संSamvidhan

Practice paper — IPC Chapter 10 — Contempt'S The Lawful Authority Public Servants

50 questions · answer key at the end · no time limit · 100 more on the site

samvidhan.co.in

1.Under Section 172 IPC, what is the maximum term of simple imprisonment for absconding to avoid being served with a summons, notice or order (under the general limb)?
- (A) Simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to one month
- (B) Simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to six months
- (C) Simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to three months
- (D) Simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to two years
2.If a summons is issued by a person who is not "legally competent, as such public servant, to issue such summons, notice or order," does Section 172 IPC apply?
- (A) Yes — it still applies regardless of competence
- (B) Yes — but only if the order is directed to attend in person
- (C) Applies only if the person absconding is also a public servant
- (D) No — Section 172 requires the summons/notice/order to proceed from a public servant legally competent as such
3.Does the higher punishment under Section 172 IPC (up to six months/imprisonment or fine up to Rs.1000) apply where the order is to produce a document before a forum other than a Court of Justice (e.g., an administrative tribunal)?
- (A) Yes — it applies to any forum where a document is to be produced
- (B) No — the higher punishment applies only when the document or electronic record is to be produced in a Court of Justice
- (C) Only if the forum is presided over by a public servant
- (D) Only if the document is electronic
4.What is the maximum punishment under Section 173 IPC for intentionally preventing the serving of a summons or notice in the basic case (not involving attendance in person or production of documents)?
- (A) Six months imprisonment and fine up to one thousand rupees
- (B) One year imprisonment and fine up to two thousand rupees
- (C) Simple imprisonment up to one month, or fine up to five hundred rupees, or both
- (D) Simple imprisonment up to three months, or fine up to five hundred rupees
5.If a person intentionally prevents service of a summons that required the recipient to attend in person or to produce a document or electronic record in a Court of Justice, what is the maximum punishment under Section 173 IPC?
- (A) Simple imprisonment up to one month, or fine up to five hundred rupees, or both
- (B) Simple imprisonment up to six months, or fine up to one thousand rupees, or both
- (C) Simple imprisonment up to three months, or fine up to five hundred rupees, or both
- (D) Simple imprisonment up to two months, or fine up to seven hundred and fifty rupees, or both
6.Which of the following precisely describes the conduct punished under Section 174 IPC?
- (A) Intentionally omitting to attend at the specified place or time in obedience to a summons, notice, order or proclamation, or departing from the place before it is lawful to do so.
- (B) Refusing to produce documents or evidence when called upon by a public servant.
- (C) Attending at the wrong place or refusing to answer questions put by a public servant.
- (D) Making false statements to a public servant while attending under a summons.
7.A person omits to attend in obedience to an order that did not proceed from a public servant "legally competent, as such public servant, to issue the same." Is the omission punishable under Section 174 IPC?
- (A) No, because the provision requires the summons/notice/order to proceed from a public servant legally competent to issue it.
- (B) Yes, any order from any public servant attracts Section 174 if attendance is omitted.
- (C) Yes, provided the person was aware of the order even if the public servant lacked legal competence.
- (D) No, only if the order was issued in writing; verbal orders are excluded.
8.Does Section 174 IPC require a mental element (mens rea) for the omission to attend to be punishable?
- (A) No, culpability under Section 174 is strict liability; intent is irrelevant.
- (B) Yes, the provision requires the person to have "intentionally omits to attend," so lack of intention (e.g., sudden incapacity) would negate the offence.
- (C) Yes, but only if the summons was issued orally; written summonses do not require intention.
- (D) No, because the provision speaks only of being "legally bound" which is conclusive proof of guilt.
9.What is the maximum term of imprisonment prescribed by Section 174A if a person fails to appear in response to a proclamation under section 82(1) and no declaration under section 82(4) has been made?
- (A) One year
- (B) Three years
- (C) Seven years
- (D) No imprisonment; fine only
10.Does Section 174A apply when the failure to appear relates to a proclamation published under some other statutory provision (not sub‑section (1) of section 82 CrPC)?
- (A) Yes — it applies to failures to appear under any statutory proclamation.
- (B) Yes — but only if the proclamation is issued by a magistrate.
- (C) Yes — but only if the person has been given a prior warrant of arrest.
- (D) No — it applies only where appearance is required by a proclamation published under sub‑section (1) of section 82 of the CrPC.
11.Under Section 175 IPC, which of the following best describes the act that constitutes the offence?
- (A) Knowingly making a false statement to a public servant.
- (B) Intentionally omitting to produce or deliver up any document or electronic record to a public servant when legally bound to do so.
- (C) Destroying any document required by a court order.
- (D) Refusing to sign a private agreement when asked by a private individual.
12.Does Section 175 IPC apply where a person is legally bound to produce a document to a private individual (not a public servant)?
- (A) Yes — it applies whenever a person is legally bound to produce a document to any person.
- (B) Yes — but only if the private individual acts in some official capacity.
- (C) No — it applies only when the document or electronic record is to be produced or delivered up to a public servant 'as such'.
- (D) No — it applies only to production before a court.
13.Which of the following punishment combinations is authorised by Section 175 IPC?
- (A) Only simple imprisonment up to one month.
- (B) Only a fine up to five hundred rupees.
- (C) Both simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to one month and a fine which may extend to five hundred rupees.
- (D) Imprisonment up to one year and a fine up to five hundred rupees.
14.What is the maximum punishment prescribed by Section 176 IPC?
- (A) Simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to one month only.
- (B) Fine which may extend to five hundred rupees only.
- (C) Both imprisonment up to one month and fine up to five hundred rupees, mandatory.
- (D) Simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to one month, or fine which may extend to five hundred rupees, or both.
15.Is a person who is not legally bound to give notice or information liable under Section 176 IPC if they intentionally omit to give it?
- (A) Yes — anyone who omits to give information is liable.
- (B) Yes — but only if a public servant specifically requests it.
- (C) No — only a person 'being legally bound to give any notice or to furnish information' is covered.
- (D) No — only omissions that cause demonstrable prejudice are covered.
16.Under Section 177 IPC, which of the following correctly states the punishment for furnishing false information when legally bound to furnish it?
- (A) Simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to six months, or with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees, or with both
- (B) Imprisonment for up to one year or fine up to five thousand rupees
- (C) Death penalty
- (D) Only a fine which may extend to one thousand rupees
17.Which mental state is required by Section 177 for punishment to follow when false information is furnished?
- (A) Strict liability (no mental state required)
- (B) Mere negligence about the truth of the information
- (C) That the person "knows or has reason to believe" the information to be false
- (D) Only the intention to cause material loss or injury
18.Which statement best captures when Section 177 will apply with respect to the obligation to furnish information?
- (A) It applies only where the person is legally bound to furnish information to a public servant in their official capacity; voluntary disclosures are not covered
- (B) It applies whenever anyone gives false information to any person, whether public servant or not
- (C) It applies only when information is furnished to courts, not to other public servants
- (D) It applies automatically whenever information given turns out to be false, regardless of any legal duty
19.What is the maximum punishment prescribed by Section 178 IPC?
- (A) Simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to one year or fine up to Rs. 2,000.
- (B) Simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to six months, or fine which may extend to one thousand rupees, or with both.
- (C) Imprisonment for life.
- (D) Only a fine not exceeding one thousand rupees.
20.A competent public servant requires a person to be bound to tell the truth. The person declines the oath but instead makes a solemn affirmation agreeing to speak the truth. Is the person guilty under Section 178 IPC?
- (A) Yes — declining an oath itself constitutes the offence even if an affirmation is made.
- (B) Yes — affirmation is not recognised under Section 178.
- (C) Only if the affirmation is not recorded.
- (D) No — Section 178 refers to refusal to bind himself "by an oath or affirmation," so making an affirmation means he has bound himself and has not refused.
21.Under Section 179 IPC, what is the maximum term of imprisonment for refusing to answer a question as required by the provision?
- (A) Simple imprisonment which may extend to six months
- (B) Simple imprisonment which may extend to one year
- (C) Rigorous imprisonment which may extend to six months
- (D) Simple imprisonment which may extend to three months
22.If a public servant demands an answer on a matter that does not touch the subject about which a person is legally bound to state the truth, is refusal punishable under Section 179 IPC?
- (A) Yes, refusal is punishable in all cases
- (B) Only if the public servant is senior in rank
- (C) No, refusal is not punishable under this section in that situation
- (D) Only if the demand is made in writing
23.Which combination of elements is necessary for an offence under Section 179 IPC?
- (A) All of the following: the person is legally bound to state the truth on a subject; the question demanded touches that subject; the question is demanded by a public servant in the exercise of legal powers
- (B) Any one of these elements alone is sufficient
- (C) Only that the person is legally bound to state the truth; the public servant's exercise of legal powers is not required
- (D) Only that the question touches the subject; the person's being legally bound is not required
24.What is the maximum term of imprisonment that Section 180, IPC prescribes for the offence of refusing to sign a statement?
- (A) One month
- (B) Two months
- (C) Three months
- (D) Six months
25.A makes a statement. A later refuses to sign that same statement when required to sign by a public servant legally competent to require the signature. Which of the following is correct under Section 180?
- (A) A has committed the offence under Section 180 and is punishable.
- (B) No offence is committed because signing a statement is always voluntary.
- (C) Offence arises only if the statement is proved to be false.
- (D) Section 180 applies only if the refusal occurs in court proceedings.
26.Under Section 181 IPC, a person is legally bound to state the truth by:
- (A) An oath or affirmation
- (B) A statutory notice
- (C) A contract between parties
- (D) A police summons
27.To whom must the false statement be made for Section 181 IPC to apply?
- (A) Any private individual
- (B) A public servant or other person authorized by law to administer such oath or affirmation
- (C) Only judges in court
- (D) Any person present when the statement is made
28.Does Section 181 IPC cover a false statement made under oath about a matter unrelated to the subject on which the oath was administered?
- (A) Yes — any false statement under oath is covered
- (B) Yes — if it is made to a public servant even if unrelated
- (C) No — the false statement must be 'touching that subject' on which the oath binds the person
- (D) Only if the person administering the oath expressly allows expansion of the subject
29.Which mental state regarding the truth of the information is required by Section 182 IPC?
- (A) Recklessness as to truth or falsity
- (B) That the person knows or believes the information to be false
- (C) Negligent belief about the information's truth
- (D) Intent to defame irrespective of truth
30.Must the public servant actually use his lawful power for Section 182 to be attracted, based on the provision's wording?
- (A) Yes — the public servant must in fact use his lawful power
- (B) Yes — and a concrete injury must result
- (C) No — the provision only requires intention or knowledge that it is likely the public servant will be caused to act
- (D) No — but only if the public servant is a judicial officer
31.Which mental element is specifically required by Section 183 for the offence of resisting the taking of property?
- (A) Intention to permanently deprive the public servant of the property
- (B) Knowledge or having reason to believe that the person taking the property is a public servant
- (C) Belief that the taking is unlawful
- (D) Recklessness as to whether the taker is a public servant
32.If a person resists the taking of property by someone who is not a public servant, is that resistance punishable under Section 183?
- (A) Yes — Section 183 applies whenever anyone attempts to take property
- (B) Yes — Section 183 applies if the taker claims to be a public servant even if not one
- (C) No — Section 183 applies only when property is taken by the lawful authority of a public servant
- (D) No — Section 183 applies only to offences of theft by public servants
33.Does Section 183 apply where a public servant attempts to take property but does so without lawful authority?
- (A) Section 183 applies only when the property is taken by the lawful authority of a public servant
- (B) Section 183 applies even if the public servant lacks lawful authority
- (C) Section 183 applies only when a court or magistrate directs the taking of property
- (D) Section 183 applies only to police officers acting under a search warrant
34.Which mental element is expressly required by Section 184 IPC for the offence to be made out?
- (A) Negligent obstruction of the sale
- (B) Obstruction only if committed by a public servant
- (C) Intentional obstruction of the sale
- (D) Obstruction that causes actual financial loss
35.Which of the following correctly states the sentencing options under Section 184 IPC?
- (A) Imprisonment up to one month only
- (B) Fine up to five hundred rupees only
- (C) Imprisonment up to one month or fine up to one thousand rupees or both
- (D) Imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to one month, or with fine which may extend to five hundred rupees, or with both
36.Under Section 185 IPC, what is the maximum term of imprisonment for the offence described?
- (A) Imprisonment for a term which may extend to one month
- (B) Imprisonment for a term which may extend to six months
- (C) Imprisonment for a term which may extend to one year
- (D) Imprisonment for a term which may extend to two years
37.If a person bids at a sale held by a public servant without any intention of performing the obligations of the bid, is that conduct punishable under Section 185 IPC even if no one under legal incapacity is involved?
- (A) No — liability requires the bid to be on account of a person under legal incapacity
- (B) Yes — bidding without intending to perform the obligations is independently punishable
- (C) Only if the bid is accepted and the bidder then fails to perform
- (D) Only when the bidder is himself under legal incapacity
38.Which of the following best describes the scope of sales to which Section 185 IPC applies?
- (A) It applies to any sale in which a public servant is involved in any capacity
- (B) It applies only to sales of government property
- (C) It applies when a public servant acts in a private capacity even if without lawful authority
- (D) It applies only to a sale 'held by the lawful authority of a public servant, as such' (i.e., by a public servant acting with lawful authority in his official capacity)
39.Which mental element is expressly required by Section 186 for the offence to be made out?
- (A) Voluntarily
- (B) Negligently
- (C) Strict liability (no mental element required)
- (D) Intention to cause grievous hurt
40.Which of the following statements correctly describes the sentencing options under Section 186?
- (A) Punishment is imprisonment only, up to three months
- (B) Punishment is a fine only, up to five hundred rupees
- (C) Punishment is imprisonment exceeding three months or a fine exceeding five hundred rupees
- (D) Punishment may be imprisonment (either description) up to three months, or a fine up to five hundred rupees, or both
41.Under Section 187 IPC, which conduct is criminalized?
- (A) Negligently failing to assist a public servant when bound by law
- (B) Intentionally omitting to render or furnish assistance to any public servant when bound by law
- (C) Refusing to obey lawful orders of a public servant
- (D) Actively obstructing a public servant in the execution of his duty
42.If assistance is demanded by a public servant legally competent to make such demand for the purpose of preventing the commission of an offence, what is the maximum punishment under Section 187 IPC?
- (A) Simple imprisonment up to one month, or fine up to Rs.200, or both
- (B) Simple imprisonment up to three months, or fine up to Rs.300, or both
- (C) Simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to six months, or fine which may extend to five hundred rupees, or both
- (D) Imprisonment for up to two years, or fine up to Rs.1000, or both
43.Under Section 187 IPC, can the enhanced punishment (up to six months or fine up to Rs.500) be imposed where assistance was demanded for a listed purpose but the demanding public servant was NOT legally competent to make such demand?
- (A) Yes — the listed purpose alone is sufficient even if the public servant is not legally competent
- (B) No — the public servant must be legally competent to make the demand for the enhanced punishment to apply
- (C) Yes — if the demand was made verbally it suffices even without legal competence
- (D) No — enhanced punishment applies only if the demand is made in writing by a public servant
44.Which mental element is expressly required by Section 188 IPC for the offence to be made out?
- (A) Intention
- (B) Knowledge
- (C) Negligence
- (D) Strict liability
45.A person is directed to 'take certain order with certain property in his possession or under his management' but the property is neither in his possession nor under his management. If he disobeys that direction, is he punishable under Section 188 IPC?
- (A) Yes — Section 188 applies regardless of possession status
- (B) Only if a public servant later asserts possession
- (C) Yes — if he was aware of the order even without possession
- (D) No — the provision applies to directions concerning property in his possession or under his management
46.Which of the following best describes the offence under Section 189 IPC?
- (A) Holding out any threat of injury to any public servant, to induce that public servant to do or to forbear or delay to do any act connected with the exercise of his public functions.
- (B) Threatening a public servant for matters entirely unconnected with the exercise of his public functions.
- (C) Making a false statement against a public servant with intent to defame him.
- (D) Obstructing a public servant by physical force while he is performing his duties.
47.Is a threat that aims to induce a public servant to perform an act unconnected with the exercise of his public functions punishable under Section 189 IPC?
- (A) Yes, any threat directed at a public servant is punishable under Section 189.
- (B) No, the threatened act must be connected with the exercise of the public servant's public functions.
- (C) Yes, but only if the act is otherwise illegal under some other provision.
- (D) No, unless the threat also causes bodily harm.
48.Which of the following is NOT a necessary element of the offence under Section 189 IPC?
- (A) That the threat is made to a public servant or to a person believed to be one in whom the public servant is interested.
- (B) That the threat is for the purpose of inducing the public servant to do, or to forbear or delay to do, an act connected with the exercise of his public functions.
- (C) That the act which the public servant is induced to do or forbear must itself be criminal or illegal.
- (D) That the offence is punishable with imprisonment which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both.
49.Which of the following is an essential element of the offence under Section 190 IPC?
- (A) Holding out any threat of injury to induce a person to refrain or desist from making a legal application for protection against injury to a public servant
- (B) Causing actual physical injury to a public servant
- (C) Making a false statement to a public servant
- (D) Giving protection to a person without their request
50.Which mental element does Section 190 IPC require for the offender?
- (A) Mere knowledge that a threat may have an effect
- (B) Strict liability; no mental element required
- (C) A purpose/intention to induce the person to refrain or desist from making the legal application or to cause such protection to be given
- (D) Recklessness as to whether the person will refrain from applying

Answer key

1. A2. D3. B4. C5. B6. A7. A8. B9. B10. D11. B12. C13. C14. D15. C16. A17. C18. A19. B20. D21. A22. C23. A24. C25. A26. A27. B28. C29. B30. C31. B32. C33. A34. C35. D36. A37. B38. D39. A40. D41. B42. C43. B44. B45. D46. A47. B48. C49. A50. C

Explanations

1. (A) The provision states that whoever absconds to avoid being served shall be punished with simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to one month (or fine up to Rs. 500, or both) under the general limb. The one-month maximum is explicitly provided.
2. (D) Section 172 applies to summons/notice/order "proceeding from any public servant legally competent, as such public servant, to issue such summons, notice or order." If the issuer is not legally competent as such public servant, the textual requirement of the section is not met.
3. (B) The provision limits the enhanced punishment to situations where the summons/notice/order is "to produce a document or electronic record in a Court of Justice." The text therefore confines the higher penalty to production in a Court of Justice, not in any other forum.
4. (C) The provision states: 'Shall be punished with simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to one month, or with fine which may extend to five hundred rupees, or with both.' The higher six-month/₹1,000 penalty applies only when attendance in person or production of documents is required.
5. (B) The provision states that if the summons, notice, order or proclamation is 'to attend in person or by agent, or to produce a document or electronic record in a Court of Justice,' the punishment is 'simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to six months, or with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees, or with both.'
6. (A) Section 174 punishes one who "intentionally omits to attend at that place or time, or departs from the place ... before the time at which it is lawful for him to depart" in obedience to a summons/notice/order/proclamation. The other options describe different offences or conduct not mentioned in the provision.
7. (A) Section 174 applies to omissions in obedience to a summons/notice/order "proceeding from any public servant legally competent, as such public servant, to issue the same." If the issuer was not legally competent as such, the element in the provision is missing and the offence is not made out.
8. (B) The provision punishes one who "intentionally omits to attend," which indicates that intentional omission is a required element. Therefore an unintentional failure to attend (for example due to sudden incapacity) would not satisfy the mens rea set out in the section.
9. (B) The provision states that failure to appear as required by the proclamation "shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years or with fine or with both." The seven‑year term applies only after a declaration under sub‑section (4).
10. (D) The section is expressly tied to a proclamation "published under sub‑section (1) of section 82 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973." It therefore applies only to failures to appear as required by such a proclamation.
11. (B) Section 175 punishes whoever, 'being legally bound to produce or deliver up any document or electronic record to any public servant, as such, intentionally omits so to produce or deliver up the same.' Thus the offence is the intentional omission to produce or deliver when legally bound.
12. (C) Section 175 specifically refers to producing or delivering up a document or electronic record 'to any public servant, as such.' Therefore it does not apply to production obligations to private individuals.
13. (C) The section provides punishment 'with simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to one month, or with fine which may extend to five hundred rupees, or with both.' Thus both imprisonment (up to one month) and fine (up to Rs.500) may be imposed together.
14. (D) The provision states the offender 'shall be punished with simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to one month, or with fine which may extend to five hundred rupees, or with both.' This shows either punishment or both may be imposed, within the stated limits.
15. (C) The provision applies to 'whoever, being legally bound to give any notice or to furnish information ... intentionally omits' which limits liability to persons who are legally bound to give that notice or information. Persons not so bound are therefore not covered by Section 176.
16. (A) The provision states the offender "shall be punished with simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to six months, or with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees, or with both." Thus the correct punishment is imprisonment up to six months, or fine up to Rs.1000, or both.
17. (C) Section 177 penalises furnishing information "which he knows or has reason to believe to be false." This requires knowledge or at least a belief (reason to believe) that the information is false, not mere negligence or strict liability.
18. (A) Section 177 begins with "Whoever, being legally bound to furnish information on any subject to any public servant, as such," — so the section applies where there is a legal duty to furnish information to a public servant in that capacity. Voluntary or informal disclosures absent that legal duty are not covered by this provision.
19. (B) The provision states punishment as "simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to six months, or with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees, or with both." Thus the maximums are six months' simple imprisonment and Rs. 1,000 fine, and both may be imposed.
20. (D) Section 178 punishes refusal "to bind himself by an oath or affirmation to state the truth." An affirmation is expressly an alternative to an oath; if the person makes an affirmation he has not refused to bind himself and therefore the section does not apply.
21. (A) The provision states the punishment is "simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to six months". Therefore the maximum term of imprisonment specified is six months of simple imprisonment.
22. (C) The section requires refusal to answer "any question demanded of him touching that subject" on which the person is legally bound to state the truth. If the question does not touch that subject, the specific requirement of the provision is not met and the section does not apply.
23. (A) The section requires a combination: the person must be "being legally bound to state the truth on any subject," must "refuse[] to answer any question demanded of him touching that subject," and the demand must be "by such public servant in the exercise of the legal powers." All these elements are necessary.
24. (C) Section 180 provides punishment with simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to three months. The maximum imprisonment stated in the provision is therefore three months.
25. (A) The provision specifies that "whoever refuses to sign any statement made by him, when required to sign that statement by a public servant legally competent... shall be punished". Therefore refusal in the stated circumstances constitutes the offence; nothing in the section conditions it on voluntariness, truth, or presence of court proceedings.
26. (A) The provision begins with 'being legally bound by an oath or affirmation to state the truth', so the legal binding arises from an oath or affirmation, not from a notice, contract, or summons.
27. (B) Section 181 applies when the false statement is made 'to any public servant or other person authorized by law to administer such oath or affirmation', so it is limited to those categories.
28. (C) The provision requires the false statement to be made 'touching that subject' to which the person was legally bound by oath or affirmation, so statements unrelated to that subject fall outside Section 181.
29. (B) The provision specifies "any information which he knows or believes to be false," so the accused must know or believe the information is false. Recklessness, negligence, or mere intent to defame are not the wording used in the text.
30. (C) The text speaks of "intending thereby to cause, or knowing it to be likely that he will thereby cause such public servant...", focusing on the informer's intention or knowledge of likelihood. It does not require as a textual element that the public servant actually use his lawful power or that a concrete injury must result.
31. (B) Section 183 punishes whoever "offers any resistance to the taking of any property by the lawful authority of any public servant, knowing or having reason to believe that he is such public servant." The provision therefore requires knowledge or having reason to believe the taker is a public servant as the mental element.
32. (C) Section 183 applies to resistance to "the taking of any property by the lawful authority of any public servant." If the taker is not a public servant acting with lawful authority, the elements of this section are not satisfied. Therefore the section does not apply in that situation.
33. (A) Section 183 expressly refers to resistance to the taking of property "by the lawful authority of any public servant." The requirement of "lawful authority" means the section does not apply where the public servant lacks lawful authority to take the property.
34. (C) The provision begins "Whoever intentionally obstructs...", so intention is the required mental element. The text does not make negligence, the offender's status as a public servant, or actual financial loss a requirement.
35. (D) The provision specifies punishment "with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to one month, or with fine which may extend to five hundred rupees, or with both." This exact formulation is the correct sentencing option.
36. (A) The provision states punishment with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to one month. Therefore the maximum term of imprisonment is one month under Section 185.
37. (B) The provision separately states that whoever 'bids for such property not intending to perform the obligations under which he lays himself by such bidding' shall be punished. Thus lack of intention to perform is an independent ground for punishment under Section 185.
38. (D) The provision begins with 'at any sale of property held by the lawful authority of a public servant, as such', indicating it applies where a public servant holds the sale by lawful authority in his official capacity. Sales outside that description are not covered by the text of Section 185.
39. (A) The section begins with the word 'Whoever voluntarily obstructs...', so voluntariness (a voluntary act) is expressly required by the provision.
40. (D) Section 186 prescribes punishment 'with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three months, or with fine which may extend to five hundred rupees, or with both', so all three listed options (imprisonment up to three months, fine up to Rs.500, or both) are permissible.
41. (B) The section states: "Whoever, being bound by law to render or furnish assistance to any public servant in the execution of his public duty, intentionally omits to give such assistance, shall be punished..." Thus an intentional omission when legally bound is the offence.
42. (C) The provision states that if assistance is demanded by a public servant legally competent to make such demand for specified purposes (including preventing the commission of an offence), the punishment is simple imprisonment which may extend to six months, or fine which may extend to Rs.500, or both.
43. (B) The provision conditions the enhanced punishment on the assistance being "demanded of him by a public servant legally competent to make such demand for the purposes of..." Therefore legal competence of the public servant is required in addition to the purpose for the higher penalty to apply.
44. (B) The section begins with 'Whoever, knowing that, by an order promulgated by a public servant... disobeys such direction...' — hence 'knowledge' of the direction is required. The provision therefore requires awareness (knowledge), not mere negligence or strict liability.
45. (D) The provision covers directions to 'take certain order with certain property in his possession or under his management.' If the property is not in his possession or under his management, the specific direction in the text does not pertain to him, so the statutory requirement is unmet and Section 188 would not apply on that basis.
46. (A) Section 189 penalises holding out any threat of injury to a public servant for the purpose of inducing him to do, or to forbear or delay to do, any act connected with the exercise of his public functions. The provision speaks specifically of threats to induce action or inaction connected with public functions, not defamation or physical obstruction.
47. (B) Section 189 requires the purpose of inducing the public servant to do or to forbear or delay to do an act ‘connected with the exercise of the public functions of such public servant.’ A threat to induce an act unconnected with those public functions therefore falls outside this provision.
48. (C) Section 189 requires a threat to a public servant or a person believed to be interested, and that it be for the purpose of inducing action/inaction connected with public functions; it also specifies punishment up to two years or fine or both. The provision does not require that the induced act itself be criminal or illegal.
49. (A) The section criminalises "whoever holds out any threat of injury... for the purpose of inducing that person to refrain or desist from making a legal application for protection against any injury to any public servant..."; causing actual injury or false statements are not elements here.
50. (C) The section penalises whoever "holds out any threat of injury... for the purpose of inducing" the person to refrain or desist, so a purpose or intention to induce the specified result is required.