Bare Act Test - 4

Option (1) is incorrect: Section 113A of the Indian Evidence Act deals with presumption as to abetment of suicide by a married woman.
<span style="font-family:" arial;="" font-size:="" small;="">Option (2) is incorrect: Section 114A of the Indian Evidence Act deals with presumption as to absence of consent in certain prosecutions for rape.

Option (1) is incorrect: Section 145 of the Indian Evidence Act deals with cross-examination as to previous statements in writing.
Option (2) is incorrect: Section 159 of the Indian Evidence Act states provisions for refreshing memory.
<span style="font-family:" arial;="" font-size:="" small;="">Option (3) is correct: Section 165 of the Indian Evidence Act provides judge’s power to put questions or order production.
<span style="font-family:" arial;="" font-size:="" small;="">Option (4) is incorrect: Section 157 of the Indian Evidence Act states that the former statements of witness may be proved to corroborate later testimony as to same fact. 

Option (1) is incorrect: A judge is a public officer under Section 2(17) of the CPC.
Option (2) is incorrect: A person in service under the pay of government is a public officer under Section 2(17) of the CPC.
<span style="font-family:" arial;="" font-size:="" small;="">Option (3) is correct: The Sarpanch of a gram panchayat is not a public officer under Section 2(17) of the CPC.
<span style="font-family:" arial;="" font-size:="" small;="">Option (4) is incorrect. 

Option (1) is correct: Goodwill of a partnership business is the property of the partnership under Section 14.
Option (2) is incorrect: Section 13 of the Indian Partnership Act, 1932 deals with mutual rights and liabilities.
<span style="font-family:" arial;="" font-size:="" small;="">Option (3) is incorrect: Section 12 of the Indian Partnership Act, 1932 states the conduct of the business.
<span style="font-family:" arial;="" font-size:="" small;="">Option (4) is incorrect: Section 11 of the Indian Partnership Act, 1932 provides provisions related to determination of rights and duties of partners by contract between the partners.

Option (1) is correct: Section 460 of the Code of Criminal Procedure provides for irregularities which do not vitiate proceedings.
Option (2) is incorrect: Section 461 of the Code of Criminal Procedure provides for irregularities which vitiate proceedings.
Option (3) is incorrect: Section 462 of the Code of Criminal Procedure provides for proceedings in wrong place.
Option (4) is incorrect: Section 466 of the Code of Criminal Procedure states provisions for defect or error not to make attachment unlawful. 

Option (1) is incorrect: Section 39 of the Indian Partnership Act, 1932 talks about dissolution of a firm.
<span style="font-family:" arial;="" font-size:="" small;="">Option (2) is correct: Compulsory dissolution of a firm has been provided under Section 41 of the Indian Partnership Act, 1932.
<span style="font-family:" arial;="" font-size:="" small;="">Option (3) is incorrect: Section 40 of the Indian Partnership Act, 1932 talks about dissolution of a firm by agreement.
<span style="font-family:" arial;="" font-size:="" small;="">Option (4) is incorrect: Section 44 of the Indian Partnership Act, 1932 states provisions for dissolution of a firm by the court.<span style="font-family:" arial;="" font-size:="" small;="">
 

Option (1) is incorrect: No such provision under the Indian Penal Code.
<span style="font-family:" arial;="" font-size:="" small;="">Option (2) is incorrect: No such provision under the Indian Penal Code.
<span style="font-family:" arial;="" font-size:="" small;="">Option (3) is correct: Section 53 of Indian Penal Code provides five types of punishment.
<span style="font-family:" arial;="" font-size:="" small;="">Option (4) is incorrect: No such provision under the Indian Penal Code.<span style="font-family:" arial;="" font-size:="" small;="">
 

Option (1) is incorrect: Section 76 and 79 of the IPC provide the general exception of mistake of fact, not mistake of law.
<span style="font-family:" arial;="" font-size:="" small;="">Option (2) is correct: Section 76 and 79 of the IPC provide the general exception of mistake of fact.
<span style="font-family:" arial;="" font-size:="" small;="">Option (3) is incorrect: Section 76 and 79 of the IPC provide the general exception of mistake of fact, not mistake of law.
<span style="font-family:" arial;="" font-size:="" small;="">Option (4) is incorrect: Section 76 and 79 of the IPC provide the general exception of mistake of fact, not mistake of law.

Option (1) is incorrect: Section 76 of the IPC provides for acts done by a person bound, or by mistake of fact believing himself bound, by law.
<span style="font-family:" arial;="" font-size:="" small;="">Option (2) is correct: Section 78 of the IPC provides for act done pursuant to the judgment or order of the court.
<span style="font-family:" arial;="" font-size:="" small;="">Option (3) is incorrect: Section 77 of the IPC provides for act of judge when acting judicially.
<span style="font-family:" arial;="" font-size:="" small;="">Option (4) is incorrect: Section 80 of the IPC provides for accident in doing a lawful act.<span style="font-family:" arial;="" font-size:="" small;="">
 

Option (1) is incorrect: Section 511 deals with the provisions for attempt of those offences of which no specific provisions has been laid down in the IPC. So, attempt to riot falls under Section 511.
Option (2) is correct: Section 511 of the IPC does not apply in the case of attempt to murder. 
Option (3) is incorrect: Section 511 of the IPC deals with the provisions for attempt of those offences of which no specific provisions has been laid down in the IPC. So, attempt to theft falls under Section 511.
Option (4) is incorrect: Section 511 of the IPC deals with the provisions for attempt of those offences of which no specific provisions has been laid down in the IPC. So, attempt to affray falls under Section 511. 

Option (1) is incorrect: Section 29 of the Indian Evidence Act provides for confession otherwise relevant not to become irrelevant because of promise of secrecy, etc.
<span style="font-family:" arial;="" font-size:="" small;="">Option (2) is correct: Section 26 of the Indian Evidence Act states no confession made by any person whilst he is in the custody of a police officer, unless it be made in the immediate presence of a magistrate, shall be proved as against such person.
Option (3) is incorrect: Section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act provides confession to police officer not to be proved as against a person accused of any offence.
<span style="font-family:" arial;="" font-size:="" small;="">Option (4) is incorrect: Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act states about how much of information received from accused may be proved.

Option (1) is incorrect: Person in wrongful possession of such property.
Option (2) is correct: As per Section 2(12) of the CPC, 'mesne profits' of property means are those profits received by a person in wrongful possession of such property.
Option (3) is incorrect: Person in wrongful possession of such property.
Option (4) is incorrect: Person in wrongful possession of such property.

Option (1) is incorrect: Section 34 of the IPC doesn’t create a substantive offence.
<span style="font-family:" arial;="" font-size:="" small;="">Option (2) is correct: Section 34 of the IPC is a rule of evidence. It is read along with alleged Sections.
<span style="font-family:" arial;="" font-size:="" small;="">Option (3) is incorrect: Only option (2) is the correct answer.
<span style="font-family:" arial;="" font-size:="" small;="">Option (4) is incorrect: Only option (2) is the correct answer. 

Option (1) is incorrect: No such provision of Rs. 2000
<span style="font-family:" arial;="" font-size:="" small;="">Option (2) is incorrect: No such provision of Rs. 3000
<span style="font-family:" arial;="" font-size:="" small;="">Option (3) is incorrect: No such provision of Rs. 1000
<span style="font-family:" arial;="" font-size:="" small;="">Option (4) is correct: Under Section 32 of the CPC, the maximum fine which can be imposed by the court for compelling the attendance of any person to whom a summons has been issued under Section 30 is Rs. 5000.

Option (1) is incorrect: No such provision under the CPC.
<span style="font-family:" arial;="" font-size:="" small;="">Option (2) is incorrect: No such provision under the CPC.
<span style="font-family:" arial;="" font-size:="" small;="">Option (3) is correct: Under Order V, Rule 1(1) of CPC, when a suit has been duly instituted, summons may be issued to the defendant to appear, answer the claim and to file the written statement of his defense, if any, within thirty day from the date of service of summons on that defendant.
<span style="font-family:" arial;="" font-size:="" small;="">Option (4) is incorrect: No such provision under the CPC.

Option (1) is correct: Chapter XXIA of the CrPC was incorporated in the year 2005.
<span style="font-family:" arial;="" font-size:="" small;="">Option (2) is incorrect: No such amendment was made in 2006.
<span style="font-family:" arial;="" font-size:="" small;="">Option (3) is incorrect: No such amendment was made in 2004.
<span style="font-family:" arial;="" font-size:="" small;="">Option (4) is incorrect: No such amendment was made in 2003.

Option (1) is incorrect: Under Section 89 of the CPC, the court can make a reference for arbitration, conciliation and mediation.
<span style="font-family:" arial;="" font-size:="" small;="">Option (2) is incorrect: Under Section 89 of the CPC, the court can make a reference for arbitration, conciliation and mediation.
<span style="font-family:" arial;="" font-size:="" small;="">Option (3) is correct: Under Section 89 of the CPC, the court cannot make a reference for negotiation.
<span style="font-family:" arial;="" font-size:="" small;="">Option (4) is incorrect: Under Section 89 of the CPC, the court can make a reference for arbitration, conciliation and mediation.

Option (1) is incorrect: No such provision of 270 days is there under Section 112 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872.
<span style="font-family:" arial;="" font-size:="" small;="">Option (2) is incorrect: No such provision of 275 days is there under Section 112 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872.
<span style="font-family:" arial;="" font-size:="" small;="">Option (3) is correct: Under Section 112 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, if a child is born within 280 days after the dissolution of a valid marriage, it is a conclusive proof of the legitimacy of the child.
<span style="font-family:" arial;="" font-size:="" small;="">Option (4) is incorrect: No such provision of 285 days is there under Section 112 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. 

Option (1) is incorrect: Section 69 of the Indian Contract Act deals with reimbursement of person paying money due by another, in payment of which he is interested.
Option (2) is incorrect: Section 70 of the Indian Contract Act deals with obligation of person enjoying benefit of non-gratuitous act.
Option (3) is correct: Under Section 71 of Indian Contract Act, a person who finds goods belonging to another and takes them into his custody, is subject to the same responsibility as a bailee.
Option (4) is incorrect: Section 72 of the Indian Contract Act deals with liability of person to whom money is paid, or thing delivered, by mistake or under coercion.