Each question consists of legal propositions/ principles (hereinafter referred to as 'principle') and facts. These principles have to be applied to the given facts to arrive at the most reasonable conclusion. Such principles may or may not be true in the real sense, yet you have to conclusively assume them to be true for the purposes of this section. In other words, in answering the following questions, you must not rely on any principles except the principles that are given herein below for every question. Further, you must not assume any facts other than those stated in the question. The objective of this section is to test your interest towards study of law, research aptitude and problem solving ability even if the 'most reasonable conclusion' arrived at may be unacceptable for any other reason. It is not the object of this section to test your knowledge of law.

PRINCIPLE: Whoever unlawfully or negligently does any act which is, and which he knows or has reason to believe to be, likely to spread the infection of any disease dangerous to life, shall be guilty of a negligent act likely to spread infection of disease dangerous to life.

FACTS: 'K', a person, knowing that he is suffering from Cholera, travels by a train without informing the railway officers of his condition.

The correct answer is: 'K' has committed an unlawful and negligent act, which is likely to spread the infection of Cholera disease dangerous to the life of fellow-passengers.

Let us break down the principle and apply it step-by-step to the given facts to arrive at this conclusion.

Step 1: Understanding the Legal Principle

The principle states that a person is guilty of a negligent act likely to spread infection of a disease dangerous to life if all of the following elements are satisfied:

1. The person does an act that is unlawful or negligent.
2. That act is likely to spread the infection of a disease dangerous to life.
3. The person knows or has reason to believe that the act is likely to spread such infection.

Step 2: Identifying the Key Facts

- 'K' is suffering from Cholera, a disease that is dangerous to life.
- 'K' knows he is suffering from Cholera.
- Despite this knowledge, 'K' travels by train — a crowded, public mode of transport.
- 'K' does not inform the railway officers of his condition.

Step 3: Applying the Principle to the Facts — Element by Element

Element 1 — Was the act unlawful or negligent?
Yes. Travelling on a public train while knowingly infected with a highly contagious and life-threatening disease like Cholera, and concealing that condition from railway authorities, is a negligent act. A reasonable person in 'K's position would refrain from boarding a crowded train or would at least disclose the condition to authorities. 'K' did neither.

Element 2 — Is the act likely to spread infection of a disease dangerous to life?
Yes. Cholera is explicitly a disease dangerous to life. A train is a confined, shared public space. Travelling in such close proximity with fellow-passengers while infected with Cholera creates a clear and direct risk of spreading the infection to others. This element is clearly satisfied.

Element 3 — Did 'K' know or have reason to believe that the act would likely spread the disease?
Yes. The facts explicitly state that 'K' knows he is suffering from Cholera. Since he is aware of his own medical condition and is still choosing to board a public train, he necessarily knows — or at the very minimum has every reason to believe — that his act is likely to spread the infection to fellow-passengers. This is the most critical element, and it is squarely established.

Step 4: Why the Other Options are Incorrect

- Option 2 (Railway officers are guilty): The railway officers had no knowledge of 'K's condition because 'K' deliberately did not inform them. You cannot attribute negligence to someone who had no knowledge of or reason to suspect the risk. Hence, railway officers are not liable.

- Option 3 ('K' has NOT committed an unlawful act): This is directly contradicted by the facts and the principle. All three elements of the principle are satisfied in 'K's case, making him clearly guilty.

- Option 4 (Both 'K' and railway officers are guilty): As reasoned above, railway officers cannot be held guilty because they were kept uninformed. The blame lies solely with 'K', who concealed his condition.

Step 5: Conclusion

'K' satisfies all three elements of the given legal principle. He knowingly performed a negligent act (travelling on a public train while infected), the act was likely to spread a life-threatening disease (Cholera), and he had full knowledge of his condition. Therefore, 'K' is guilty of a negligent act likely to spread the infection of Cholera — a disease dangerous to life — to his fellow-passengers.