Important MCQs Based On Latest Supreme Court Judgments For Law Examinations

Q 1. Upon a suit of a plaintiff, a civil court passes a decree restraining the encashment of the cheque given to the respondent by the plaintiff only for security purposes, however, on the other hand, the criminal court proceeded against the decree-holder/plaintiff for the dishonor of cheque under the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1882. Decide the liability of the plaintiff/decree-holder.a. The plaintiff would be held liable for the dishonor of the cheque.b. The plaintiff wouldn't be held liable for cheque dishonor as the decision of the civil court would be binding on the criminal courts to the extent of sentences or damages awarded by the criminal courts making them unsustainable in law.c. The plaintiff would be held liable for cheque dishonor as the decisions of the civil court aren't binding on the criminal court.d. Both (a) and (c)Answer: Option (b)Explanation: Recently, the Supreme Court observed that though the outcome of the proceedings initiated under civil law would not have any binding effect on the outcome of the proceedings initiated under criminal law, however, the outcome of the civil proceedings would be binding on the criminal proceedings only to the extent of holding the sentences or damages arising out of criminal proceedings as unsustainable in law.Are Civil Courts' Decrees Binding On Criminal Courts? Supreme Court ExplainsQ 2. Mr. X in good faith filed an application seeking the execution of a decree with the Tehsildar Court (treating it as an appropriate forum), however after five years it came to know that the Tehsildar Court wasn't an appropriate forum to execute the decree. Now, Mr. X wants to file an execution application before the concerned court and seek the condonation of delay while computing the limitation period under Section 14(2) of the Limitation Act. Decide.a. Mr. X would be entitled to claim benefits under Section 14(2) of the Limitation Act.b. The delay can be condoned as there was no malafide intention on the part of Mr. X to contest litigation at the wrong forum.c. Section 14(2) of the Limitation Act carves out an exception excluding the period of limitation when the proceedings are being pursued with due diligence and good faith in a Court.d. All of the aboveAnswer: Option (d)Explanation: The Supreme Court held that the time consumed in contesting bonafide litigation by the litigant at a wrong forum (believing it to be appropriate) would be excluded while computing the period of limitation under Section 14(2) of the Limitation Act.Limitation Act | Time Spent Contesting Bonafide Litigation At Wrong Forum Would Be Excluded While Computing Limitation: Supreme CourtQ 3. In the event of the possibility of two views, the trial Court acquitted the accused, however, the High Court reversed the acquittal into conviction. Decide whether the High Court can interfere with the Trial Court's order.a. The High Court can't interfere with the Trial Court's order despite the non-existence of two views regarding the conviction of the accused.b. The High Court can't interfere with the acquittal even when the trial court's findings are perverse.c. In the event of the possibility of two views, the High Court should only interfere when the findings of the trial court were perverse or impossible.d. Both (a) and (b)Answer: Option (c)Explanation: The Supreme Court reiterated that in the event of the possibility of two views, if the trial court acquits the accused, then it would not be permissible for the High Court to interfere with the trial court's order of acquittal unless the view taken by the trial court was perverse.Impermissible For High Court To Interfere With Acquittal Unless Trial Court's View Is Perverse Or Impossible: Supreme CourtQ 4. It was alleged by the prosecutrix that the accused being a relative of hers had forceful sexual intercourse with her. The prosecution argued that the accused was in a position of trust (he being acquainted with the prosecutrix) will invite clause (f) of Section 376(2) of the IPC, therefore, a presumption against the accused would arise in Section 114A of Evidence Act to prove his innocence. Decide the liability of an accused.a. The burden of proof will be on the accused to prove his innocence.b. There will be no burden of proof on the accused unless the law specifically puts the burden of proof on him.c. Since the accused was in a position of trust, therefore, a presumption would arise against the accused to prove his innocence.d. Both (a) and (c)Answer: Option (b)Explanation: The Supreme Court, while acquitting a person accused of the offence of rape, observed that the accused does not have to lead evidence to prove his innocence unless the law specifically puts the burden of proof on him.“We may also add here that in our jurisprudence unless there is a specific legislative provision which puts a negative burden on the accused, there is no burden on the accused to lead evidence for proving his innocence. The accused may have some burden to discharge ...

Important MCQs Based On Latest Supreme Court Judgments For Law Examinations

Yash Mittal

Tags