संSamvidhan
Practice paper — IPC Chapter 14 — Offences Affecting The Public Health, Safety, Convenience, Decency And Morals
50 questions · answer key at the end · no time limit · 138 more on the site
samvidhan.co.in
1.Under Section 268 of the IPC, which of the following most accurately describes a 'public nuisance'?
- (A) An act or an illegal omission which causes any common injury, danger or annoyance to the public or to people in general who dwell or occupy property in the vicinity, or which must necessarily cause injury, obstruction, danger or annoyance to persons who may have occasion to use any public right.
- (B) Only an intentional act that causes property damage to a single person.
- (C) A private dispute between neighbours that does not affect others.
- (D) Any lawful act that causes temporary inconvenience to one person.
2.According to Section 268, must a public nuisance affect the whole public, or can it be limited in scope?
- (A) It must affect the entire population to qualify as public nuisance.
- (B) It can be limited to people in general who dwell or occupy property in the vicinity.
- (C) It applies only to persons who actually use a public right, not to nearby residents.
- (D) It applies only when government property or officials are affected.
3.What is the maximum term of imprisonment that Section 269 of the Indian Penal Code prescribes for doing an act likely to spread infection of a disease dangerous to life?
- (A) Three months
- (B) Six months
- (C) One year
- (D) Two years
4.Which of the following correctly states what the accused must know or have reason to believe under Section 269?
- (A) He need only know the act is unlawful, not its effects.
- (B) He must merely be negligent; no belief about the likelihood is required.
- (C) He must know that the act is unlawful or intentional to spread disease.
- (D) He must know or have reason to believe that the act is likely to spread the infection of a disease dangerous to life.
5.Which mental state does Section 270 IPC expressly require for liability?
- (A) Intention to cause harm only
- (B) Knowledge or having reason to believe
- (C) Mere negligence
- (D) Strict liability (no mental element required)
6.If a person 'malignantly does an act' but genuinely does not know and has no reason to believe it is likely to spread infection, can they be punished under Section 270 IPC?
- (A) No — the provision requires that he "knows or has reason to believe" the act is likely to spread infection
- (B) Yes — malignantly doing the act alone is sufficient
- (C) Only if the act actually results in spread of the disease
- (D) Only if there is intent to kill or cause grievous harm
7.Which mental element is expressly required by Section 271 IPC for the offence of disobeying a quarantine rule?
- (A) Strict liability (no mental element required)
- (B) Negligence
- (C) Knowledge (the person must knowingly disobey)
- (D) Recklessness
8.Does Section 271 IPC, on its face, apply to the knowing disobedience of a Government rule that requires an individual person (not a vessel) to be quarantined?
- (A) Yes, because all quarantine rules are covered
- (B) Yes, but only if the person is on a vessel
- (C) No, because the provision mentions rules for putting any vessel into quarantine or for regulating intercourse between places, not quarantining an individual
- (D) No, because quarantine of individuals is covered by another section of the IPC
9.A person adulterates a food article so as to make it noxious, but does not intend to sell it and is unaware it will be sold. Can they be convicted under Section 272 IPC?
- (A) Yes — adulteration making it noxious is sufficient for conviction.
- (B) No — Section 272 requires intention to sell or knowledge that it will likely be sold.
- (C) Yes — only actual sale is required, not intention or knowledge.
- (D) No — only consumption by another makes it an offence under Section 272.
10.Which statement best describes the sentencing options under Section 272 IPC?
- (A) Imprisonment up to six months only (simple imprisonment only).
- (B) Imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to six months, or a fine up to one thousand rupees, or both.
- (C) A mandatory fine of one thousand rupees plus imprisonment.
- (D) Life imprisonment for causing noxious food to be sold.
11.A shopkeeper unknowingly sells food that has become noxious but had no knowledge or reason to believe it was noxious. Under Section 273, is the shopkeeper punishable?
- (A) Yes — liability arises solely from selling a noxious article, regardless of knowledge
- (B) No — liability requires that the seller know or have reason to believe the article is noxious
- (C) Yes — if a reasonable person in the seller's place would have suspected spoilage, guilt is automatic
- (D) No — Section 273 applies only when food is intentionally poisoned
12.What act does Section 274 of the IPC punish?
- (A) Adulterating any drug or medical preparation so as to lessen efficacy, change its operation, or make it noxious, with intent or knowledge that it will be sold or used for a medicinal purpose
- (B) Manufacturing drugs without a licence
- (C) Selling expired medicines
- (D) Misbranding medicines by false labelling
13.If a substance is added to a medicine only to change its colour but it does not lessen efficacy, change operation, or make it noxious, is Section 274 attracted?
- (A) Yes, Section 274 is always attracted whenever any adulteration occurs
- (B) No, Section 274 applies only where the adulteration lessens efficacy, changes operation, or makes the preparation noxious
- (C) Yes, but only if the adulterated preparation is intended for sale
- (D) No, Section 274 applies only when the adulterated drug is actually sold
14.Under Section 275 IPC, what mental element must the accused have regarding the drug or medical preparation to attract punishment?
- (A) Intention to cause harm
- (B) Negligence in handling the drug
- (C) Knowledge that the drug is adulterated
- (D) Strict liability regardless of mental state
15.If a person, knowing that a drug is adulterated so as to lessen its efficacy, causes it to be used for medicinal purposes by a patient who does not know of the adulteration, is that person punishable under Section 275 IPC?
- (A) No — not punishable because the patient was unaware
- (B) Only punishable if the drug was issued from a dispensary as unadulterated
- (C) Yes — punishable, since the section explicitly covers causing it to be used by a person not knowing the adulteration
- (D) No — punishable only when the drug is sold or offered for sale
16.What is the maximum period of imprisonment provided by Section 276 of the IPC?
- (A) Three months
- (B) Six months
- (C) One year
- (D) Two years
17.If a person unknowingly sells a drug that turns out to be a different preparation than represented, does Section 276 of the IPC apply?
- (A) Yes — the offence is made out even without knowledge
- (B) No — the seller must act knowingly for the provision to apply
- (C) Yes — but only a fine can be imposed
- (D) No — only if the buyer is a medical practitioner
18.What is the maximum punishment prescribed by Section 277 IPC?
- (A) Imprisonment which may extend to six months, or fine which may extend to one thousand rupees, or both.
- (B) Imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three months, or fine which may extend to five hundred rupees, or both.
- (C) Fine which may extend to five hundred rupees only.
- (D) Imprisonment for life or fine.
19.If someone voluntarily adds a substance that renders public spring water unfit for a specialised industrial experiment but the water remains fit for its ordinary use, is that person punishable under Section 277 IPC?
- (A) No — the water must be rendered less fit for the purpose for which it is ordinarily used.
- (B) Yes — any voluntary act that reduces the water's fitness for any purpose is punishable.
- (C) Yes — voluntariness alone is sufficient even if ordinary use is unaffected.
- (D) No — Section 277 applies only if the contamination causes health problems.
20.Section 278 IPC protects which class of persons when the atmosphere is vitiated?
- (A) Only persons passing along a public way
- (B) Only persons carrying on business, not residents
- (C) Persons in general dwelling or carrying on business in the neighbourhood or passing along a public way
- (D) A specific named individual who complains of ill effects
21.Under Section 279 of the IPC, which of the following best describes the prohibited conduct?
- (A) Driving or riding on any public way in a manner that is rash or negligent and endangers human life or is likely to cause hurt or injury to any other person.
- (B) Driving or riding rashly anywhere, including private property, even if it does not endanger human life.
- (C) Any driving that results only in property damage, regardless of risk to persons.
- (D) Driving at high speed on a public way even when no one is endangered.
22.A person drives negligently on a public way but no one is actually hurt. Can Section 279 be attracted?
- (A) No — actual hurt or injury must occur before Section 279 applies.
- (B) Yes — but only if human life was actually endangered, not merely likely to be endangered.
- (C) Yes — the section covers driving so rash or negligent as to endanger human life, or to be likely to cause hurt or injury, so the likelihood alone can attract the offence.
- (D) No — the provision applies only when property is damaged.
23.Under Section 280 IPC (rash navigation of vessel), what is the maximum term of imprisonment that may be awarded?
- (A) Imprisonment for a term which may extend to six months
- (B) Imprisonment for a term which may extend to one year
- (C) Imprisonment for a term which may extend to three months
- (D) Imprisonment for a term which may extend to two years
24.A vessel is navigated negligently causing only property damage to another boat, with no danger to life and no likelihood of causing hurt. Is the conduct punishable under Section 280 IPC?
- (A) Yes — any negligent navigation causing damage is punishable
- (B) Yes — but only when the damaged property belongs to the government
- (C) Only if the property damage also endangered human life
- (D) No — the section requires endangering human life or being likely to cause hurt or injury to a person
25.What punishment does Section 281 prescribe for exhibiting a false light, mark or buoy as described?
- (A) Imprisonment for a term not exceeding three years.
- (B) Imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, or with fine, or with both.
- (C) Death penalty.
- (D) Only a fine (no imprisonment).
26.Which of the following best describes the meaning of 'imprisonment of either description' as used in Section 281 (in terms of available punishments under the section)?
- (A) Either simple imprisonment or rigorous imprisonment for a term which may extend to seven years, or with fine, or with both.
- (B) Only simple imprisonment up to seven years (rigorous imprisonment is excluded).
- (C) Mandatory life imprisonment.
- (D) Both imprisonment and fine must be imposed in every case.
27.What is the maximum monetary fine that Section 282 IPC authorises?
- (A) Rs. 500
- (B) Rs. 5,000
- (C) Rs. 1,000
- (D) Rs. 10,000
28.What is the maximum punishment prescribed by Section 283 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860?
- (A) Imprisonment for up to six months
- (B) Fine which may extend to two hundred rupees
- (C) Fine which may extend to five hundred rupees
- (D) Imprisonment or fine at the court’s discretion
29.Does Section 283 apply where the danger, obstruction or injury occurs on private premises rather than in a public way or public line of navigation?
- (A) Yes — it applies to public and private places alike
- (B) Only if the private premises are open to the public
- (C) Yes — but only when the owner is present
- (D) No — the provision requires the effect to be on a person in a public way or public line of navigation
30.Which of the following best describes a primary actus reus under Section 284 IPC?
- (A) Possessing any poisonous substance alone is sufficient to attract the section
- (B) Doing, with any poisonous substance, any act in a manner so rash or negligent as to endanger human life or likely to cause hurt or injury
- (C) Intentionally administering poison to cause death
- (D) Stealing a poisonous substance from another person
31.Which statement correctly captures the required mental states under Section 284 IPC for the act and omission limbs?
- (A) Both the act and omission limbs require an intention to cause hurt or endanger life
- (B) The act limb requires rashness or negligence, while the omission limb is triggered by either knowingly or negligently omitting to take sufficient precautions
- (C) Both limbs require that the accused "knowingly" acted with the poisonous substance
- (D) Any handling of a poisonous substance, regardless of manner or state of mind, is punishable under the section
32.Under Section 285, is actual hurt or injury required to constitute the offence?
- (A) Yes — actual hurt or injury must be caused
- (B) Yes — unless there was danger to property only
- (C) No — it is sufficient that the act 'endangers human life' or is 'likely to cause hurt or injury' even if no actual injury occurred
- (D) No — only property damage is required
33.Which of the following best describes conduct that constitutes an offence under Section 286 IPC?
- (A) Doing with any explosive substance any act so rashly or negligently as to endanger human life or be likely to cause hurt or injury to any other person.
- (B) Simple possession of an explosive substance without any negligent act.
- (C) Using an explosive substance lawfully for industrial or mining purposes.
- (D) Causing only damage to property with an explosive substance where no person is hurt.
34.If an act with an explosive substance causes only damage to property but does not endanger human life or cause hurt/injury to any person, does Section 286 IPC apply?
- (A) Yes, any dangerous act with explosives is covered regardless of harm to persons.
- (B) No, the section requires endangering human life or being likely to cause hurt or injury to any other person.
- (C) Yes, but only if the owner was negligent in storing the explosive.
- (D) No, unless the fine imposed exceeds one thousand rupees.
35.Under Section 287 IPC, which of the following acts is punishable?
- (A) Doing with any machinery any act so rashly or negligently as to endanger human life or to be likely to cause hurt or injury to any other person.
- (B) Intentionally damaging machinery to cause loss to the owner.
- (C) Causing only property damage by machinery without endangering human life.
- (D) Negligent speech endangering public morals.
36.Is it necessary under Section 287 IPC that actual hurt or injury must have occurred for an offence to be made out?
- (A) Yes — actual hurt or injury must have occurred.
- (B) No — doing an act that endangers human life or is likely to cause hurt or injury is sufficient.
- (C) Yes — the provision applies only where death has occurred.
- (D) No — only damage to machinery is required.
37.Under Section 288, when is a person punishable for conduct regarding a building?
- (A) Only if he knowingly omits safety measures
- (B) Only if he omits safety measures by accident without negligence
- (C) If he either knowingly or negligently omits to take sufficient measures
- (D) Only if the omission is intentional and results in death
38.Does Section 288 cover omission to guard against danger arising from falling tools or scaffolding used during demolition, rather than from the fall of the building or any part of it?
- (A) Yes, it covers any danger arising during pulling down or repairing
- (B) No, it is limited to guarding against danger from the fall of the building or any part thereof
- (C) Yes, it covers any source of danger to human life during repair or demolition
- (D) No, it applies only when the entire building collapses
39.Which mental states are specified in Section 289 IPC as sufficient to constitute the offence?
- (A) Intentionally only
- (B) Recklessly
- (C) Knowingly or negligently
- (D) Strict liability (no mental state required)
40.If a person neither knows nor is negligent in failing to take such order with an animal in his possession (a purely accidental omission), can he be punished under Section 289 IPC?
- (A) No, because the section requires the omission to be made knowingly or negligently.
- (B) Yes, because omission alone is sufficient (strict liability).
- (C) Yes, but only a fine (no imprisonment).
- (D) No, unless the animal actually causes grievous hurt.
41.If an act amounts to a public nuisance but is already punishable under another provision of the IPC, can Section 290 be applied?
- (A) Yes, Section 290 applies in addition to other provisions
- (B) Yes, but only to increase the fine up to Rs.200
- (C) No, Section 290 applies only 'in any case not otherwise punishable by this Code'
- (D) Only if the other provision prescribes a lighter punishment
42.What is the maximum term of imprisonment provided by Section 291 IPC for repeating or continuing a public nuisance after an injunction?
- (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) No imprisonment, only fine
43.If a person repeats a public nuisance but no injunction was ever issued by any public servant, can Section 291 IPC be applied?
- (A) Yes, because repetition of nuisance alone is sufficient
- (B) Yes, but only if the nuisance is continuous
- (C) No, because Section 291 requires that the person must have been enjoined by a lawful public servant
- (D) Only if a magistrate retrospectively issues an injunction
44.Under Section 292 IPC, when shall a book, pamphlet, paper, writing, drawing, painting, representation or figure be deemed to be obscene?
- (A) If it is lascivious or appeals to the prurient interest or its effect tends to deprave and corrupt persons likely to read, see or hear it
- (B) If it contains any sexual content irrespective of effect on readers
- (C) If it is printed or published without a publisher's licence
- (D) If it is critical of religion or government
45.Under Section 292 IPC, possession of an obscene object is an offence when:
- (A) The possessor advertises that the object can be procured from him
- (B) The object has been imported or exported irrespective of purpose
- (C) The possessor merely holds it privately for personal reading
- (D) He makes, reduces or has it in his possession for purposes of sale, hire, distribution, public exhibition or circulation
46.Which of the following acts is explicitly listed in Section 293 IPC as prohibited when directed at a person under twenty years?
- (A) Sells
- (B) Manufactures
- (C) Exports
- (D) Gives free of charge
47.For a second or subsequent conviction under Section 293 IPC, the maximum punishment is which of the following?
- (A) Imprisonment up to three years and fine up to two thousand rupees
- (B) Imprisonment up to three years and fine up to five thousand rupees
- (C) Imprisonment up to seven years and fine up to two thousand rupees
- (D) Imprisonment up to seven years and fine up to five thousand rupees
48.Which of the following is an essential element of the offence under Section 294 IPC as written in the provision?
- (A) The act must be obscene irrespective of whether it causes annoyance to others
- (B) The obscene act or words must be done ‘to the annoyance of others’
- (C) The offence requires a complaint by a public authority
- (D) The offence applies only when obscene material is distributed in writing
49.If a person utters an obscene song near a public park at a time when no other person is present or likely to be annoyed, is that conduct, under the provision's text alone, punishable under Section 294 IPC?
- (A) No — the provision requires the act or utterance to be 'to the annoyance of others', so absence of others means the element is not satisfied
- (B) Yes — location near a public place is sufficient regardless of whether anyone is annoyed
- (C) Yes — merely uttering obscene words near a public place is an offence under Section 294
- (D) No — Section 294 only penalises obscene acts, not utterances
50.If a person keeps an office for the purpose of drawing a lottery that has been authorised by the State Government, what is the position under Section 294A?
- (A) They are punishable under Section 294A but only with a fine.
- (B) They are punishable under Section 294A only with imprisonment.
- (C) They are not punishable under Section 294A.
- (D) They are punishable under Section 294A only if drawings actually take place.
Answer key
1. A2. B3. B4. D5. B6. A7. C8. C9. B10. B11. B12. A13. B14. C15. C16. B17. B18. B19. A20. C21. A22. C23. A24. D25. B26. A27. C28. B29. D30. B31. B32. C33. A34. B35. A36. B37. C38. B39. C40. A41. C42. A43. C44. A45. D46. A47. D48. B49. A50. C
Explanations
- 1. (A) Section 268 defines public nuisance as any act or illegal omission causing common injury, danger or annoyance to the public or people in the vicinity, or which must necessarily cause such effects for users of a public right. The provision's language matches the first option exactly.
- 2. (B) The provision covers 'the public or the people in general who dwell or occupy property in the vicinity,' showing that a nuisance need not affect the entire population and may be limited to those in the vicinity.
- 3. (B) Section 269 states punishment by "imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to six months, or with fine, or with both." Thus the maximum imprisonment specified is six months.
- 4. (D) The provision applies where the person "knows or has reason to believe" that the act is "likely to spread the infection of any disease dangerous to life." Thus the required mental element is knowledge or reason to believe about the act's likelihood of spreading such dangerous infection.
- 5. (B) The section applies to whoever "malignantly does any act which is, and which he knows or has reason to believe to be, likely to spread the infection...", so it expressly requires knowledge or having reason to believe.
- 6. (A) The section requires the act to be one which "he knows or has reason to believe to be, likely to spread the infection," so absence of knowledge or reason to believe means the textual requirement is not met.
- 7. (C) The section begins with "Whoever knowingly disobeys any rule..." showing that knowledge of the disobedience is required. The provision therefore requires that the person act knowingly.
- 8. (C) The text of Section 271 refers to rules "for putting any vessel into a state of quarantine" and "for regulating the intercourse between places where an infectious disease prevails and other places." It does not mention rules about quarantining an individual, so such a rule is not covered by the provision as worded.
- 9. (B) Section 272 requires the adulteration to be coupled with intending to sell the article as food or drink, or knowing it to be likely that it will be sold as food or drink. Without that intention or knowledge, the provision does not apply.
- 10. (B) The provision states punishment by 'imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to six months, or with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees, or with both.' Thus sentencing may be either description of imprisonment up to six months, or fine up to Rs.1000, or both.
- 11. (B) Section 273 requires that the article be sold as food/drink and that the seller be "knowing or having reason to believe that the same is noxious as food or drink." Thus, absent knowledge or reason to believe, the provision does not impose liability based on the physical state alone.
- 12. (A) Section 274 penalises whoever adulterates any drug or medical preparation in such a manner as to lessen efficacy, change its operation, or make it noxious, with the requisite intent or knowledge about sale/use for medicinal purposes. The provision’s text expressly defines adulteration and the required mental element.
- 13. (B) Section 274 applies where the adulteration is in such a manner as to lessen the efficacy, change the operation, or make the preparation noxious. Mere alteration of appearance without affecting efficacy/operation or making it noxious would not meet the section’s described mode of adulteration.
- 14. (C) The provision begins with "Whoever, knowing any drug or medical preparation to have been adulterated..." indicating that knowledge of the adulteration is required. Thus liability under s.275 depends on the accused knowing the drug is adulterated.
- 15. (C) Section 275 expressly includes the situation of one who "causes it to be used for medicinal purposes by any person not knowing of the adulteration." If the actor knows of the adulteration and causes such use, the section applies and punishment follows.
- 16. (B) The provision states punishment as "imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to six months." Thus the maximum imprisonment provided is six months.
- 17. (B) The provision requires that the act be done "knowingly" ("Whoever knowingly sells..."). Therefore, if the seller lacks the required knowledge, the offence under this section is not made out.
- 18. (B) The provision states the offender "shall be punished 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." Thus the maximums are three months' imprisonment and Rs. 500 fine, or both.
- 19. (A) Section 277 criminalises voluntarily corrupting water "so as to render it less fit for the purpose for which it is ordinarily used." If the water remains fit for its ordinary use and only becomes unfit for an unusual or specialised purpose, the element in the text is not satisfied.
- 20. (C) The provision protects "persons in general dwelling or carrying on business in the neighbourhood or passing along a public way." It refers to persons in general in those situations rather than only a single complainant or only one category.
- 21. (A) Section 279 makes it an offence to drive or ride on any public way in a manner so rash or negligent as to endanger human life, or to be likely to cause hurt or injury to any other person. The provision therefore targets rash or negligent driving on a public way that endangers life or is likely to cause hurt or injury.
- 22. (C) Section 279 criminalises driving in a manner so rash or negligent as to endanger human life, or to be likely to cause hurt or injury. The text expressly includes the phrase 'to be likely to cause hurt or injury', so actual hurt is not a prerequisite.
- 23. (A) The provision states punishment as "imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to six months." Thus the maximum term of imprisonment under Section 280 is six months.
- 24. (D) Section 280 targets navigation "so rash or negligent to endanger human life, or to be likely to cause hurt or injury to any other person." Pure property damage without endangering life or likelihood of hurt falls outside this description.
- 25. (B) The provision states the offender 'shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, or with fine, or with both.' Thus the maximum term is seven years and the punishment may include fine or both fine and imprisonment.
- 26. (A) Section 281 prescribes 'imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, or with fine, or with both.' This indicates the provision contemplates either form of imprisonment (simple or rigorous) up to seven years, and alternatively a fine or both punishments.
- 27. (C) Section 282 prescribes a fine "which may extend to one thousand rupees." Therefore the maximum fine authorised is Rs. 1,000.
- 28. (B) Section 283 states that the offender 'shall be punished, with fine which may extend to two hundred rupees.' The provision specifies only a fine and fixes the maximum at two hundred rupees.
- 29. (D) The provision specifically requires that the danger, obstruction or injury be to 'any person in any public way or public line of navigation.' Therefore, effects confined to purely private premises fall outside the literal terms of Section 283.
- 30. (B) Section 284 penalises whoever "does, with any poisonous substance, any act in a manner so rash or negligent as to endanger human life, or to be likely to cause hurt or injury to any person." Mere possession, intentional poisoning to cause death, or theft are not the textual elements of this section.
- 31. (B) The provision treats positive acts as those done "in a manner so rash or negligent," while the omission limb refers to one who "knowingly or negligently omits to take such order... as is sufficient to guard against probable danger." Therefore acts require rashness or negligence; omissions may be either knowing or negligent.
- 32. (C) The provision penalises acts done 'so rashly or negligently as to endanger human life, or to be likely to cause hurt or injury to any other person', which means actual hurt need not occur; endangerment or likelihood is enough. The section does not make property damage alone sufficient.
- 33. (A) The provision states that whoever does with any explosive substance any act so rashly or negligently as to endanger human life, or be likely to cause hurt or injury to any other person, commits the offence. Mere possession or lawful use, or property-only damage, are not described as the offence in the section.
- 34. (B) Section 286 applies where an act with an explosive substance endangers human life or is likely to cause hurt or injury to any other person. Damage only to property without endangering life or causing likely hurt/injury is not covered by the section as stated.
- 35. (A) The provision punishes whoever does, with any machinery, any act so rashly or negligently as to endanger human life or be likely to cause hurt or injury to any other person. The other options do not match the text, which focuses on rash/negligent acts with machinery endangering life or likely to cause hurt.
- 36. (B) The provision punishes doing any act with machinery so rashly or negligently as to endanger human life or to be likely to cause hurt or injury; it does not require that actual hurt or injury has already occurred. The text focuses on endangerment or likelihood, not only actual injury.
- 37. (C) The provision states 'knowingly or negligently omits to take such order...' indicating liability arises whether the omission is knowing or negligent. It does not require intention coupled with actual death.
- 38. (B) The text requires omission 'to take such order with that building as is sufficient to guard against any probable danger to human life from the fall of that building, or of any part thereof.' It is therefore limited to danger from the fall of the building or parts, not generically to all dangers during work.
- 39. (C) Section 289 begins with 'Whoever knowingly or negligently omits...' — the provision therefore requires either a knowing or negligent omission. Other mental states or strict liability are not what the text specifies.
- 40. (A) Section 289 penalises whoever 'knowingly or negligently omits' to take such order; thus a purely accidental omission without knowledge or negligence does not meet the mental-state requirement. The provision requires knowing or negligent omission for punishment.
- 41. (C) The text of Section 290 limits its application to cases 'not otherwise punishable by this Code.' Therefore, if the act is already punishable under another provision of the IPC, Section 290 does not apply.
- 42. (A) Section 291 states that the offender "shall be punished with simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to six months, or with fine, or with both." Thus the maximum term under this section is simple imprisonment up to six months, with fine as an alternative or in addition.
- 43. (C) Section 291 specifically requires that the offender acted "having been enjoined by any public servant who has lawful authority to issue such injunction." If no such injunction was issued, the condition in the provision is not met and Section 291 cannot apply.
- 44. (A) The provision defines obscene as where it is lascivious or appeals to the prurient interest or its effect (or effect of any one item) is such as to tend to deprave and corrupt persons likely to read, see or hear it. Other options are not in the statutory definition.
- 45. (D) The section criminalises making, reducing or having possession of an obscene object for the purposes of sale, hire, distribution, public exhibition or circulation. Mere private possession is not described in this clause; advertising and import/export are separate clauses.
- 46. (A) Section 293 expressly lists "sells, lets to hire, distributes, exhibits or circulates" as prohibited acts. "Sells" is therefore explicitly included by the provision.
- 47. (D) The provision states that on a second or subsequent conviction the offender shall have "imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and also with fine which may extend to five thousand rupees."
- 48. (B) The provision begins with the qualifying phrase 'Whoever, to the annoyance of others:' indicating that the obscene act or utterance must be committed to the annoyance of others. The text does not require a complaint or written distribution.
- 49. (A) Section 294 IPC qualifies the prohibited conduct with 'to the annoyance of others', so the offence requires annoyance of others. If no others are present and no annoyance occurs, the textual requirement is not met. The provision also expressly includes 'sings, recites or utters' in or near a public place, but only when it is to the annoyance of others.
- 50. (C) Section 294A applies to lotteries 'not being a State lottery or a lottery authorised by the State Government.' If the lottery is authorised by the State Government, it is excluded from the offence under this section, so Section 294A does not apply.