtherance of the common intention. 

About the Section 34 of the IPC:

• Section 34 IPC states the acts done by several persons in furtherance of common intention.
• The Section explains that “When a criminal act is done by several persons in furtherance of the common intention of all, each of such persons shall be liable for that act in the same manner as if it were done by him alone".
• This provision, which creates ‘joint culpability’ for an act, deviates from a basic concept of criminal law, which states that a person is only responsible for crimes committed by himself and not for the actions of others.
• Section 34 does not state a specific offence. It only lays down the rule of evidence that if two or more persons commit a crime in order of common intention, each of them will be held jointly liable. 
• The punishment for this offence will be consistent with the crime they committed. For example, if the offence of murder has been committed in furtherance of a common purpose, each one of them will be held liable under Section 302 and Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.  

The correct answer is 'Sec. 19 of the Indian Penal Code (I.P.C.)'

Key Points

• Definition of 'Judge' under Sec. 19:
  • Section 19 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, defines the term 'Judge'.
  • According to this section, the term 'Judge' denotes not only every person who is officially designated as a Judge but also every person who is empowered by law to give, in any legal proceeding, civil or criminal, a definitive judgment.
  • This includes persons authorized to give a final judgment in cases that can be appealed to higher courts.

Additional Information

• Other Sections (Incorrect Options):
  • Sec. 18: This section defines the term 'India'. It specifies the geographical boundaries of India for the purposes of the IPC.
  • Sec. 17: This section defines the term 'Government'. It explains the distinction between the 'Government of India' and the 'Government of a State'.
  • Sec. 20: This section defines the term 'Court of Justice'. It indicates any Judge who is empowered by law to act judicially alone or in a body of judges.

The correct answer is ‘a male human being of any age’ as per Section 10 of the Indian Penal Code.

Key Points

• Section 10 of the Indian Penal Code:
  • Section 10 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) defines the term "man" in the context of legal provisions.
  • The definition is crucial for interpreting various sections of the IPC that refer to "man" and ensuring legal clarity.
  • According to Section 10, the word "man" denotes a male human being of any age.
  • This inclusive definition ensures that all male individuals, regardless of age, are covered under the legal provisions where the term "man" is used.

Additional Information

• Incorrect Options:
  • Option 1: A male human being aged above 16 years.
    • This option incorrectly limits the definition to males above the age of 16, excluding younger males.
  • Option 2: A male human being aged above 18 years.
    • Similarly, this option restricts the definition to males above 18 years, which is not accurate as per IPC.
  • Option 3: A male human being aged above 21 years.
    • This option is also incorrect as it excludes males below the age of 21, unlike the IPC's inclusive definition.

The correct answer is 'for act done in furtherance of common intention under Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.'

Key Points

• Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code:
  • Section 34 deals with acts done by several persons in furtherance of a common intention.
  • When a criminal act is done by several persons in furtherance of the common intention of all, each of such persons is liable for that act as if it were done by him alone.
  • This means that even if a person (C) was not present at the scene of the crime, if it can be proved that the crime was committed in furtherance of the common intention shared by him and others, he can be prosecuted.

Additional Information

• Section 120A to 120B of the Indian Penal Code:
  • These sections pertain to criminal conspiracy.
  • Section 120A defines criminal conspiracy, and Section 120B lays down the punishment for conspiracy.
  • While these sections could be relevant if there is proof of a conspiracy, they are not specific to the concept of common intention.
• Section 141 to 149 of the Indian Penal Code:
  • These sections deal with unlawful assembly and the related offenses.
  • Section 141 defines unlawful assembly, and Sections 142-149 provide for the punishment and consequences of being a member of such an assembly.
  • These sections are not directly relevant to a situation where the crime is committed in furtherance of common intention without the presence of one of the parties at the scene.
• Vicarious liability:
  • Vicarious liability generally refers to a situation where someone is held responsible for the actions or omissions of another person.
  • In the context of the IPC, vicarious liability would require a specific legal relationship, which is not necessarily covered under Section 34.
  • Awareness of the likelihood of an offense being committed does not automatically establish vicarious liability under the IPC.

The correct answer is Dishonestly

Key Points

• As per Section 24 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), 1860, a person is said to act "dishonestly" if they act with the intention of:
  • Causing wrongful gain to one person, or
  • Causing wrongful loss to another person.
• Key Elements of Dishonesty:
  • There must be an intention to cause wrongful gain or wrongful loss.
    • Wrongful Gain: When a person acquires something unlawfully that they are not legally entitled to.
    • Wrongful Loss: When a person is unlawfully deprived of something they are legally entitled to.
  • The act itself may or may not involve deception (deception is necessary for fraud but not always for dishonesty).
  • The act should be unlawful, meaning it is not justified by law.

The correct answer is Section 29.

Key Points

• Section 29 of the Indian Penal Code provides for the definition of Document.
• It states that —The word “document” denotes any matter expressed or described upon any substance by means of letters, figures or marks, or by more than one of those means, intended to be used, or which may be used, as evidence of that matter.
  Explanation 1.—It is immaterial by what means or upon what substance the letters, figures or marks are formed, or whether the evidence is intended for, or may be used in, a Court of Justice, or not. 
  Explanation 2.—Whatever is expressed by means of letters, figures or marks as explained by mercantile or other usage, shall be deemed to be expressed by such letters, figures or marks within the meaning of this section, although the same may not be actually expressed.

The correct answer is option 2.Key Points

• Section 35 of Indian Penal Code 1860 deals with when such an act is criminal by reason of its being done with a criminal knowledge or intention.
• Whenever an act, which is criminal only by reason of its being done with a criminal knowledge or intention, is done by several persons, each of such persons who joins in the act with such knowledge or intention is liable for the act in the same manner as if the act were done by him alone with that knowledge or intention.

The correct answer is Option 3.

Key Points Intra-territorial Jurisdiction under IPC

• Section 2 of the Indian Penal Code applies to every person who commits an act or omits to do an act within the Indian territory in violation of the code’s provisions. This includes foreign nationals who enter India and those who instigate an offence outside the territory of India but it is committed within India. The court has held that physical presence is not necessary for liability under the code. 
• Corporations, including unincorporated entities, can also be held liable for criminal acts or omissions by their agents. 
• The state can also be held responsible for the wrongful acts or omissions of its agents.

In Mobarik Ali v. The State of Bombay, a Pakistani national was held liable for an offence in Bombay despite not being physically present at the time of commission, while in the State of Maharashtra v. Mayer Hans George, a foreigner was held liable for an offence under the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 upon landing in India. In State of Maharashtra v. Syndicate Transport Company, a company was held liable for the criminal act of its director, authorized agent or servants, while in Superintendent and Remembrancer of Legal Affairs, West Bengal v. Corporation of Calcutta, the state was held responsible for the wrongful acts or omissions of its agent.

• However, there are exceptions to the universal application of the code and certain classes of people are exempt from criminal liability. These include foreign sovereigns, diplomats, enemy aliens, foreign armies and warships, as well as the President and governors.