1
Question
Mr. Mishra refused to provide a sample even after the police told him they might take action against him under Section 51 of the DMA. In the greater interest of obtaining a sample so as to ensure there was no outbreak in Mr. Mishra’s neighbourhood, the police decided to speak with him again, and this time, they told him that they would also file a case against him under Section 188 of the IPC (in addition to a case under Section 51 of the DMA). Has Mr. Mishra violated both, Section 188 of the IPC, as well as Section 51of the DMA?
Mr. Mishra refused to provide a sample even after the police told him they might take action against him under Section 51 of the DMA. In the greater interest of obtaining a sample so as to ensure there was no outbreak in Mr. Mishra’s neighbourhood, the police decided to speak with him again, and this time, they told him that they would also file a case against him under Section 188 of the IPC (in addition to a case under Section 51 of the DMA). Has Mr. Mishra violated both, Section 188 of the IPC, as well as Section 51of the DMA?
Open in App
Solution
The correct option is C Yes, by refusing to provide a sample, Mr. Mishra had violated both, Section 51 of the DMA as well as Section 188 of the IPC.
The correct answer is (c) - yes, by refusing to provide a sample, Mr. Mishra had violated both, Section 51of the DMA as well as Section 188 of the IPC. The passage tells us that Section 188 of the IPC punishes anyone who disobeys the orders of a public servant. Since Mr. Mishra had refused to obey the orders of the medical workers, and indirectly, their superior, all of whom are public servants, Mr. Mishra had violated Section 188 of the IPC. As we have seen in the rationale for the answer to Question 1.2, he had also violated Section 51 of the DMA. Given this, option (d) cannot be the correct answer. While the statement in option (a) may be true, there is nothing in the information supplied to us in the passage to support it, and so, it cannot be the correct answer. Option (b) is wrong – Section 188 of the IPC punishes anyone who disobeys the orders of a public servant - it is not limited only to the wrongdoings of a public servant; therefore, option (b) cannot be the correct answer.
The correct answer is (c) - yes, by refusing to provide a sample, Mr. Mishra had violated both, Section 51of the DMA as well as Section 188 of the IPC. The passage tells us that Section 188 of the IPC punishes anyone who disobeys the orders of a public servant. Since Mr. Mishra had refused to obey the orders of the medical workers, and indirectly, their superior, all of whom are public servants, Mr. Mishra had violated Section 188 of the IPC. As we have seen in the rationale for the answer to Question 1.2, he had also violated Section 51 of the DMA. Given this, option (d) cannot be the correct answer. While the statement in option (a) may be true, there is nothing in the information supplied to us in the passage to support it, and so, it cannot be the correct answer. Option (b) is wrong – Section 188 of the IPC punishes anyone who disobeys the orders of a public servant - it is not limited only to the wrongdoings of a public servant; therefore, option (b) cannot be the correct answer.
Suggest Corrections
0
Join BYJU'S Learning Program
Explore more
Join BYJU'S Learning Program
