Assertion:- A photocell is called an electric eye.
Reason:- The electric current in a photocell depends upon the incidne light.

Options

A. If both assertion and reason are true and reason is the correct explanation of assertion
B. If both assertion and reason are true but reason is not the correct explanation of assertion
C. If assertion is true but reason is false
D. If both assertion and reason are false.

Explanation

To solve the question, we will analyze both the assertion and the reason provided.

### Step 1: Analyze the Assertion
The assertion states that "A photocell is called an electric eye."
- A photocell is indeed often referred to as an "electric eye" because it can detect light and convert it into an electrical signal. This is commonly used in various applications such as automatic doors, security systems, and light-sensitive devices.

### Step 2: Analyze the Reason
The reason states that "The electric current in a photocell depends upon the incident light."
- This statement is also true. The operation of a photocell is based on the principle that when light falls on it, the electric current produced is directly proportional to the intensity of the incident light. More light results in more current, and less light results in less current.

### Step 3: Determine the Relationship Between Assertion and Reason
Now we need to determine if the reason is a correct explanation of the assertion.
- While both statements are true, the reason does not explain why a photocell is called an "electric eye." The term "electric eye" is more about its function as a light sensor rather than the specifics of how the current depends on light.

### Conclusion
Based on the analysis:
- Both the assertion and the reason are true.
- However, the reason does not correctly explain the assertion.

Thus, the correct answer is that both the assertion and reason are true, but the reason is not the correct explanation of the assertion.

### Final Answer
The correct option is: **Both assertion and reason are true, but the reason is not the correct explanation of the assertion.**

---