1. Public servant disobeying a direction of the law with intent to cause is dealt under-
A. Section 164 of IPC
B. Section 165 of IPC
C. Section 166 of IPC
D. Section 167 of IPC
Ans. C
2. Public servant unlawfully engaging in trade is dealt under-
A. Section 166 of IPC
B. Section 167 of IPC
C. Section 168 of IPC
D. Section 169 of IPC
Ans. C
3. Personating public servant is dealt under-
A. Section 169 of IPC
B. Section 170 of IPC
C. Section 171 of IPC
D. Section 172 of IPC
Ans. B
4. Bribery is dealt under-
A. Section 167 E of IPC
B. Section 168 E of IPC
C. Section 169 E of IPC
D. Section 171 E of IPC
Ans. D
5. Personation at an election is dealt under-
A. Section 171 F of IPC
B. Section 172 F of IPC
C. Section 173 F of IPC
D. Section 174 F of IPC
Ans. A
6. Wantonly giving provocation with intent to cause riot, if rioting be not committed is dealt under-
A. Section 151 of IPC
B. Section 152 of IPC
C. Section 153 of IPC
D. Section 154 of IPC
Ans. C
7. Z is thrown from his horse and is insensible. A, a surgeon, finds out that Z requires to be trepanned. A, not intending Z’s death, but in good faith for Z’s benefit, performs the trepan before Z recovers his power of judging for himself.
A. A has committed offence
B. A has committed no offence
C. A has committed culpable homicide
D. both (A) and (C)
Ans. B
8. Mr. V, an appellant is an owner of a house in City A. The wife of the first respondent Y, was tenant of a part of the first floor in that house. On January 17, 1966, one R a servant of the appellant, called the wife of the first respondent a thief and Halkat. On the following day, the first respondent slapped R on his face which was followed by heated exchange of abusive words and between the first respondent and the appellant’s husband.
The first respondent was annoyed and threw at the appellant’s husband a file of papers. The file did not hit the appellant’s husband, but it hit the elbow of the appellant causing a scratch. The appellant lodged information to the police complaining that the first respondent had committed a house trespass in order to the committing of an offence punishable with imprisonment, had thrown a shoe at her and had slapped her servant R.
During the course of the investigation the appellant and R refused to be examined at a public hospital, claiming that a private medical practitioner had certified that the appellant had suffered from bleeding incision.
As a judge of the case you would:
A. convict the accused under Section 95 of the IPC
B. acquit the accused under Section 95 of the IPC
C. fine the appellant under Section 95 of the IPC
D. Both (A) and the (C)
Ans. C
