Important MCQs Based On Latest Supreme Court Judgments For Law Examinations

1. A social activist files an application before a Judicial Magistrate under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 seeking registration of an FIR against a public servant for alleged hate speech under Sections 153A and 295A IPC. The Magistrate refuses to direct registration of FIR on the ground that prior sanction under Sections 196 and 197 CrPC has not been obtained.Which of the following statements is correct?(A) Prior sanction under Sections 196/197 CrPC is mandatory even at the stage of ordering investigation under Section 156(3) CrPC.(B) A Magistrate cannot order registration of FIR under Section 156(3) CrPC without first taking cognizance of the offence.(C) Prior sanction under Sections 196/197 CrPC is required only at the stage of taking cognizance and not at the stage of directing investigation under Section 156(3) CrPC.(D) The Magistrate has no power to direct registration of FIR in cases involving public servants.Answer: (C)Explanation: The Supreme Court has clarified that the power exercised by a Magistrate under Section 156(3) CrPC is at the pre-cognizance stage. Therefore, the requirement of prior sanction under Sections 196 and 197 CrPC applies only at the stage of taking cognizance, not at the stage of directing registration of FIR or investigation.Cause Title: Ashwini Kumar Upadhyaya v. Union of India, W.P.(C) No. 943/2021 (and connected cases), Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 437Magistrate Doesn't Require Prior Sanction To Direct FIR Registration Under S.156(3) CrPC : Supreme Court2. A woman goes missing and is later found murdered. During the investigation, four accused persons were arrested. While in police custody, all four accused jointly state that they can show the place where the victim was murdered and her body was burnt.The police take them to a forest area. One accused first points out the location. Thereafter, the remaining three accused, one by one, also point to the same place and claim that the murder and burning occurred there. No new material object or fact is discovered based on the subsequent statements of the other accused.At trial, the prosecution seeks to rely on these disclosure statements under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872.Which of the following is the most legally correct position?(A) All statements are admissible since joint disclosures are expressly permitted under Section 27.(B) Only the first accused's statement is admissible; subsequent statements are inadmissible as there cannot be rediscovery of the same fact.(C) All statements are admissible because they corroborate each other and strengthen the prosecution's case.(D) None of the statements are admissible because Section 27 does not apply to joint disclosures at all.Answer: (B)Explanation: Under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, only that portion of the information given by an accused in custody is admissible which distinctly relates to the fact discovered. The Supreme Court has clarified that Joint or simultaneous disclosures are not per se inadmissible. However, admissibility depends on whether each statement leads to a distinct discovery of fact. Once a fact is already discovered based on the statement of one accused, subsequent statements pointing to the same fact do not qualify as “discovery.”Cause Title: ANAND JAKKAPPA PUJARI @GADDADAR VERSUS THE STATE OF KARNATAKA (with connected case), Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 426S.27 Evidence Act | Joint Statement By Different Accused Admissible Only If They Lead To Distinct Discoveries: Supreme Court3. A is arrested for an offence under the State Excise Act for illegal possession of liquor. The offence is non-bailable and punishable with imprisonment up to 3 years. The Sessions Court grants bail to A but imposes conditions under Section 480(3) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), including that A shall not commit a similar offence.Subsequently, A is again found involved in a similar offence. The State files an application for cancellation of bail, and the High Court cancels A's bail solely on the ground that he violated the conditions imposed under Section 480(3) BNSS. A challenges this order before the Supreme Court.Which of the following is the most correct legal position?(A) The High Court is correct, as violation of any bail condition justifies cancellation of bail.(B) The High Court is correct, since repeat offences always justify cancellation of bail in non-bailable offences.(C) The High Court erred, as conditions under Section 480(3) BNSS cannot be imposed for offences punishable up to 7 years, hence their violation cannot justify cancellation of bail.(D) The High Court erred only because cancellation of bail requires a trial, not interim assessment. Answer: (C)Explanation: The Supreme Court clarified that Section 480(3) BNSS applies only to offences punishable with imprisonment of 7 years or more (or specified serious offences). For offences punishable up to 7 years, such conditions cannot be...

Important MCQs 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

Important MCQs 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

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers