Important MCQ's Based On Latest Supreme Court Judgments For Law Examinations

Q 1. The Court called on a Public Servant under Section 319 CrPC without following the mandatory requirement of prior sanction to prosecute the public servant for the offence committed under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (PC Act). Decide.a. No Cognizance can be taken against the public servant for want of sanction under Section 19 of the PC Act.b. prosecution sanctioning is not required when the Court takes cognizance of the offence against a public servant.c. Taking a sanction to prosecute a public servant is not a mandatory requirement under Section 19 of the PC Act.d. Both (b) and (c)Answer: Option (a)Explanation: The Supreme Court has reiterated that the court cannot take cognizance of an offence committed by a public servant under the Prevention of Corruption Act in the absence of prosecution sanction. The Court held that this condition is applicable even for summoning a public servant as an additional accused under Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.PC Act | Sanction Necessary To Summon Public Servant As Additional Accused As Per S.319 CrPC: Supreme CourtQ 2. An accused was convicted based on the dock identification of the accused by the witness in the court. Despite knowing the fact that the accused is a stranger to the witness, a Test Identification Parade (TIP) was not conducted by the police. Decide.a. TIP is not essential when the witness identifies the accused in the Court.b. Identification of an accused being a stranger to a witness in a court is a good piece of evidence.c. Corroboration with TIP is not required when a witness identifies the accused in a court.d. Accused cannot be convicted based on Dock Identification of Accused by a Witness in the Court as TIP is essential for corroboration when the accused is a stranger to a witness.Answer: Option (d)Explanation: The Supreme Court observed that if the accused is a stranger to a witness, then without holding a Test Identification Parade(TIP) of the accused, the identification of the accused by a witness in the court cannot be considered a good piece of evidence for deciding conviction. The Court added that if there was no TIP, then the conviction cannot be decided solely on the identification of an accused made by a witness in the Court. The court said so to prevent the dock identification of the accused by a witness, wherein the identity of an accused always remains under the cloud of suspicion being fairly determined by a TIP.Trial Courts Must Be Cautious In Accepting Dock Identification Of Stranger Accused By Witness Without Test Identification Parade : Supreme CourtQ 3. Recently, the Supreme Court in a case of _______________ held that a Muslim woman can claim maintenance under Section 125 of CrPC from her husband.a. Mohd Abdul Miya v. The State of Telangana & Anr.b. Mohd Abdul Samad v. The State of Telangana & Anr.c. Mohd Faiz Samad v. The State of Telangana & Anr.d. Mohd Abdul Hamad v. The State of Telangana & Anr.Answer: Option (b)Explanation: The Supreme Court in the case of Mohd Abdul Samad v. The State of Telangana & Anr. has held that a Muslim woman, is entitled to seek maintenance from her husband as per Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.Q 4. Mr. A approached the Writ Court for Setting Aside the auction sale of his property on the ground that the executive authority had sold his property in violation of law. However, the Writ Court dismissed the petition on the ground that the conditions of Order 21 Rule 90 for setting aside a sale were not fulfilled by Mr. A. Decide.a. Writ Court has rightly dismissed the petition as the conditions of Order 21 Rule 90 CPC ought to have been fulfilled by Mr. A.b. Writ Court cannot ask Mr. A to fulfill conditions of Order 21 Rule 90 CPC for setting aside an illegal sale made in violation of law.c. Order 21 Rule 90 CPC does not apply to writ court.d. Both (b) and (c)Answer: Option (d)Explanation: The Supreme Court held that a person aggrieved by an auction sale conducted by the public functionary in gross violations of the mandatory provisions of law cannot be called upon to establish the dual conditions stipulated in Order XXI Rule 90 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (“CPC”) for setting aside the auction sale. Further, the Court said that the provisions of Order 21 Rule 90 of CPC are in any case not applicable to writ proceedings.Illegal Auction Sale By Public Authority Can Be Set Aside Under Article 226; Writ Court Not Bound By Order 21 Rule 90 CPC : Supreme CourtQ 5. A transferee who purchased a suit property via a registered sale deed during the pendency of a suit sought impleadment as a necessary party to defend his title. The impleadment was denied on the ground that Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1881 renders the transfers pendente lite void. Decide.a. The impleadment was rightly denied as the doctrine of lis pendens renders the pendente lite transfers void.b. The doctrine of lis pendens does not render all transfers pendente lite to be void...

Important MCQ's Based On Latest Supreme Court Judgments For Law Examinations

Yash Mittal

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Yash Mittal

Important MCQ's Based On Latest Supreme Court Judgments For Law Examinations

Yash Mittal

This is a premium content Available exclusively to Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Yash Mittal

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers