AILET Legal-Aptitude: Questions 105 - 106 of 152
Get 1 year subscription: Access detailed explanations (illustrated with images and videos) to 152 questions. Access all new questions we will add tracking exam-pattern and syllabus changes. View Sample Explanation or View Features.
Rs. 150.00 or
Question number: 105
Appeared in Year: 2015
LEGAL PRINCIPLE: A statement is defamatory in nature if it is injurious to a person’s reputation and if the statement has been published.
FACTUAL SITUATION: Rudra had been dating a girl named Kiara for three weeks. But he had introduced himself to her as Ricky Thakur (who is one of Rudra’s friends) and he continued to be Ricky for the rest of their relationship. But ultimately the relationship ended badly and Kiara being upset and angry at Rudra started a website named ‘ricky-thakur-is-a-jerk. com’. She created this website so as to warn other girls about ‘Ricky Thakur’. The real Ricky Thakur files a suit for defamation. Decide.
Rudra shall be held liable as he had led Kiara into thinking that he was Ricky Thakur and moreover, it was his fault in the first place that made Kiara create this website.
Kiara cannot be held liable as she had actually been referring to Rudra and not the real Ricky Thakur.
Kiara cannot be held liable as her act was done in good faith as she intended to warn other girls.
Kiara shall be held liable for defamation as she published a statement which was injurious to Ricky’s reputation.
Question number: 106
Appeared in Year: 2014
LEGAL PRINCIPLE: No person shall be convicted of any offence except for violation of a law in force at the time of commission of the act charged as an offence, nor subjected to a penalty greater than which might have been inflicted under the law in force at the time of commission of the offence.
FACTUAL SITUATION: A boy of 16 years was convicted of house trespass and theft. He was sentenced to imprisonment for 6 months and fine was also imposed. After the judgement, the Probation of Offenders Act came into force. It provided that a person below 21 years may not ordinarily be sentenced to imprisonment. Now the boy claims the benefit of this Act. Should he get it?
The rule of beneficial interpretation required that the benefit of ex post facto law can be applied to reduce his sentence.
A boy below 18 years is a minor and so should not be punished.
|d.||None of the above|