Important MCQs Based On Latest Supreme Court Judgments For Law Examinations

Q 1. Based on the testimony of the prosecution witness who was not the eyewitness to the incident, the trial court summoned the person to add as an additional accused under Section 319 of Cr.P.C. Decide.a. Mere testimony of the prosecution witness is sufficient to invoke powers under Section 319.b. Testimony given by the prosecution witness is not trustworthy as he wasn't an eyewitness to the incident.c. The degree of satisfaction is much stricter to summon a person as an additional accused.d. Both (b) and (c)Answer: Option (d)Explanation: The Supreme Court held that to summon a person as an additional accused invoking powers under Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the degree of satisfaction is much stricter. The evidence should be such that it should lead to the conviction of the accused if it is unrebutted. Further, the court observed that the extraordinary jurisdiction under Section 319 of Cr. P.C. could only be invoked when the evidence to summon the accused is stronger and more reliable than the mere probability of his involvement in the crime.S.319 CrPC | Stronger Evidence Needed To Summon Person As Additional Accused During Trial: Supreme CourtQ 2. Recently, in the case of __________________the Supreme Court sought the establishment of the designated authority for a given judicial examinations recruitment process with clearly defined roles, functions, and responsibilities so that candidates can approach such a designated authority to seek clarification in case of any doubt, and would assuage the anxiety of the candidates to a considerable extent.a. ABHIMEET SINHA & ORS. VERSUS HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA & ORS.b. ABHIMEET SINHA & ORS. VERSUS HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD & ORS.c. ABHINEET SINHA & ORS. VERSUS HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA & ORS.d. ABHIMEET SINHA & ORS. VERSUS HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY & ORS.Answer: Option (a)Explanation: In the case of ABHIMEET SINHA & ORS. VERSUS HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA & ORS. the Supreme Court has flagged concerns about the absence of a designated authority by the High Courts which can be approached by the candidates of judicial services examinations to seek clarification in case of any doubt.Judicial Service Recruitment | Supreme Court Requests High Courts To Notify An Authority Who Can Address Doubts & Grievances Of CandidatesQ 3. As per Section 101(2) of the JJ Act, 2015, what is the prescribed time within which the appeal against the decision of the preliminary assessment board passed under Section 15(1) of the JJ Act be filed?a. No time limit is prescribed.b. 30 Daysc. 60 Daysd. Appeal can't be filed against the decision of the preliminary assessment board.Answer: Option (b)Explanation: Noting that no time limit has been prescribed under the Juvenile Justice(Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 to prefer an appeal against the preliminary assessment order of the Juvenile Justice Board (JJB), the Supreme Court in a recent judgment deemed it appropriate to fill up this gap by prescribing 30 days' time limit for preferring an appeal against the JJB's preliminary assessment order.Supreme Court Prescribes 30 Days Time Limit To Prefer Appeal Against Juvenile Justice Board Preliminary Assessment OrderQ 4. The appeal was filed against the trial court decision before the First Appellate Court (FAC), however, without framing the point of determination arising from the appeal, the First Appellate Court has examined each issue arising out of an appeal. Decide in light of Order 41 Rule 31 of CPC.a. FAC committed error is not a framing point of determination as it is one of the requirements under Order 41 Rule 31 of CPC.b. Examination of each issue arising out of an appeal by FAC would not be sufficient as there's no compliance with Order 41 Rule 31 of CPC.c. Omission to frame point of determination is not necessary when there's substantial compliance with Order 41 Rule 31 whereby the FAC has led evidence on each issue out of an appeal.d. Both (a) and (b)Answer: Option (c)Explanation: The Supreme Court held that an omission to frame points of determination by the first appellate court as per Order 41 Rule 31 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (“CPC”) would not prove fatal as long as that first appellate court dealt with all the issues that arise for deliberation in the said appeal.Order 41 Rule 31 CPC | Omission To Separately Frame Issues Not Fatal If Appellate Court Has Otherwise Dealt With Them: Supreme CourtQ 5. The police have done a seizure, but haven't sent the seizure report to the magistrate 'forthwith' as per the mandate of Section 102(3) of Cr.P.C. However, the police explained the delay in sending the report to the magistrate. Decide.a. The seizure would not be vitiated if there's a sufficient explanation regarding the delay caused in sending the seizure report to the magistrate.b. The report could be vitiated if the seizure report is not sent forthwith to the magistrate despite the police explanation...

Important MCQs Based On Latest Supreme Court Judgments For Law Examinations

Yash Mittal

Tags