CLAT PG question bank

Criminal Law (BNS 2023) MCQs for CLAT PG, Page 2

CLAT PG Criminal Law (BNS 2023) questions 22-42 of 85, with answer keys and explanations covering general exceptions, homicide, offences against property, women, the State, public order, and the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita.

85 questions17 topics22-42 on this page
Start adaptive practiceBrowse CLAT PG

Coverage

Topics in this subject

Revise core LLB subjects through CLAT PG MCQs, passage-led questions, answer keys, explanations, statutes, and exam-oriented legal principles.

  • Abetment, Common Intention and Joint Liability5
  • Criminal Conspiracy under BNS 20235
  • Criminal Law Reform: Constitutional Rights, DK Basu, and BNSS 20235
  • Dacoity, Robbery, and Organised Crime under BNS 20235
  • Death Penalty - Rarest of Rare Doctrine and Mitigating Circumstances5
  • General Exception: Unsoundness of Mind (Section 22 BNS)5
  • Introduction to BNS 2023 and Key Changes from IPC5
  • Kidnapping and Abduction under BNS 20235
  • Mens Rea and Strict Liability in Criminal Law5
  • Murder and Culpable Homicide: The Distinction5
  • New BNS Offences: Section 69 and Section 103(2) - Deceitful Sex and Mob Lynching5
  • New Offences in BNS: Organised Crime, Mob Lynching, and Terrorism5
  • Rape Law and Section 63 BNS: Consent and the IPC to BNS Evolution5
  • Right of Private Defence under BNS 20235
  • Section 63 BNS: Rape and Consent5
  • Theft and Property Offences under BNS 20235
  • Wrongful Restraint, Confinement and Kidnapping5
Passage or principleBNS 2023 Sections 34-44 / Deo Narain v. State of UP / James Martin v. State of Kerala

The right of private defence under Sections 34 to 44 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (corresponding to Sections 96 to 106 of the Indian Penal Code) is a codified right permitting individuals to protect themselves, their family members, and their property from unlawful aggression without recourse to public authorities, where such recourse is not possible. The right arises when there is a reasonable apprehension of an attack; it does not require an actual attack to have occurred, but the apprehension must be reasonable and objectively grounded, not merely a subjective fear or suspicion. Section 36 BNS places important limitations on the right: it is not available where there is time to seek the protection of public authorities, and it cannot be exercised against acts of public servants acting in good faith under colour of their office, even if those acts are not strictly legal. The right is defensive and not retributive; as the Supreme Court observed in James Martin v. State of Kerala (2004) 2 SCC 203, the right of private defence is not a licence to kill or to inflict punishment. In Deo Narain v. State of UP (AIR 1973 SC 473), the Court held that the force used in exercising the right must be proportionate to the threat apprehended and no more than is necessary for the purpose of defence. The right ceases when the danger has passed; force continued after the danger has ended is retaliation, not private defence. Section 37 BNS extends the right to causing death only in the specific circumstances listed therein, including reasonable apprehension of death, grievous hurt, rape, kidnapping, or acid attack.

Question 22MediumRight of Private Defence under BNS 2023

Section 36 BNS limits the right of private defence in which circumstances?

  1. A

    Only when the threat comes from a government building

  2. B

    Where there is time to seek protection of public authorities, and against acts of public servants acting in good faith under colour of their office

  3. C

    Only in cases involving property, not bodily harm

  4. D

    Only when the accused has previously committed an offence

View answer and explanation

Correct answer: B. Where there is time to seek protection of public authorities, and against acts of public servants acting in good faith under colour of their office

The passage states: 'Section 36 BNS...is not available where there is time to seek the protection of public authorities, and it cannot be exercised against acts of public servants acting in good faith under colour of their office.'

Source note: BNS 2023 Sections 34-44 / Deo Narain v. State of UP / James Martin v. State of Kerala

Question 23MediumRight of Private Defence under BNS 2023

In James Martin v. State of Kerala (2004), the Supreme Court described the right of private defence as:

  1. A

    An absolute right to use maximum force against any aggressor

  2. B

    Not a licence to kill or inflict punishment; it is a defensive right, not a retributive one

  3. C

    Available only in cases of imminent death threat

  4. D

    Equivalent to the right of pre-emptive self-defence

View answer and explanation

Correct answer: B. Not a licence to kill or inflict punishment; it is a defensive right, not a retributive one

The passage states: 'as the Supreme Court observed in James Martin v. State of Kerala (2004)...the right of private defence is not a licence to kill or to inflict punishment.'

Source note: BNS 2023 Sections 34-44 / Deo Narain v. State of UP / James Martin v. State of Kerala

Question 24HardRight of Private Defence under BNS 2023

The principle from Deo Narain v. State of UP regarding proportionality of force in private defence is that:

  1. A

    Maximum force is always justified when facing any threat

  2. B

    The force must be proportionate, defensive, and no more than necessary.

  3. C

    Force is justified only if the opponent uses a weapon first

  4. D

    Once the right is exercised, any consequential harm is justified

View answer and explanation

Correct answer: B. The force must be proportionate, defensive, and no more than necessary.

The passage states: 'the Court held that the force used in exercising the right must be proportionate to the threat apprehended and no more than is necessary for the purpose of defence.'

Source note: BNS 2023 Sections 34-44 / Deo Narain v. State of UP / James Martin v. State of Kerala

Question 25HardRight of Private Defence under BNS 2023

According to the passage, Section 37 BNS extends the right of private defence to causing death only in specific circumstances. Which of the following is listed in the passage as one of those circumstances?

  1. A

    Theft of valuable property

  2. B

    Reasonable apprehension of death, grievous hurt, rape, kidnapping, or acid attack

  3. C

    Unlawful trespass on residential property

  4. D

    Any form of criminal assault

View answer and explanation

Correct answer: B. Reasonable apprehension of death, grievous hurt, rape, kidnapping, or acid attack

The passage states: 'Section 37 BNS extends the right to causing death only in the specific circumstances listed therein, including reasonable apprehension of death, grievous hurt, rape, kidnapping, or acid attack.'

Source note: BNS 2023 Sections 34-44 / Deo Narain v. State of UP / James Martin v. State of Kerala

Passage or principleBNS 2023 Section 61 / State of Tamil Nadu v. Nalini (AIR 1999 SC)

Section 61 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, corresponding to Section 120A of the Indian Penal Code, defines criminal conspiracy as an agreement between two or more persons to do an illegal act or a legal act by illegal means. The offence is complete the moment the agreement is formed; no overt act is required to be proved when the object of the conspiracy is itself an offence. However, when the conspiracy is to do a legal act by illegal means, some act in furtherance of the agreement must be done by at least one party. The Supreme Court in State of Tamil Nadu v. Nalini and 25 others (AIR 1999 SC 2649), arising from the assassination of former Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi, extensively elaborated the principles governing criminal conspiracy. The Court held that a conspiracy can be established from circumstantial evidence; direct evidence of the agreement is rarely available. Conspirators do not need to know each other personally or know every detail of the plan; each must simply share the common unlawful object. Once a conspiracy is proved, all acts, words, and writings of any conspirator in execution of the common design are admissible against all other conspirators. The Court also articulated that membership in a conspiracy continues as long as the conspiracy is active and has not been abandoned by the individual. The Court recognised what may be called the hub-and-spoke model of conspiracy: the conspirators do not all have to be in direct contact with each other; it suffices that each is connected to a central figure or common plan.

Question 26EasyCriminal Conspiracy under BNS 2023

Under Section 61 BNS 2023, criminal conspiracy is defined as an agreement between two or more persons to do:

  1. A

    Only illegal acts involving violence

  2. B

    An illegal act or a legal act by illegal means

  3. C

    Only acts prohibited by law with imprisonment above 3 years

  4. D

    Any act that causes harm to another person

View answer and explanation

Correct answer: B. An illegal act or a legal act by illegal means

The passage states: 'criminal conspiracy as an agreement between two or more persons to do an illegal act or a legal act by illegal means.'

Source note: BNS 2023 Section 61 / State of Tamil Nadu v. Nalini (AIR 1999 SC)

Question 27MediumCriminal Conspiracy under BNS 2023

The passage states that for a conspiracy to commit an offence, when is the crime complete?

  1. A

    When an overt act is done in furtherance of the conspiracy

  2. B

    The moment the agreement is formed; no overt act is required when the object of the conspiracy is itself an offence

  3. C

    When the object of the conspiracy is partially achieved

  4. D

    When all conspirators have signed or expressed agreement to the plan

View answer and explanation

Correct answer: B. The moment the agreement is formed; no overt act is required when the object of the conspiracy is itself an offence

The passage states: 'The offence is complete the moment the agreement is formed; no overt act is required to be proved when the object of the conspiracy is itself an offence.'

Source note: BNS 2023 Section 61 / State of Tamil Nadu v. Nalini (AIR 1999 SC)

Question 28MediumCriminal Conspiracy under BNS 2023

In State of Tamil Nadu v. Nalini (AIR 1999 SC 2649), the Supreme Court held regarding proof of conspiracy that:

  1. A

    Only direct evidence of a formal agreement between all conspirators is admissible

  2. B

    A conspiracy can be established from circumstantial evidence; direct evidence of the agreement is rarely available

  3. C

    Each conspirator must personally commit an act in furtherance of the conspiracy

  4. D

    Conspiracy can only be proved by confessions of all the accused

View answer and explanation

Correct answer: B. A conspiracy can be established from circumstantial evidence; direct evidence of the agreement is rarely available

The passage states: 'The Court held that a conspiracy can be established from circumstantial evidence; direct evidence of the agreement is rarely available.'

Source note: BNS 2023 Section 61 / State of Tamil Nadu v. Nalini (AIR 1999 SC)

Question 29HardCriminal Conspiracy under BNS 2023

The 'hub-and-spoke model' of conspiracy recognised in Nalini means:

  1. A

    All conspirators must physically meet at a central location

  2. B

    The conspirators do not all have to be in direct contact with each other; it suffices that each is connected to a central figure or common plan

  3. C

    Only the central organiser is liable for conspiracy

  4. D

    Each conspirator is independently liable without reference to others

View answer and explanation

Correct answer: B. The conspirators do not all have to be in direct contact with each other; it suffices that each is connected to a central figure or common plan

The passage states: 'The Court recognised what may be called the hub-and-spoke model of conspiracy: the conspirators do not all have to be in direct contact with each other; it suffices that each is connected to a central figure or common plan.'

Source note: BNS 2023 Section 61 / State of Tamil Nadu v. Nalini (AIR 1999 SC)

Question 30HardCriminal Conspiracy under BNS 2023

Once a conspiracy is proved, according to the passage, what is the evidentiary consequence for all conspirators?

  1. A

    Only acts directly witnessed by each conspirator are relevant against him

  2. B

    All acts, words, and writings of any conspirator in execution of the common design are admissible against all other conspirators

  3. C

    Each conspirator can only be convicted for acts he personally performed

  4. D

    Evidence shared between conspirators is protected by privilege

View answer and explanation

Correct answer: B. All acts, words, and writings of any conspirator in execution of the common design are admissible against all other conspirators

The passage states: 'Once a conspiracy is proved, all acts, words, and writings of any conspirator in execution of the common design are admissible against all other conspirators.'

Source note: BNS 2023 Section 61 / State of Tamil Nadu v. Nalini (AIR 1999 SC)

Passage or principleBNS 2023 Section 63 / State of Punjab v. Gurmit Singh / Independent Thought v. UOI

Section 63 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, corresponding to Section 375 of the Indian Penal Code as amended in 2013, defines rape as sexual intercourse or specific sexual acts committed against a woman without her consent or in the specified circumstances including consent obtained by fear, fraud, intoxication, unsoundness of mind, or the impersonation of her husband. The section retains two exceptions: the first exception excludes medical procedures conducted by medical professionals; the second exception provides that sexual intercourse with a wife who is not below eighteen years of age is not rape. The raising of the marital exception age from fifteen years (as in the original IPC) to eighteen years was directed by the Supreme Court in Independent Thought v. Union of India (2017) 10 SCC 800, where the Court held that the earlier exception violated constitutional guarantees of equality and the right to dignity. The issue of adult marital rape, where the wife is eighteen years or above, remains a subject of ongoing constitutional litigation. The Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita also introduces, separately in Section 69, a new offence of sexual intercourse by deceitful means, such as false promise of marriage, which applies to situations that may not satisfy the definition of rape but involve deceptive conduct. The Supreme Court in State of Punjab v. Gurmit Singh (1996) 2 SCC 384 held that the testimony of a rape survivor does not require corroboration as a matter of legal rule, and that prior sexual history of the survivor is irrelevant to the question of consent on the occasion in question.

Question 31EasySection 63 BNS: Rape and Consent

Section 63 BNS Exception 2 provides that sexual intercourse with a wife is not rape if:

  1. A

    The wife has not filed a complaint to the police

  2. B

    The wife is not below eighteen years of age

  3. C

    The wife consented in writing

  4. D

    The marriage is registered under law

View answer and explanation

Correct answer: B. The wife is not below eighteen years of age

The passage states: 'the second exception provides that sexual intercourse with a wife who is not below eighteen years of age is not rape.'

Source note: BNS 2023 Section 63 / State of Punjab v. Gurmit Singh / Independent Thought v. UOI

Question 32MediumSection 63 BNS: Rape and Consent

The Supreme Court in Independent Thought v. Union of India (2017) directed the change of the marital exception age from 15 to 18 years because:

  1. A

    Statistical data showed most girls marry at 18 in India

  2. B

    The earlier exception violated constitutional guarantees of equality and the right to dignity

  3. C

    Parliament had already amended the provision

  4. D

    International treaties required this change

View answer and explanation

Correct answer: B. The earlier exception violated constitutional guarantees of equality and the right to dignity

The passage states: 'the Court held that the earlier exception violated constitutional guarantees of equality and the right to dignity.'

Source note: BNS 2023 Section 63 / State of Punjab v. Gurmit Singh / Independent Thought v. UOI

Question 33MediumSection 63 BNS: Rape and Consent

Section 69 BNS, mentioned in the passage, creates a new offence for:

  1. A

    Sexual intercourse without any form of consent

  2. B

    Sexual intercourse by deceitful means such as false promise of marriage, which may not satisfy the definition of rape but involves deceptive conduct

  3. C

    Gang rape under specific circumstances

  4. D

    Voyeurism and stalking

View answer and explanation

Correct answer: B. Sexual intercourse by deceitful means such as false promise of marriage, which may not satisfy the definition of rape but involves deceptive conduct

The passage states: 'Section 69, a new offence of sexual intercourse by deceitful means, such as false promise of marriage, which applies to situations that may not satisfy the definition of rape but involve deceptive conduct.'

Source note: BNS 2023 Section 63 / State of Punjab v. Gurmit Singh / Independent Thought v. UOI

Question 34EasySection 63 BNS: Rape and Consent

In State of Punjab v. Gurmit Singh (1996), the Supreme Court held regarding the testimony of a rape survivor that:

  1. A

    Her testimony must always be corroborated by medical evidence

  2. B

    Her testimony does not require corroboration as a matter of legal rule

  3. C

    Her testimony is admissible only if given immediately after the offence

  4. D

    Her testimony must be supported by at least one independent witness

View answer and explanation

Correct answer: B. Her testimony does not require corroboration as a matter of legal rule

The passage states: 'the testimony of a rape survivor does not require corroboration as a matter of legal rule.'

Source note: BNS 2023 Section 63 / State of Punjab v. Gurmit Singh / Independent Thought v. UOI

Question 35HardSection 63 BNS: Rape and Consent

Regarding the issue of adult marital rape (wife above 18 years), the passage states that:

  1. A

    It has been made an offence under Section 63 BNS

  2. B

    It remains a subject of ongoing constitutional litigation; the current marital exception only prevents its classification as rape when the wife is 18 or above

  3. C

    It was decriminalised by the Supreme Court in 2017

  4. D

    It is covered under Section 85 BNS (cruelty by husband)

View answer and explanation

Correct answer: B. It remains a subject of ongoing constitutional litigation; the current marital exception only prevents its classification as rape when the wife is 18 or above

The passage states: 'The issue of adult marital rape, where the wife is eighteen years or above, remains a subject of ongoing constitutional litigation.'

Source note: BNS 2023 Section 63 / State of Punjab v. Gurmit Singh / Independent Thought v. UOI

Passage or principleBNS 2023 Sections 303, 308, 316, 318 / Pyare Lal Bhargava v. State of Rajasthan

The Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 carries forward the structure of property offences from the Indian Penal Code while incorporating important definitional changes. Section 303 BNS defines theft as dishonestly taking movable property out of another's possession without consent, the property being moved in order to effect that taking. The Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita broadens the definition of movable property in Section 2(21) to include property of any description, whether corporeal or incorporeal, thereby potentially extending theft to intangible assets such as intellectual property and data. The Supreme Court in Pyare Lal Bhargava v. State of Rajasthan (AIR 1963 SC 1094) held that even a temporary taking of property with dishonest intent constitutes theft; permanent deprivation is not a requirement. Section 316 BNS defines criminal breach of trust, the essential feature of which is entrustment: the property must first have been placed in the accused's possession through a relationship of trust, and the accused must then dishonestly misappropriate or convert it. Section 318 BNS defines cheating as inducing a person by deception to deliver property or do an act harmful to him. The deception must have caused the delivery; a mere false representation not inducing delivery does not complete the offence. Section 308 BNS defines extortion as inducing delivery of property by putting the victim in fear of injury. Unlike theft where the property is taken without consent, extortion extracts property through consent under duress.

Question 36EasyTheft and Property Offences under BNS 2023

The passage states that the BNS expands the definition of movable property in Section 2(21) BNS by:

  1. A

    Limiting movable property to items below Rs. 10,000 in value

  2. B

    Including property of any description whether corporeal or incorporeal, potentially covering intangible assets like intellectual property and data

  3. C

    Excluding electronic goods from the definition

  4. D

    Including immovable property in special circumstances

View answer and explanation

Correct answer: B. Including property of any description whether corporeal or incorporeal, potentially covering intangible assets like intellectual property and data

The passage states: 'Section 2(21) to include property of any description, whether corporeal or incorporeal, thereby potentially extending theft to intangible assets such as intellectual property and data.'

Source note: BNS 2023 Sections 303, 308, 316, 318 / Pyare Lal Bhargava v. State of Rajasthan

Question 37EasyTheft and Property Offences under BNS 2023

Under Pyare Lal Bhargava v. State of Rajasthan (AIR 1963 SC), the Supreme Court held that theft:

  1. A

    Requires permanent deprivation of property for completion

  2. B

    Even a temporary taking of property with dishonest intent constitutes theft; permanent deprivation is not required

  3. C

    Can only be charged when the property is not returned voluntarily

  4. D

    Requires that the accused has sold or transferred the property to a third party

View answer and explanation

Correct answer: B. Even a temporary taking of property with dishonest intent constitutes theft; permanent deprivation is not required

The passage states: 'even a temporary taking of property with dishonest intent constitutes theft; permanent deprivation is not a requirement.'

Source note: BNS 2023 Sections 303, 308, 316, 318 / Pyare Lal Bhargava v. State of Rajasthan

Question 38MediumTheft and Property Offences under BNS 2023

The essential feature that distinguishes criminal breach of trust (Section 316 BNS) from theft (Section 303 BNS), according to the passage, is:

  1. A

    The value of the property involved

  2. B

    Entrustment: in criminal breach of trust, the property must first have been placed in the accused's possession through a relationship of trust; in theft, the accused takes property without initial authorised possession

  3. C

    Whether the offence involves movable or immovable property

  4. D

    The mental state of the accused at the time of the offence

View answer and explanation

Correct answer: B. Entrustment: in criminal breach of trust, the property must first have been placed in the accused's possession through a relationship of trust; in theft, the accused takes property without initial authorised possession

The passage states: 'Section 316 BNS defines criminal breach of trust, the essential feature of which is entrustment: the property must first have been placed in the accused's possession through a relationship of trust.'

Source note: BNS 2023 Sections 303, 308, 316, 318 / Pyare Lal Bhargava v. State of Rajasthan

Question 39MediumTheft and Property Offences under BNS 2023

For the offence of cheating (Section 318 BNS) to be complete, what causal requirement does the passage identify?

  1. A

    The victim must have suffered actual financial loss

  2. B

    The deception must have caused the delivery; a mere false representation not inducing delivery does not complete the offence

  3. C

    The accused must have benefited more than the victim lost

  4. D

    The false representation must be in writing

View answer and explanation

Correct answer: B. The deception must have caused the delivery; a mere false representation not inducing delivery does not complete the offence

The passage states: 'The deception must have caused the delivery; a mere false representation not inducing delivery does not complete the offence.'

Source note: BNS 2023 Sections 303, 308, 316, 318 / Pyare Lal Bhargava v. State of Rajasthan

Question 40HardTheft and Property Offences under BNS 2023

The key distinction between theft and extortion described in the passage is:

  1. A

    Theft is a non-violent offence while extortion always involves physical violence

  2. B

    In theft, property is taken without consent; in extortion, property is extracted through consent obtained under duress (fear of injury)

  3. C

    Theft requires dishonest intent while extortion does not

  4. D

    Extortion applies only to large amounts while theft covers smaller amounts

View answer and explanation

Correct answer: B. In theft, property is taken without consent; in extortion, property is extracted through consent obtained under duress (fear of injury)

The passage states: 'Unlike theft where the property is taken without consent, extortion extracts property through consent under duress.'

Source note: BNS 2023 Sections 303, 308, 316, 318 / Pyare Lal Bhargava v. State of Rajasthan

Passage or principleBNS 2023 Sections 103(2), 111, 112, 113

The Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 introduces several new categories of offences that were absent from the Indian Penal Code or were dealt with under special statutes. Section 111 BNS defines organised crime as any continuing unlawful activity, including kidnapping, extortion, financial scams, cybercrime, and human trafficking, committed on behalf of a crime syndicate for individual or collective gain. A crime syndicate is defined as a group of two or more persons who, acting in concert, engage in continuing unlawful activity. Section 112 BNS creates the offence of petty organised crime for lower-level organised criminal activity such as pick-pocketing, ATM card fraud, and sale of counterfeit goods. Section 103(2) BNS specifically criminalises what has come to be known as mob lynching: the commission of murder by a group of five or more persons acting in concert on the basis of specified identity markers such as race, caste, community, sex, place of birth, language, or personal belief. This provision carries a minimum punishment of seven years imprisonment, extendable to life or death. Section 113 BNS creates the offence of terrorist act, defined as an act intended to threaten the unity, integrity, security, or economic security of India, or to strike terror among the people, by means including explosives, biological agents, or interference with critical infrastructure. Financing of terrorism is separately criminalised under Section 113(3). These provisions coexist with existing special legislation such as the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, which continues to govern terrorism prosecutions before specialised courts.

Question 41EasyNew Offences in BNS: Organised Crime, Mob Lynching, and Terrorism

Under Section 111 BNS, what constitutes a 'crime syndicate'?

  1. A

    Any group of more than five persons committing a single criminal act

  2. B

    A group of two or more persons who, acting in concert, engage in continuing unlawful activity

  3. C

    Only organised crime networks with a formal hierarchy

  4. D

    A syndicate registered as a company or partnership

View answer and explanation

Correct answer: B. A group of two or more persons who, acting in concert, engage in continuing unlawful activity

The passage states: 'A crime syndicate is defined as a group of two or more persons who, acting in concert, engage in continuing unlawful activity.'

Source note: BNS 2023 Sections 103(2), 111, 112, 113

Question 42EasyNew Offences in BNS: Organised Crime, Mob Lynching, and Terrorism

Section 103(2) BNS (mob lynching) applies when murder is committed by:

  1. A

    Any group of persons motivated by religious differences

  2. B

    A group of five or more persons acting in concert on the basis of specified identity markers such as race, caste, community, sex, place of birth, language, or personal belief

  3. C

    Any crowd gathered at a public place

  4. D

    Any two or more persons acting together

View answer and explanation

Correct answer: B. A group of five or more persons acting in concert on the basis of specified identity markers such as race, caste, community, sex, place of birth, language, or personal belief

The passage states Section 103(2) concerns 'the commission of murder by a group of five or more persons acting in concert on the basis of specified identity markers such as race, caste, community, sex, place of birth, language, or personal belief.'

Source note: BNS 2023 Sections 103(2), 111, 112, 113

Continue revision

Administrative Law100 questions with explanationsADR and Arbitration20 questions with explanationsBSA70 questions with explanationsCode of Civil Procedure 190845 questions with explanationsConstitutional Law100 questions with explanationsEnvironmental Law50 questions with explanations