CLAT LLB SELF STUDY KIT 2012

500
LEGAL REASONING
PROBLEMS AND ANSWERS WITH EXPLANATION
CIVIL CRIMINAL TORT CONTRACT CONSTITUTION

www.lawexam.in clatkit@gmail.com 09847155223

www.lawexams.in

Page 1

PRINCIPLE: Whoever, intending to take dishonestly any movable property out of the possession of any person without that persons consent, moves that property in order to such taking, is said to commit theft. [NLUO 2009]

FACTS: Mr. Mehra and Mr. Santo were cadets on training in the Indian Air
Force Academy at Jodhpur. Santo had been discharged from the Academy on the grounds of misconduct. Mehra was a cadet receiving training as a navigator and was due for a flight in a Dakota as part of his training. However, on the scheduled day, Mehra along with Santo took off, not in a Dakota, but a Harvard HT 822, before the prescribed time, without authorization, and without observing any of the formalities which were prerequisites for an air-craft flight. They landed at a place in Pakistan about 100 miles away from the Indo Pak border. Both of them were sent back to Delhi and arrested enroute in Jodhpur and prosecuted and convicted for theft.

SOLUTIONS a) It was not a theft because there was an implied consent to the moving of the aircrafts as the accused was a cadet who, in the normal course, would be allowed to fly an aircraft for purposes of training.

www.lawexams.in

Page 2

b)

It was a theft, because taking out of the aircraft in the present case had no relation to any such training.

c)

It cannot be labeled as theft because there was no proof in this case of any dishonest intention, which is an essential element of the theft.

d)

None of the above.

Ans.(b)

EXPLANATION In the present case there can be no doubt that the taking out of the Harvard aircraft by the accused for the unauthorized flight has in fact given him the temporary use of the aircraft, for his own purpose and has temporarily deprived the owner of the aircraft, viz the Government, of its legitimate use for its purposes , i. e. the use of this Harvard aircraft for the Indian Air Force Squadron that day. Such use being unauthorised and against all the regulations of air craft flying, was clearly a gain or loss by unlawful means [Question based on the leading case K.N.Mehra Vs State of Rajasthan ; AIR 1957 SC 369]

www.lawexams.in

Page 3

Principle: In a case where negligence or rashness is the cause of death and nothing more, Section 304A of Indian Penal Code (IPC) may be attracted but where the rash or negligent act is preceded with the knowledge that such act is likely to cause death, Section 304 Part II Indian Penal Code may be attracted and if such a rash and negligent act is preceded by real intention on the part of the wrong doer to cause death, offence may be punishable under Section 302 Indian Penal Code. FACTS: The repair and construction work of the Carter Road, Bandra (West) was being carried out by New India Construction Company. The labourers were engaged by the construction company for executing the works. The temporary sheds (huts) were put up for the residence of labourers on the pavement. In the night of November 11, 2006 and November 12, 2006, the labourers were asleep in front of their huts on the pavement. Between 3.45 to 4.00 a.m., that night, Mr. Alister Anthony Pareira while driving the car (corolla) bearing Registration
No.

MH-01-R-580

rashly

and

negligently with knowledge that people were asleep on footpath rammed the car over the pavement; caused death of seven persons and injuries to eight persons. At the time of incident, he was found to have consumed alcohol. A liquor bottle was recovered from the appellant's car. On his medical examination, he was found to have

www.lawexams.in

Page 4

0.112% w/v liquor (ethyl alcohol) in his blood. He was fully familiar with the area being the resident of Carter Road. SOLUTIONS (a) Mr. Alister Anthony Pareira is liable to be punished under 304A of IPC since he caused death by rash and negligent driving (b) Mr. Alister Anthony Pareira is liable to be punished under 304-Part II of IPC since he caused death by driving rashly and negligently with knowledge that people were asleep on footpath rammed the car over the pavement (c) Mr. Alister Anthony Pareira is liable to be punished under 302 of IPC since he caused death with the intention of causing death (d) None of the above.

www.lawexams.in

Page 5