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

Q 1. Does calling an accused to admit/deny the document produced by the prosecution under Section 294 CrPC violate the right against self-incrimination?a. Yes, the accused has a right to silence.b. Yes, the accused cannot be compelled to be a witness against itself.c. No, the accused cannot be a witness against himself if called upon to admit/deny the documents produced by the prosecution.d. Both (a) and (b)Answer: Option (c)Explanation: Recently, the Supreme Court in Ashok Daga V. Directorate of Enforcement held that an accused could not be said to be a witness against himself if he was called upon to admit or deny the genuineness of the documents produced by the prosecution under Section 294 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC).S. 294 CrPC | Calling Accused To Admit/Deny Genuineness Of Documents Produced By Prosecution Not Violation Of Article 20(3) : Supreme CourtQ 2. The Plaintiff based on an earlier compromise recorded between the parties before the Court, filed a fresh suit for possession and temporary injunction against the Appellants/Defendant. Defendant countered Plaintiff's contention and argued that the compromise made between the parties in an earlier suit cannot be recognized as there was no compromise decree passed by the Court because of non-compliance with Order 23 Rule 3 of CPC. Decide.a. Plaintiff's suit will not succeed because of the settlement recorded between the parties before the Court.b. Settlement recorded before the Court is a valid settlement, and can be acted upon.c. Plaintiff's suit will not succeed due to non-compliance with Order 23 Rule 3 of CPC, which says that the compromise must be written and signed by the parties.d. Both (a) and (c)Answer: Option (c)Explanation: The Supreme Court held that a compromise deed cannot be recognized unless it is reduced to writing and signed by the parties. The Court said that the settlement or compromise cannot be said to arrive on mere recording of statements before the Court.O. 23 R. 3 CPC | Compromise Must Be Reduced To Writing & Signed By Parties, Mere Statements Before Court Not Enough : Supreme CourtQ 3. The Director being an authorized signatory of the company issued a cheque to the payee, however, the cheque was dishonored on account of insufficient funds in the company's bank account. The complainant sought interim compensation from the Director under Section 143A of the Negotiable Instrument Act, of 1881. Decide the liability of the Director.a. The director being an authorized signatory would be liable to pay interim compensation as he can be considered as a drawer of cheque.b. The director being an authorized signatory would not be liable to pay interim compensation as he cannot be considered as a drawer of the cheque.c. Director is liable to pay interim compensation as the company's liability can be shifted to an authorized signatory on account of the Company's default to honor the cheque.d. Both (a) and (c)Answer: Option (b)Explanation: The Supreme Court held that an authorized signatory of the company could not be considered as a 'drawer' of cheque, and therefore, could not be directed to pay the interim compensation to the complainant under Section 143A of the Negotiable Instruments Act of 1881 (“NI Act”).S. 143A NI Act | Company's Authorized Signatory Not 'Drawer' Of Cheque, Can't Be Directed To Pay Interim Compensation: Supreme CourtQ 4. A defendant's right to file a written statement stands forfeited, however, the defendant participated in the trial and produced its case indirectly through evidence. Decide whether the defendant could introduce his case directly through leading evidence in the trial.a. Yes, the defendant can introduce the case through leading evidence in the trial despite not filing a written statement.b. Yes, the defendant can introduce the case through leading evidence in the trial as the participation of the defendant in the trial is not barred.c. No, when the right to file a written statement in a case has been forfeited than the defendant cannot introduce his case indirectly through evidence or written submission.d. Both (a) and (b)Answer: Option (c)Explanation: The Supreme Court held that a party whose right to file a written statement in a case has been forfeited cannot introduce his case indirectly through evidence or written submission. Such a party can still participate in the proceedings and cross-examine the complainant, but cannot indirectly introduce his case.Party Whose Right To File Written Statement Is Forfeited Cannot Introduce Its Case Indirectly Through Evidence: Supreme CourtQ 5. The appellant has been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (“the IPC”), and he has been sentenced to undergo life imprisonment. The prosecution's case was based on the last seen theory as the body was found in the house of the appellant at about 5:00 p.m. on the date of the incident when the accused was present in his house. However, no credible evidence was ...

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

Yash Mittal

Tags