संSamvidhan
Practice paper — BNS Chapter VIII — Of Offences Relating To The Army, Navy And Air Force
50 questions · answer key at the end · no time limit
samvidhan.co.in
1.Under Section 159 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, which acts are criminalised?
- (A) Only abetting the committing of mutiny
- (B) Only attempting to seduce a service member from duty or allegiance
- (C) Both abetting mutiny and attempting to seduce a service member from his allegiance or duty
- (D) Neither abetting nor attempting to seduce
2.Which of the following best describes the punishment provided by Section 159?
- (A) Death penalty
- (B) Imprisonment for life, or imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and also liable to fine
- (C) Only a fine
- (D) Imprisonment for a fixed term of seven years
3.Does Section 159 limit the class of persons punishable to members of the Armed Forces, or can others also be punished?
- (A) Only members of the Armed Forces can be punished
- (B) Only civilians can be punished
- (C) Any person ("whoever") who abets or attempts to seduce is punishable
- (D) Only government officials can be punished
4.Is an unsuccessful attempt to seduce an officer, soldier, sailor or airman from his allegiance or duty punishable under Section 159?
- (A) Yes, an attempt to seduce is expressly penalised
- (B) No, only successful seduction is punishable
- (C) Only if the attempt results in mutiny is it punishable
- (D) Only if committed by another service member is it punishable
5.In the phrase "abets the committing of mutiny by an officer, soldier, sailor or airman," whom does the statute identify as the person committing the mutiny?
- (A) The person who abets (the abettor)
- (B) The officer, soldier, sailor or airman
- (C) Any civilian by default
- (D) Members of a foreign armed force
6.Section 160 concerns abetment of mutiny committed by which of the following persons?
- (A) Members of the police force
- (B) An officer, soldier, sailor or airman in the Army, Navy or Air Force of the Government of India
- (C) Civilians engaged in public protests
- (D) Any public servant regardless of service
7.Which of the following punishments is expressly provided by Section 160 if mutiny is committed in consequence of the abetment?
- (A) Death
- (B) Community service
- (C) Fine only
- (D) Imprisonment for up to two years
8.Under Section 160, when does the prescribed punishment for abetment of mutiny become applicable?
- (A) As soon as the abetment occurs, even if no mutiny follows
- (B) Only if mutiny is committed in consequence of that abetment
- (C) Only if the abettor is a serving military officer
- (D) Only when a mutiny is planned but not carried out
9.Who can be held liable as an abettor under the language of Section 160?
- (A) Only serving members of the armed forces
- (B) Only commissioned officers
- (C) Whoever abets (i.e., any person who abets)
- (D) Only civilians
10.If mutiny is committed in consequence of the abetment, what does Section 160 say about imposition of a fine?
- (A) A fine may be imposed only when imprisonment is also imposed
- (B) A fine applies only if the death penalty is not imposed
- (C) The offender "shall also be liable to fine," i.e., fine is to be imposed in addition to the other punishments
- (D) No fine can be imposed under this section
11.What is the maximum term of imprisonment that Section 161 prescribes for abetment of an assault by a service member on a superior officer in the execution of his office?
- (A) Six months
- (B) Three years
- (C) Seven years
- (D) Life imprisonment
12.Which of the following forces are explicitly covered by Section 161?
- (A) Only the Army
- (B) Police and paramilitary forces
- (C) Army, Navy or Air Force of the Government of India
- (D) Any private security force
13.Must the person who abets the assault be a member of the Army, Navy or Air Force to be punished under Section 161?
- (A) Yes — only members of the forces can be punished
- (B) Yes — only officers can be punished
- (C) No — only civilians can be punished
- (D) No — the provision punishes "whoever abets", so any person who abets can be liable
14.If the superior officer was not "in the execution of his office" at the time of the assault (for example, off-duty), does Section 161 apply to abetment of that assault?
- (A) No — the provision applies only when the superior is in the execution of his office
- (B) Yes — it covers assaults on superiors at any time
- (C) Only if the assault occurred on military premises
- (D) Only if the assailant is an officer
15.Who is directly made liable by Section 161 for punishment under that section?
- (A) Only the service member who carried out the assault
- (B) The person who abets the assault
- (C) Both the assaulter and the abettor are automatically punished under this section
- (D) Only a superior officer who ordered the assault
16.Under Section 162 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, who is punishable under this provision?
- (A) A person who abets an assault committed by an officer, soldier, sailor or airman of the Indian armed forces on a superior officer in the execution of his office.
- (B) An officer, soldier, sailor or airman who commits an assault on any person.
- (C) A civilian who provokes a military officer to commit an assault.
- (D) A superior officer who assaults a subordinate while on duty.
17.What is the maximum punishment prescribed by Section 162?
- (A) Imprisonment for life.
- (B) Imprisonment up to three years and fine.
- (C) Imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and also liable to fine.
- (D) Only fine, with no imprisonment.
18.Does Section 162 apply if the superior officer assaulted was not 'in the execution of his office' at the time of the assault?
- (A) Yes — the section applies regardless of whether the superior officer was executing his office.
- (B) No — the section applies only when the assault is on a superior officer 'being in the execution of his office'.
- (C) Yes — but only if the abettor is also a superior officer.
- (D) No — the section applies only to assaults occurring on military premises.
19.Can Section 162 be applied where the assault is committed by a police officer (not a member of Army, Navy or Air Force)?
- (A) Yes — it covers any law enforcement officer.
- (B) Yes — if the police officer is attached to the armed forces.
- (C) Only if the police officer holds the rank of an army officer.
- (D) No — the section specifically refers to an officer, soldier, sailor or airman of the Army, Navy or Air Force of the Government of India.
20.Which condition is expressly required by Section 162 before the abettor can be punished under this provision?
- (A) That the assault was committed in consequence of the abetment.
- (B) That the assault caused grievous bodily harm.
- (C) That the abettor was a superior officer.
- (D) That the assault took place outside India.
21.What is the maximum term of imprisonment prescribed by Section 163 for abetment of desertion?
- (A) One year
- (B) Two years
- (C) Five years
- (D) Ten years
22.Section 163 applies to abetment of the desertion of which of the following persons?
- (A) Any public servant
- (B) Only civilians associated with the military
- (C) An officer, soldier, sailor or airman in the Army, Navy or Air Force of the Government of India
- (D) Police officers of a State
23.Who may be punished under Section 163 for abetment of desertion?
- (A) Only members of the armed forces
- (B) Whoever abets the desertion
- (C) Only officers of the armed forces
- (D) Only persons not belonging to the armed forces
24.Which of the following punishments is NOT authorised by Section 163?
- (A) Imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years
- (B) Fine
- (C) Both imprisonment and fine
- (D) Death penalty
25.Does Section 163 extend to abetment of desertion in services other than the Army, Navy or Air Force of the Government of India?
- (A) Yes, it covers any armed service without limitation
- (B) No, it is specifically limited to the Army, Navy or Air Force of the Government of India
- (C) Yes, but only if authorised by the central government in each case
- (D) Only if the desertion actually succeeds
26.Under Section 164 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, what is the maximum term of imprisonment for harbouring a deserter?
- (A) One year
- (B) Two years
- (C) Three years
- (D) Five years
27.Which person is explicitly exempted by the exception in Section 164 from the offence of harbouring a deserter?
- (A) The spouse of the deserter
- (B) The parent of the deserter
- (C) A friend of the deserter
- (D) A commanding officer
28.Which mental element does Section 164 require for the offence of harbouring a deserter?
- (A) No mental element (strict liability)
- (B) Only actual knowledge (excluding 'reason to believe')
- (C) Knowing or having reason to believe that the person has deserted
- (D) Only dishonest intent to conceal the deserter
29.If the harbour is given by the spouse of the deserter, what is the legal effect under Section 164?
- (A) The spouse is punishable under the section
- (B) The spouse is punishable only if they knew of the desertion
- (C) The spouse is punishable only by fine
- (D) The provision does not extend to harbour given by the spouse, so it is not an offence under this section
30.Does Section 164 apply to harbouring a deserter from any armed force (for example a foreign army or state police)?
- (A) Yes, it applies to deserters from any armed force
- (B) No, it applies only to officers, soldiers, sailors or airmen in the Army, Navy or Air Force of the Government of India
- (C) It applies to state police as they are included as 'soldiers' under the section
- (D) It applies only to commissioned officers of any force
31.Under Section 165 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, who is made liable when a deserter from the Army, Navy or Air Force is concealed on board a merchant vessel?
- (A) The master or person in charge of the merchant vessel.
- (B) The deserter himself.
- (C) The harbour authority.
- (D) The shipowner.
32.What is the maximum penalty prescribed by Section 165 for the master or person in charge if held liable?
- (A) Rs. 1,000
- (B) Rs. 5,000
- (C) Rs. 3,000
- (D) Rs. 10,000
33.Section 165 makes the master liable 'though ignorant' if which of the following conditions exists?
- (A) If the deserter was concealed by some member of the crew.
- (B) If the vessel was within territorial waters when concealment occurred.
- (C) If the master had no means of discovering the concealment.
- (D) If he might have known of the concealment but for some neglect of his duty, or but for some want of discipline on board.
34.If there was no neglect of duty by the master and discipline was maintained on board, is the master liable under Section 165 when a deserter is concealed on the vessel?
- (A) Yes — the master is liable irrespective of neglect or discipline.
- (B) No — the master is not liable unless he might have known but for neglect of duty or want of discipline.
- (C) Yes — but only if the deserter belonged to the Army and not the Navy or Air Force.
- (D) Yes — only if the master personally assisted in the concealment.
35.Which statement best captures the nature of liability created by Section 165?
- (A) Yes — it imposes absolute liability on the master regardless of any fault.
- (B) Yes — it applies only when the deserter is from the Army (not Navy or Air Force).
- (C) No — liability is conditional: the master is liable only if he 'might have known' but for neglect of duty or want of discipline.
- (D) No — liability arises only if the master personally assisted in concealing the deserter.
36.Under Section 166, the provision penalises abetment of insubordination by which persons?
- (A) Any public servant
- (B) Any member of the police
- (C) An officer, soldier, sailor or airman in the Army, Navy or Air Force of the Government of India
- (D) Any civilian working for the Government
37.What is the maximum term of imprisonment provided by Section 166 for abetment of insubordination?
- (A) Six months
- (B) Two years
- (C) Five years
- (D) Life imprisonment
38.If a person abets an act but does not know that the act is one of insubordination by a soldier, is that person punishable under Section 166?
- (A) No, because the provision requires the abettor to know it is an act of insubordination
- (B) Yes, knowledge is not required under the section
- (C) Only if the abettor is also a member of the armed forces
- (D) Only if the abetment was performed in writing
39.Does Section 166 apply if a person abets an act of insubordination but the insubordination is not committed as a consequence of that abetment?
- (A) Yes, abetment alone is sufficient for punishment
- (B) Yes, if there was intent to cause insubordination
- (C) Yes, but only if the abettor is an officer
- (D) No, the section applies only if the insubordination is committed in consequence of that abetment
40.Can a civilian who abets an act known to be insubordination by an airman be punished under Section 166?
- (A) No, the provision only applies to members of the armed forces who abet
- (B) Only if the civilian is employed by the Ministry of Defence
- (C) Yes, the section begins with 'Whoever abets' and so applies to any person who abets a known act of insubordination by the armed forces
- (D) Only if the civilian is an officer in the Army, Navy or Air Force
41.According to Section 167 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, which class of persons is expressly mentioned as not being subject to punishment under this Sanhita for offences defined in this Chapter?
- (A) Persons subject to the Air Force Act, 1950; the Army Act, 1950; and the Navy Act, 1957
- (B) All civilians employed by the Defence Ministry
- (C) Persons subject to the Police Act
- (D) Members of paramilitary forces
42.What is the legal effect provided by Section 167 regarding those persons named (subject to the Air Force, Army and Navy Acts) in relation to offences defined in this Chapter?
- (A) They are to be punished only under this Sanhita and not under their service Acts
- (B) They may be punished under both their service Acts and this Sanhita simultaneously
- (C) They shall not be subject to punishment under this Sanhita for any offences defined in this Chapter
- (D) They are exempt from all criminal law
43.If a person subject to the Army Act, 1950 commits an offence that is defined in this Chapter of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, can that person be punished under the Sanhita for that offence?
- (A) Yes, because the Sanhita applies to all persons regardless of service Acts
- (B) No, the provision prevents punishment under the Sanhita for such offences
- (C) Yes, but only with prior approval of the Defence Ministry
- (D) No, unless a court specifically orders otherwise
44.Does Section 167's bar on punishment under this Sanhita apply to a person who is subject only to the Navy Act, 1957?
- (A) No, it applies only if a person is subject to all three Acts simultaneously
- (B) No, the provision mentions only Air Force and Army Acts
- (C) Yes, but only when the offence is committed on naval premises
- (D) Yes, a person subject to the Navy Act is included in those not to be punished under this Sanhita for offences in this Chapter
45.Which of the following best describes the scope of the exemption in Section 167 with respect to punishment under the Sanhita?
- (A) Persons subject to the listed service Acts are completely immune from any punishment under the Sanhita for any offence whatsoever
- (B) The exemption applies only to procedural protections, not to punishment
- (C) The exemption bars punishment under this Sanhita only for offences defined in this Chapter, and does not by its text bar punishment under the Sanhita for offences outside this Chapter
- (D) The exemption requires dual prosecution under both the service Acts and the Sanhita
46.Under Section 168 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, who is expressly excluded from being punished under this provision?
- (A) A soldier, sailor or airman in the Army, Naval or Air service of the Government of India
- (B) A retired soldier
- (C) Any civilian wearing a uniform without intent to deceive
- (D) A police officer
47.What mental element is required for liability under Section 168?
- (A) Recklessness
- (B) Negligence
- (C) Intention that it may be believed that he is such a soldier, sailor or airman
- (D) Strict liability (no mental element required)
48.What is the maximum term of imprisonment that Section 168 prescribes for the offence?
- (A) Up to one month
- (B) Up to three months
- (C) Up to six months
- (D) Up to three years
49.Does Section 168 apply when the person wearing the garb or carrying the token is actually a soldier in the Indian Army?
- (A) Yes, the section applies to anyone who impersonates a soldier
- (B) Yes, but only if the soldier is impersonating a higher rank
- (C) Only if the soldier is not serving in the Indian forces
- (D) No, it applies only to persons who are not soldiers, sailors or airmen of the Government of India
50.A sailor in the Indian Navy puts on garb resembling an Army soldier and intends that others believe he is an Army soldier. Does Section 168 apply to him?
- (A) Yes, because he is not an Army soldier and is creating a belief of being one
- (B) Yes, because wearing Army garb is always covered
- (C) No, because the section excludes persons who are soldiers, sailors or airmen of the Government of India
- (D) No, unless he also carries an official token
Answer key
1. C2. B3. C4. A5. B6. B7. A8. B9. C10. C11. B12. C13. D14. A15. B16. A17. C18. B19. D20. A21. B22. C23. B24. D25. B26. B27. A28. C29. D30. B31. A32. C33. D34. B35. C36. C37. B38. A39. D40. C41. A42. C43. B44. D45. C46. A47. C48. B49. D50. C
Explanations
- 1. (C) The provision states that whoever abets the committing of mutiny by an officer, soldier, sailor or airman, or attempts to seduce any such person from his allegiance or his duty, shall be punished. Thus both abetting mutiny and attempting to seduce a service member are criminalised under Section 159.
- 2. (B) Section 159 prescribes punishment of imprisonment for life, or imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and also makes the offender liable to fine. The provision explicitly lists life imprisonment or up to ten years and fine as the penal consequences.
- 3. (C) The provision begins with the word "Whoever", stating that whoever abets... or attempts to seduce any such officer, soldier, sailor or airman... shall be punished. Therefore the offence is not limited to service members; any person who commits the described acts is punishable.
- 4. (A) Section 159 expressly punishes one who "attempts to seduce any such officer, soldier, sailor or airman from his allegiance or his duty." The inclusion of the word "attempts" makes an unsuccessful attempt itself punishable under the provision.
- 5. (B) The wording specifies abetment of "the committing of mutiny by an officer, soldier, sailor or airman, in the Army, Navy or Air Force of the Government of India." Thus the officer, soldier, sailor or airman is identified as the person committing the mutiny, and the offence is abetting that act.
- 6. (B) The provision expressly refers to mutiny "by an officer, soldier, sailor or airman, in the Army, Navy or Air Force of the Government of India." Therefore it is limited to those military personnel named in the text.
- 7. (A) Section 160 states the offender "shall ... be punished with death or with imprisonment for life, or imprisonment ... for a term which may extend to ten years." Death is therefore explicitly provided as a possible punishment.
- 8. (B) The provision conditions punishment by stating "shall, if mutiny be committed in consequence of that abetment, be punished ..." Thus punishment applies only when the mutiny actually occurs as a consequence of the abetment.
- 9. (C) The provision begins with the word "Whoever abets," which indicates that any person who abets the committing of mutiny can be liable, not only particular categories of persons.
- 10. (C) The provision concludes that the offender "shall also be liable to fine," which indicates liability to a fine in addition to the listed punishments (death, life imprisonment, or imprisonment up to ten years).
- 11. (B) Section 161 provides punishment with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years. The provision explicitly caps the term at three years and also provides liability to fine.
- 12. (C) The text states the assault must be by an officer, soldier, sailor or airman, in the Army, Navy or Air Force of the Government of India. Therefore the provision expressly refers to the Army, Navy and Air Force of the Government of India.
- 13. (D) Section 161 begins with the words "Whoever abets...", which means any person who abets such an assault is punishable under this provision; the text does not restrict liability to members of the armed forces.
- 14. (A) Section 161 applies to an assault "on any superior officer being in the execution of his office." If the superior is not in the execution of his office, the condition in the provision is not met and the section does not apply to that assault.
- 15. (B) Section 161 specifically punishes "Whoever abets an assault by an officer, soldier, sailor or airman..." and prescribes imprisonment up to three years and liability to fine. The text thus makes the abettor liable under this section; it does not in this provision itself prescribe punishment for the actual assaulter.
- 16. (A) The section begins "Whoever abets an assault by an officer, soldier, sailor or airman... on any superior officer being in the execution of his office" — it penalises the abettor of such an assault. The provision targets the abettor, not merely the person who directly commits the assault.
- 17. (C) Section 162 states the offender "shall... be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine." Thus the maximum is seven years' imprisonment (either description) plus fine.
- 18. (B) The text specifies the assault must be "on any superior officer being in the execution of his office," so the provision applies only when the superior officer is acting in the execution of his office. If the superior is not in execution of his office, the stated condition in the provision is not met.
- 19. (D) The provision refers specifically to "an officer, soldier, sailor or airman, in the Army, Navy or Air Force of the Government of India." It does not refer to police officers, so it does not apply to assaults committed by police under the language given.
- 20. (A) Section 162 states "shall, if such assault be committed in consequence of that abetment be punished..." — the assault must have been committed as a consequence of the abetment. The provision does not require grievous harm, nor does it require the abettor to be a superior or the assault to occur outside India.
- 21. (B) Section 163 states the punishment is "imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years," so the maximum term of imprisonment is two years.
- 22. (C) The provision expressly refers to "any officer, soldier, sailor or airman, in the Army, Navy or Air Force of the Government of India," so it applies to those listed categories in those Services.
- 23. (B) The section begins with "Whoever abets the desertion... shall be punished", which makes the provision applicable to any person who abets, not limited to a particular class.
- 24. (D) Section 163 authorises imprisonment up to two years, or a fine, or both. It does not provide for the death penalty, so death is not authorised by this section.
- 25. (B) The provision specifically refers to desertion "in the Army, Navy or Air Force of the Government of India," which limits its application to those three Services; it does not extend by its text to other services.
- 26. (B) The provision prescribes punishment with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years. Therefore the maximum term stated is two years.
- 27. (A) The exception in the provision states that it does not extend to the case in which the harbour is given by the spouse of the deserter. Hence the spouse is expressly exempted.
- 28. (C) The provision requires that the accused be 'knowing or having reason to believe that an officer, soldier, sailor or airman ... has deserted.' Thus the mens rea is knowledge or having reason to believe, not strict liability or some other mental state.
- 29. (D) The exception explicitly states that the provision does not extend to the case in which the harbour is given by the spouse of the deserter. Therefore harbour by the spouse is excluded from this offence.
- 30. (B) The provision specifically refers to an officer, soldier, sailor or airman 'in the Army, Navy or Air Force of the Government of India.' Thus it is limited to those services of the Government of India and does not on its face extend to any and every armed force.
- 31. (A) The provision states that "The master or person in charge of a merchant vessel, on board of which any deserter ... is concealed, shall ... be liable ...". Therefore liability is placed on the master or person in charge of the vessel.
- 32. (C) Section 165 specifies that the master or person in charge "shall ... be liable to a penalty not exceeding three thousand rupees.". Thus the maximum penalty is Rs. 3,000.
- 33. (D) The provision expressly states liability applies "though ignorant of such concealment" if "he might have known of such concealment but for some neglect of his duty ... or but for some want of discipline on board of the vessel.". Hence the specified conditional reason is the correct ground for liability.
- 34. (B) Liability under Section 165 is triggered only if "he might have known ... but for some neglect of his duty ... or but for some want of discipline on board." If neither neglect nor want of discipline is present, the provision does not make him liable despite ignorance.
- 35. (C) The section states the master "shall, though ignorant of such concealment, be liable ... if he might have known ... but for some neglect of his duty ... or but for some want of discipline." This shows liability is conditional on those circumstances, not absolute or limited to personal assistance.
- 36. (C) The provision specifically refers to an act of insubordination "by an officer, soldier, sailor or airman, in the Army, Navy or Air Force, of the Government of India." Therefore the penalised act must be committed by those categories. It does not mention police, civilians, or other public servants.
- 37. (B) The provision states punishment as "imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years." Hence the maximum term of imprisonment is two years. Longer terms such as five years or life are not provided.
- 38. (A) Section 166 requires abetment of "what he knows to be an act of insubordination." Thus the mental element of knowledge is essential. If the abettor lacks that knowledge, the section does not apply.
- 39. (D) The provision states the offender shall be punished "if such act of insubordination be committed in consequence of that abetment." Therefore there must be a causal consequence; if the act is not committed as a result, the section does not apply. Mere abetment without the act occurring in consequence is not covered by this text.
- 40. (C) The provision uses the term "Whoever abets," which indicates no limitation on the identity of the abettor. Therefore a civilian who abets an act he knows to be insubordination by an airman can be punished, provided the insubordination is committed in consequence of that abetment. The section specifies the status of the person committing insubordination, not the abettor.
- 41. (A) The provision explicitly names persons subject to the Air Force Act, 1950, the Army Act, 1950 and the Navy Act, 1957 as not being subject to punishment under this Sanhita for offences defined in this Chapter.
- 42. (C) Section 167 states that such persons 'shall be subject to punishment under this Sanhita for any of the offences defined in this Chapter', i.e., they shall not be subject to punishment under this Sanhita for those offences.
- 43. (B) The provision clearly states that a person subject to the Army Act (among the listed Acts) 'shall be [not] subject to punishment under this Sanhita for any of the offences defined in this Chapter,' meaning they cannot be punished under the Sanhita for those offences.
- 44. (D) Section 167 individually lists the Air Force Act, Army Act and Navy Act; a person subject to the Navy Act is expressly among those who 'shall be subject to punishment under this Sanhita for any of the offences defined in this Chapter' (i.e., are not to be punished under the Sanhita for those offences).
- 45. (C) Section 167 specifically limits the bar to 'any of the offences defined in this Chapter,' which indicates the prohibition on punishment under this Sanhita is confined to offences in this Chapter and does not, by its wording, address offences outside this Chapter.
- 46. (A) The provision begins with “Whoever, not being a soldier, sailor or airman in the Army, Naval or Air service of the Government of India…”, which shows that persons who are soldiers, sailors or airmen of those services are excluded from the offence. The text does not mention retired soldiers or police officers as excluded.
- 47. (C) The provision penalises wearing garb or carrying a token “with the intention that it may be believed that he is such a soldier, sailor or airman.” Thus intention is the required mens rea. Neither mere negligence nor strict liability is stated.
- 48. (B) The provision states punishment as “imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three months,” so the maximum term of imprisonment is three months. Longer terms such as six months or three years are not provided in this section.
- 49. (D) The clause starts “Whoever, not being a soldier, sailor or airman in the Army, Naval or Air service of the Government of India…”, indicating the section targets persons who are not such service members. Therefore a person who is actually a soldier would not fall under this provision.
- 50. (C) The provision applies to “whoever, not being a soldier, sailor or airman in the Army, Naval or Air service of the Government of India…”. A sailor in the Indian Navy is expressly among those the clause refers to as being excluded, so Section 168 would not apply to him under its literal terms. The text does not condition the exclusion on matching the specific branch of garb worn.