Question:medium

Principle: Willful rash driving is an offense.

Facts: Mr. Tiwari was driving his car after drinking alcohol. Police books him for willful negligent driving. Is the act of the police lawful?

Show Hint

The Principle punishes only willful rash driving. Check whether the facts show rashness at all, and whether the charge the police framed matches the offence the Principle creates.
Updated On: Jul 17, 2026
  • No, because Mr. Tiwari was not driving rashly; he was drunk while driving.
  • No, this is not a negligent act.
  • Yes, because Mr. Tiwari was driving rashly.
  • Yes, because the police has the power to arrest a person driving rashly.
Show Solution

The Correct Option is A

Solution and Explanation

The Principle here is one short line, and its shortness is the whole test. It makes willful rash driving an offence and stops there. It does not mention alcohol, and it does not mention negligence. In a principle question, whatever the Principle leaves out simply is not part of the law for that question, no matter how strongly common sense pulls the other way.

Now look at what the facts actually give you. They say Mr. Tiwari was driving after drinking. That is all. There is no speeding, no dangerous overtaking, no signal jumping, nothing that shows he took a known risk on the road. Then look at what the police charged him with, willful negligent driving. That charge is not the offence the Principle created. So the police have booked a man for something the Principle does not cover, on facts that do not establish the one thing it does cover. The booking cannot be lawful.

  1. No, because Mr. Tiwari was not driving rashly; he was drunk while driving: This names both defects at once. The conduct proved is drinking and driving, and the conduct the Principle punishes is rash driving. The two do not meet, so the police action fails.
  2. No, this is not a negligent act: The conclusion is right but the reasoning goes to the wrong idea. Negligence is not what the Principle asks about, so proving or disproving negligence decides nothing here.
  3. Yes, because Mr. Tiwari was driving rashly: Simply not in the facts. Nowhere are we told he drove rashly. Reading rashness into drinking is an assumption, and principle questions do not allow added facts.
  4. Yes, because the police has the power to arrest a person driving rashly: Two problems. It assumes the rashness that the facts never state, and it brings in powers of arrest, a subject the Principle says nothing about.

Let's summarize:

  • The Principle creates one offence only, willful rash driving.
  • Rash and negligent are different ideas, and the Principle picks rash.
  • The facts prove drinking and driving, not rash driving.
  • Real world knowledge that drunk driving is punishable must be set aside here.

The police act is not lawful, so option (A) is correct.

Was this answer helpful?
0

Top Questions on Criminal Law

Questions Asked in CLAT exam

Read the passage and answer the question.

Passage (extract): The work which Gandhiji had taken up was not only regarding the achievement of political freedom but also the establishment of a new social order based on truth and non-violence, unity and peace, equality and universal brotherhood and maximum freedom for all. A new order cannot be established without radically changing the mind and attitude of men towards property and, at some stage or the other, the 'haves' have to yield place to the 'have-nots'. We have seen, in our time, attempts to achieve a kind of egalitarian society and the picture of it after it was achieved. But this was done, by and large, through the use of physical force. It may even be that, like a gas kept confined within containers under great pressure, or water held back by a big dam, once the barrier breaks, the reaction will one day sweep back with a violence equal in extent and intensity to what was used to establish and maintain the outward egalitarian form. This enforced egalitarianism contains, in its bosom, the seed of its own destruction. If egalitarianism is to endure, it has to be based not on the possession of the maximum material goods by a few or by all but on voluntary, enlightened renunciation of those goods which cannot be shared by others or can be enjoyed only at the expense of others.

According to the passage, egalitarianism will not survive if
View Solution
Read the passage and answer the question.

Passage (extract): The work which Gandhiji had taken up was not only regarding the achievement of political freedom but also the establishment of a new social order based on truth and non-violence, unity and peace, equality and universal brotherhood and maximum freedom for all. This unfinished part of his experiment was perhaps even more difficult to achieve than the achievement of political freedom. In the political struggle, the fight was against a foreign power and all one could do was either join it or wish it success and give it his/her moral support. In establishing a social order on this pattern, there was a strong possibility of a conflict arising between diverse groups and classes of our own people.

According to the passage, which was the unfinished part of Gandhi's experiment?
View Solution
Read the passage and answer the question.

Passage (extract): In the political struggle, the fight was against a foreign power and all one could do was either join it or wish it success and give it his/her moral support. Experience shows that man values his possessions even more than his life because in the former he sees the means for perpetuation and survival of his descendants even after his body is reduced to ashes. We have seen, in our time, attempts to achieve a kind of egalitarian society and the picture of it after it was achieved. But this was done, by and large, through the use of physical force. This enforced egalitarianism contains, in its bosom, the seed of its own destruction. The root cause of class conflict is possessiveness or the acquisitive instinct.

Which of the following statements is 'not true' in the context of the passage?
View Solution