Important MCQs Based On Latest Supreme Court Judgments For Law Examinations

Q 1. After the arguments concluded, the complainant filed an application seeking further investigation under Section 173(8) of the Cr.P.C. The application was filed based on the evidence he led during the trial without averring new material or grounds for further investigation. Decide.a. The application would not be maintainable due to the complainant's failure to produce new material.b. There should be a reasonable basis for triggering the court's power to order further investigation.c. There's no bar to seek further investigation even after the conclusion of arguments albeit a fresh material needs to be produced.d. All of the AboveAnswer: Option (d)Explanation: The Supreme Court observed that the courts should refrain from ordering further investigation when the party requesting further investigation under Section 173(8) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) has not whispered about anything new in its evidence and has based its application for further investigation without averring fresh materials. [K. Vadivel Versus K. Shanthi & Ors. 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 757]S. 173(8) CrPC | No Further Investigation Be Ordered If Application Was Filed Without Any Fresh Material : Supreme CourtQ 2. A Person's conviction in a murder case was approved by the Supreme Court, however, after the judgment and order of conviction and sentence granted against a person has attained finality, a Miscellaneous Application was preferred by the Convict seeking a 'plea of juvenility' that he was juvenile during the time of incident. Decide a. Plea of Juvenility can be taken at any stage before any forum.b. Plea of Juvenility can't be taken after judgment and order of conviction and sentence granted attained finality.c. Convict can be released if the plea of juvenility is taken after the order of conviction and sentence granted attained finality.d. Both (a) and (c)Answer: Option (d)Explanation: The Supreme Court observed that the plea of juvenility can be filed even after the judgment and order of conviction and sentence granted against a person has attained finality. While holding so, the bench comprising Justices BV Nagarathna and N Kostiswar Singh acquitted the accused in a murder case who had filed a plea for juvenility after the order of conviction and sentence was passed against him. [STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH VERSUS RAMJI LAL SHARMA & ANOTHER, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 791]Juvenile Justice Act | Plea Of Juvenelity Can Be Raised Even After Conviction & Sentence Attained Finality : Supreme CourtQ 3. In a tenancy dispute case, as per Order XII Rule 6 of CPC, a trial court delivers a judgment based on an admission made by the tenant in 'another case'. The admission made by the tenant extinguishes his right to a tenancy granted under the law. Decide whether a judgment can be delivered based on such an admission made in another case. a. No Judgment can be delivered based on an admission that is against the law.b. A judgment can't be delivered based on an unclear and ambiguous admissionc. Both (a) and (b)d. A judgment can't be delivered based on an admission made in another case.Answer: Option (c)Explanation: Recently, the Supreme Court observed that as per Order XII Rule 6 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (“C.P.C.”), a judgment can't be delivered based on an unclear and ambiguous admission. According to the court, when the testimony supplied in an admission contains both mixed questions of fact and law then such an admission against the law can never be an “admission” as visualized under Order XII Rule 6. [RAJESH MITRA @RAJESH KUMAR MITRA & ANR. VERSUS KARNANI PROPERTIES LTD. 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 790]Order XII Rule 6 CPC | Judgment Can't Be Delivered Based On Unclear, Ambiguous & Conditional Admissions : Supreme CourtQ 4. An accused was acquitted for an offence of murder after noting that the FIR was ante-timed i.e., one day delay occurred in forwarding the FIR to the magistrate which was sufficiently explained. Decide.a. Delay in forwarding the FIR to the magistrate may prove fatal to the prosecution's case.b. Delay in forwarding the FIR to the magistrate might not prove fatal to the prosecution's case unless the accused shows that the delay prejudiced his case. c. In heinous offences like murder it is not necessary to forward the FIR to the magistrate.d. Both (a) and (c)Answer: Option (b)Explanation: The Supreme Court observed that a mere delay in forwarding the FIR to the jurisdictional magistrate would not be fatal to the prosecution's case unless it is shown by the accused that the delay had caused prejudice to his case. Mere delay by itself is not sufficient to discard and disbelieve the case of the prosecution. [RAMA DEVI VERSUS THE STATE OF BIHAR AND OTHERS, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 776]Delay In Forwarding FIR To Magistrate Wouldn't Be Fatal To Prosecution's Case If No Prejudice Caused To Accused : Supreme CourtQ 5. An accused demanded parity with other co-accused who were granted the benefit of suspension of sentence under Section 389 of CrPC....

Important MCQs Based On Latest Supreme Court Judgments For Law Examinations

Yash Mittal

Tags