AILET Legal-Aptitude: Questions 118 - 119 of 151

Get 1 year subscription: Access detailed explanations (illustrated with images and videos) to 151 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: 118

» Criminal Law

Appeared in Year: 2014

MCQ▾

Question

LEGAL PRINCIPLES: Whoever intentionally uses force to any person, without that person’s consent, in order to committing of any offence, or intending by the use of such force to cause, or knowing it likely to cause injury, fear, or annoyance to the person to whom the force is used, is said to use criminal force to that other.

FACTUAL SITUATION: Akash was burning some crackers in his house when his dog got scared and got unruly which scared his brother Mohsin. Can this be called criminal force?

Choices

Choice (4) Response

a.

No, because law doesn’t account for trivial things.

b.

Yes, because it led to annoyance of Mohsin.

c.

No, because there was no mala fide intention.

d.

Yes, because he did it intentionally.

Question number: 119

» Law: Nature and Classification

Appeared in Year: 2016

MCQ▾

Question

LEGAL PRINCIPLE: Article 19 (1) (g) of the Constitution of India guarantees to all citizens the right to practice any profession, or to carry on any trade, occupation and business but Article 19 (6) empowers the State to impose reasonable restrictions on this right in the interest of public.

FACTUAL SITUATION: Having experienced acute shortage of labor for agricultural purpose due to engagement of agricultural laborer in manufacture of Bidis, the State Government enacted a law to prohibit such engagement of agricultural labor in the manufacture of Bidis. Whether the law violates the constitutional provisions?

Choices

Choice (4) Response

a.

No, because the law in a reasonable restriction in the interest of public as if laborers would not be available for agricultural purposes there can be shortage of food grains and wastage of crops.

b.

No, because Bidis are harmful for health of people so any law preventing people from engaging in manufacture of Bidis is in the interest of public.

c.

Yes, because the law imposes an unreasonable restriction as it indirectly makes the two sectors (manufacture of Bidis and agriculture) alternative options for the laborers where as some people would like to work in both of these.

d.

Yes, because the object sought to be achieved by this law is to keep sufficient labor supply for agricultural purpose, which could have been easily achieved by restraining the employment of agricultural labor in Bidi manufacturing during the agricultural season only. Absolute restriction amounts to withdrawal of the right. Hence, the law is unconstitutional.

Sign In