21.

 Principle: Section 34 of Indian Penal Code provides that ‘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 in the same manner as if it were done by him alone.’

Facts: Three vagabonds, Sanju, Dilbag and Sushil decided to commit burglary. In the night, Sushil opened the lock and they broke into a rich man’s house when the entire family was on a pilgrimage. Sanju had gone to that house earlier in connection with some cleaning job. There was only a servant lady in the house. Hearing some sounds from the master bed room, the servant switched on the lights and went up to the room from where she heard the sound. Noticing that the servant was going to cry for help, Sanju grabbed her and covered her mouth with his hands and dragged her into the nearby room. The other two were collecting whatever they could from the room. When they were ready to go out of the house, they looked for Sanju and found him committing rape on the servant. They all left the house and the servant reported the matter to the police and identified Sanju. Subsequently, all three were arrested in connection with the offences of house breaking, burglary and rape. Identify the legal liability of the three.

 

•  All three are liable for all the offences as there was common intention to commit the crimes.

   

•  Sanju will be liable only for housebreaking and rape as he did not participate in the burglary.

   

• Only Sanju will be liable for rape as he was the one who actually committed the offence.

   

• Only Sanju will be liable for rape as he was the one who actually committed the offence.

   

 Principle: Assault is causing bodily injury to another person by use of physical force.

Facts: Rustum while entering into compartment of a train raised his fist in anger towards a person Sheetal, just in front of him in the row, to get way to enter into the train first but did not hit him. Rustum has:

•  committed an assault on Sheetal

•  insulted Sheetal

•  not committed an assault on Sheetal

•  not committed an assault on Sheetal

 Principle: According to Sec. 2 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, ‘Industrial dispute means any dispute or difference between employers and employers or between employers and workmen or between workmen and workmen, which is connected with the employment or non-employment or the terms of employment or with the conditions of labour of any person’.

Facts: The employees of DK Enterprises met the management and requested half a day leave to allow them to celebrate a lunar eclipse, which was going to happen two days later. The management refused the request. Does this situation amount to an ‘industrial dispute’?

•  Yes, because there is some difference of opinion it would be an industrial dispute.

•  No as declaring holidays is a prerogative of the employer. So no industrial dispute.

•  No as Lunar eclipse is unconnected with employment.

•  No as Lunar eclipse is unconnected with employment.

 Principle: When a person falsifies something with the intent to deceive another person or entity is forgery and is a criminal act. Changing or adding the signature on a document, deleting it, using or possessing the false writing is also considered forgery. In the case of writing/painting to fall under the definition, the material included must have been fabricated or altered significantly in order to represent something it is actually not.

Facts: David made a living traveling from city to city, selling paintings that he claimed Aglasem Admission were done by great artists. Since the artists’ signatures were in place, many people fell for them and purchased the paintings. One of these artists saw three of his alleged paintings in a City gallery containing his name. He knew these were not his works and he complained to the police. Police traced David and initiated legal proceedings. Is David guilty of any offence?

•  David is guilty of forgery as the addition of the signature was with an intention to make people believe that those were the paintings of the great artist.

• There is no point in taking legal action against David as the signature has not done any alteration to the art work.

•  Those who buy the art pieces from David ought to have been careful in checking it and ensuring that they were originals before purchasing it.

•  Those who buy the art pieces from David ought to have been careful in checking it and ensuring that they were originals before purchasing it.

 Principle: The Constitution of India guarantees certain fundamental rights to its citizens. The Constitution also provides that these rights cannot be taken away by state even by a law. For violation of this, the person adversely affected by the law mayapproach the High Court or the Supreme Court for the issuance of an appropriate writ.One of these rights includes the freedom to form association that implies the right to join an association or not to join such an association.

Facts: Owing to some industrial disturbances created by XATU, one of the several trade unions in AB Chemicals (Pvt) Ltd., the Company issued a circular to all its employees that as far as possible the employees may disassociate with XATU. Navin is an employee of AB Chemicals and the current General Secretary of XATU. Aggrieved by this circular, which affected the fundamental rights of his and other members of the Union, approaches the High Court of the state for a relief. Identify the most reasonable legal proposition.

•  The Company’s circular is illegal and has to be quashed by the Court.

• The prohibition against any imposition of restriction against a fundamental right is not applicable to anybody other than the state and hence Navin will not get any relief from the High Court.

• Circular issued by a Company amounts to law in the constitutional sense and hence the High Court can issue a writ as pleaded for by Navin.

• Circular issued by a Company amounts to law in the constitutional sense and hence the High Court can issue a writ as pleaded for by Navin.

Principle: When a person interferes with peaceful possession of another person without the permission of the person in possession of those premises, commits trespass to land.

Facts: 'T' just walked over the land of 'P' to reach his house as it was a short cut. 'P' had displayed a notice that it is not a thoroughfare. 'P' did not cause any damage to the land.

• 'T' has violated privacy of 'P'

• 'T' has not committed any trespass on the land of 'P'.

• 'T' has committed trespass to land

• 'T' has committed trespass to land

 Principle: A contract would be invalid and unlawful, if the contract is for an immoral or illegal purpose.

Facts: P, was a young and helpless widow, living on the pavement. R, a neighbour gave her a house, registered in her name, on the condition that she should allow R to keep his smuggled goods and drugs in her house. After the registration was done, according to the condition in the contract, R’s agents went to keep some packets in her house, she refused. R told her the condition under which the house was given to her. She still refused. Is P justified in her action?

• P is not justified as she did not have the right to deny R’s request.

•  As R was making the contract for illegal activities, P’s stand is valid in law.

• R can take back the house by cancelling the transfer deed.

• R can take back the house by cancelling the transfer deed.

 Principle: When a person falsifies something with the intent to deceive another person or entity is forgery and is a criminal act. Changing or adding the signature on a document, deleting it, using or possessing the false writing is also considered forgery. In the case of writing to fall under the definition, the material included must have been fabricated or altered significantly in order to represent something it is actually not.

Facts: John was a publisher of ancient books and papers. In one of his books on the World Wars, he gave photograph of some letters written by famous historic personalities. A researcher in history noted that in the pictures of some of the letters printed in the book, John had added some words or sentences in his own handwriting to give completeness to the sentences, so that the readers will get a clear picture of the writer’s Aglasem Admission intention. The researcher challenges the originality of those pictures and claims that the book containing the forged letters should be banned. Examine the validity of the researcher’s demand.

•  The additions in the letters were made by the publisher in his own handwriting would have made material alteration to the original meaning and hence amounted to forgery.

•  Allowing forged publications to be circulated among the public is as good as committing fraud on the public, so the publication should be banned.

•  As forgery amounts to adding or deleting anything from an original document, the demand of the researcher is valid.

•  As forgery amounts to adding or deleting anything from an original document, the demand of the researcher is valid.

 Principle: Whoever takes away with him any minor less than sixteen years of age if a male, or less than eighteen years of age if a female, out of the custody of parents of such minor without the consent of such parents, is said to commit no offence.

Facts: ‘A’, a man, took away a girl below sixteen years to Mumbai without informing the parents of the girl.

•  ‘A’ committed no offence against the parents of the girl.

•  ‘A’ committed no offence against the girl as well as her parents.

•  ‘A’ committed an offence against the girl as well as her parents

•  ‘A’ committed an offence against the girl as well as her parents

Principle: Acceptance of a proposal must be absolute and unqualified.

Facts: ‘A’ made a proposal to sell his motorcycle to ‘B’ for rupees 25,000/-. ‘B’ agreed to buy it for rupees 24,000/-. ‘A’ sold his motorcycle to ‘C’ for 26,000/- the next day. ‘B’ sues ‘A’ for damages.

•  ‘B’ will get damages from ‘A’

•  ‘B’ will get the difference of rupees 1,000/- only

•  ‘B’ can proceed against ‘C’

•  ‘B’ can proceed against ‘C’