1. In a criminal trial based substantially on circumstantial evidence, the prosecution's evidence establishes several circumstances but fails to complete the chain connecting the accused exclusively with the crime. During his examination under Section 313 CrPC, the accused gives an unsatisfactory explanation regarding some questions put to him. The trial court nevertheless relies upon his answers as an additional circumstance and convicts him.

Which of the following is the most legally accurate position?

A. The conviction is valid because an accused's answers under Section 313 CrPC constitute substantive evidence, and an unsatisfactory explanation can independently establish the missing links in the prosecution case.

B. The conviction is valid because once incriminating circumstances are put to the accused under Section 313 CrPC, the burden shifts to him to prove his innocence by a preponderance of probabilities.

C. The conviction is unsustainable if the prosecution has failed to establish a complete chain of circumstances; an accused's silence or failure to furnish a reasonable explanation may operate only as an additional link where the incriminating circumstances have first been proved by the prosecution.

D. The accused's Section 313 statement can never be considered by a criminal court, even for drawing an adverse inference after the prosecution has established all incriminating circumstances.

Answer: C

Cause Title : SANTOSH GURUNG VERSUS STATE OF SIKKIM, CITATION: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 1009

Explanation: The purpose of examination under Section 313 CrPC is to provide the accused an opportunity to explain the incriminating circumstances appearing in the prosecution evidence. However, the provision cannot be used to fill fundamental gaps in the prosecution case.

S. 313 CrPC | Statement Of Accused Cannot Be Used To Complete An Unestablished Chain Of Circumstances : Supreme Court

2. In a Section 138 NI Act prosecution, the accused was convicted after trial. The High Court ordered a fresh trial from the stage of defence evidence because of a procedural irregularity. However, the accused had never alleged prejudice before the Trial Court or First Appellate Court.

Which is the correct legal position?

A. Every procedural irregularity in defence evidence automatically vitiates the trial.

B. Retrial is mandatory whenever the procedure prescribed under Section 145 NI Act is not followed.

C. A procedural irregularity does not by itself justify retrial; the court must consider whether the accused suffered prejudice due to the irregularity.

D. Admission of the cheque signature makes the statutory presumption under Section 139 conclusive.

Answer: C

Cause Title: Sanu Varghese Versus Shoukkathali, Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 989

Explanation: A completed criminal trial should not be remanded merely for a procedural irregularity unless it is shown that the irregularity caused prejudice to the accused, the Court said.

Completed Trial Cannot Be Remanded Merely For Procedural Lapse Without Proof Of Prejudice : Supreme Court

3. Assertion (A): Where a prosecutrix's testimony contains material contradictions and the court finds that her version is not wholly reliable, the court cannot selectively reject portions of her testimony for one charge and selectively rely upon the same testimony to establish another charge arising out of the same occurrence.

Reason (R): Section 114A of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 creates an irrebuttable presumption of absence of consent whenever the prosecutrix states that she did not consent to sexual intercourse, irrespective of the reliability of her testimony as a whole.

Choose the correct answer:

A. Both A and R are true, and R is the correct explanation of A.

B. Both A and R are true, but R is not the correct explanation of A.

C. A is true, but R is false.

D. A is false, but R is true.

Answer:  C

Cause Title: PARAMJIT SINGH BEDI VERSUS STATE OF PUNJAB, Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 992

Explanation: The prosecutrix's denial of consent could not be examined in isolation from the rest of her testimony, when her testimony brings in material contradiction. The statutory presumption had to be considered in the overall evidentiary context. According to the Court, there is no legal rule requiring corroboration of the testimony of a prosecutrix in every rape case. However, where conviction is sought on her sole testimony, the evidence must be of such quality as to inspire the confidence of the court.

'There Can't Be Part Acceptance & Part Rejection Of Prosecutrix's Statement' : Supreme Court Acquits Man In Rape Case

4. A civil suit involves several issues, including an objection that the suit is barred by limitation. The trial court frames all the issues and the suit proceeds to evidence. After the plaintiff has completed his evidence and the defendants have entered upon theirs, one defendant applies under Order XIV Rule 2(2) CPC seeking to have the limitation issue tried first. Which of the following most accurately states the law?

A. The application must be allowed because limitation is necessarily a pure question of law and can always be tried as a preliminary issue under Order XIV Rule 2(2).

B. The application can be allowed whenever the issue concerns a statutory bar, even if determining it requires adjudication of disputed facts and the trial of the other issues has already commenced.

C. The court may invoke its inherent power under Section 151 CPC to try the limitation issue first, even after the trial has commenced, because Section 151 is independent of the procedural restrictions contained in Order XIV Rule 2.

D. The application cannot ordinarily be entertained at this stage because although all issues need not necessarily have been postponed when framed, the power to try one issue first under Order XIV Rule 2(2) is no longer available once the court has already embarked upon the trial of the issues generally.

Answer: D

Case: John Mathew v Santha Paul & Ors., Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 964

Explanation: Under Order XIV Rule 2 CPC, the general rule is that the court should pronounce judgment on all issues. Once the court has actually embarked upon the trial of the issues generally, it cannot subsequently sever one of those issues and direct that it be tried first.

Know The Law | When Can An Issue Be Tried First Under Order XIV Rule 2 CPC As Preliminary Issue?

5. An accused is arrested during investigation, but the investigating officer fails to furnish the written grounds of arrest, thereby violating Article 22(1) of the Constitution. The accused is subsequently released after a court holds the arrest and remand unconstitutional. The investigating agency still considers custodial interrogation necessary.

Which of the following correctly states the legal position governing the proposed re-arrest?

A. The investigating agency may immediately re-arrest the accused after supplying the grounds of arrest, since the illegality of the first arrest does not affect the agency's substantive power to arrest during investigation.

B. The investigating agency may re-arrest the accused only after filing a chargesheet, since an accused released for violation of Article 22(1) cannot otherwise be taken back into custody during the same investigation.

C. The investigating agency must first furnish the written grounds of arrest to the accused and thereafter approach the Magistrate with an application explaining the necessity for re-arrest and custodial interrogation, the reasons for the earlier non-compliance, and bearing the endorsement of the immediate superior officer; re-arrest requires judicial satisfaction.

D. Once the first arrest is held unconstitutional, the accused acquires an absolute immunity from re-arrest in the same case because permitting re-arrest would effectively validate the earlier unconstitutional detention.

Answer: C

Case Details: Jaskaran Jeet Singh Deol v. State of Punjab, Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 967

Explanation: Where an arrest is vitiated because the constitutional requirement under Article 22(1) to furnish the grounds of arrest has not been complied with, the accused is not released on bail. The detention itself is unconstitutional. A subsequent chargesheet or cognizance order cannot retrospectively cure the illegality of the original arrest. However, such release does not create an absolute bar against re-arrest. If the investigating agency genuinely requires custody, it must follow stringent safeguards, including permission from the magistrate.

Know The Law | Consequences Of Not Furnishing Written Grounds Of Arrest : Supreme Court Explains

6. A District Court passes an interim order under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. An aggrieved party files an appeal under Section 37 before the High Court. During the pendency of the appeal, an arbitral tribunal is constituted with the consent of the parties. The High Court directs that the pending Section 37 proceedings be transmitted to the Arbitral Tribunal and treated as an application under Section 17.

The opposite party argues that since Section 17 also empowers the Tribunal to grant interim measures, and both parties have consented to the arrangement, the Tribunal can adjudicate the dispute.

Which statement is legally correct?

A. The arrangement is valid because Section 17 confers powers equivalent to those exercised by a court under Section 9, and party consent can confer appellate jurisdiction upon the Arbitral Tribunal.

B.  The arrangement is impermissible because the jurisdiction exercised by a High Court under Section 37 is statutory appellate jurisdiction, whereas the Tribunal's power under Section 17 is a distinct statutory power to grant interim measures; the latter cannot be converted into appellate jurisdiction merely by consent or by transmitting the Section 37 proceedings.

C. The arrangement is valid because once an Arbitral Tribunal is constituted, all pending proceedings concerning interim measures must necessarily be transferred from the court to the Tribunal under Section 17.

D. The arrangement is impermissible only if the Union of India is a party; where both private parties consent, the High Court may delegate its appellate jurisdiction to the Tribunal.

Answer: B

Cause Title: UNION OF INDIA & ORS. VERSUS HARIOM PROJECTS PVT. LTD., Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 997

Explanation: An Arbitral Tribunal exercising Section 17 jurisdiction does not sit in appeal over a court's Section 9 order. Its power under Section 17 cannot be transformed into appellate jurisdiction vested in the High Court under Section 37.

S. 17 Arbitration Act | Arbitral Tribunal Does Not Exercise Appellate Jurisdiction Over Section 9 Orders: Supreme Court

7. A plaintiff enters into an alleged agreement for sale of immovable property. Based on the same cause of action, he is entitled to seek both permanent injunction and specific performance. He files a suit seeking only permanent injunction but does not obtain leave under Order II Rule 2(3) CPC to reserve the relief of specific performance. Subsequently, the plaintiff withdraws the suit under Order XXIII Rule 1(3) CPC, and the court grants him liberty to institute a fresh suit. He thereafter files a second suit seeking specific performance.

Which of the following is the most legally accurate?

A. The second suit is maintainable because liberty granted under Order XXIII Rule 1(3) CPC expressly permits institution of a fresh suit, and such liberty overrides the bar under Order II Rule 2 CPC.

B. The second suit is maintainable because Order II Rule 2 applies only where the first suit is adjudicated on merits and does not apply where the plaintiff withdraws the first suit with the court's permission.

C. The second suit is barred under Order II Rule 2 CPC because the plaintiff failed to obtain leave under Order II Rule 2(3) at the time of instituting the first suit; liberty granted under Order XXIII Rule 1(3) cannot cure that omission.

D. The second suit is maintainable because specific performance constitutes a distinct cause of action from the injunction, even though both reliefs arise from the same alleged agreement for sale.

Answer: C

Cause Title: Bombay Garage Ahmedabad Limited & Ors. Versus J P Iscon Private Ltd. & Anr., Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 1000

Explanation: The Supreme Court has observed that an injunction suit simpliciter filed without the Court's leave under Order 2 Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, while omitting the relief of specific performance, cannot be withdrawn to file a fresh suit seeking that omitted relief under Order 23 Rule 1 of the CPC.

The Court held that even where leave to file a fresh suit is obtained under Order 23 Rule 1 at the time of withdrawal of the initial suit, a second suit seeking the relief omitted in the initial suit would not be maintainable, on account of the bar under Order 2 Rule 2. This is because the plaintiff's failure to obtain the Court's leave under Order 2 Rule 2 at the time of filing the initial suit, permitting the omitted relief to be claimed in a subsequent suit, would bar the second suit seeking that omitted relief.

O. 2 R. 2 CPC | Omitted Relief Remains Barred Despite Order 23 Liberty To File Fresh Suit : Supreme Court

8. During a criminal trial, the accused seeks production of a large volume of documents seized during investigation but not relied upon by the prosecution. The accused argues that these documents may assist his defence and relies on the principle that an accused is entitled to access unrelied material in the possession of the prosecuting agency.

Which of the following statements most accurately reflects the legal position?

A. Once an accused establishes that documents were seized during investigation, he has an absolute right to obtain copies of all such documents immediately at the stage of framing of charge, irrespective of their volume or relevance.

B. An accused has no right whatsoever to access documents not relied upon by the prosecution because only the documents forming part of the prosecution's relied-upon case can be considered during trial.

C. Every document seized during investigation must be produced before the Trial Court under Section 91 CrPC before charges are framed, even if the investigating agency states that the document is confidential, voluminous, or unavailable.

D. An accused may be entitled to documents available with the prosecuting agency for the purpose of shaping his defence, but the stage and manner of obtaining particular documents depend upon their nature; voluminous unrelied material may be inspected, with specific documents thereafter sought for production at the appropriate stage.

Answer: D

Cause Title: Central Bureau of Investigation Versus Anil Dixit, Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 1001

Explanation: Where the unrelied material is voluminous, the appropriate course may be to permit the accused to inspect the records, identify the specific documents required, and then seek their production at the appropriate stage—for example, when the concerned witness is being examined by the prosecution or during defence evidence. The Court also clarified that where a document is not available with the investigating agency, the agency cannot be directed to produce it. The accused may have to obtain and prove such material independently, subject to the ordinary rules of evidence.

Accused Entitled To Seek Production Of Prosecution's Unrelied Documents At Appropriate Stage In Trial : Supreme Court

9. A cheque issued by A is dishonoured. The complainant sends the statutory demand notice under proviso (b) to Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, by registered post to A's admitted and correct residential address. The postal article is received by A's mother, who resides at the same address. A does not make payment and subsequently does not dispute the correctness of the address. During the trial, A merely contends that the notice was never personally received by him.

Which of the following is the most legally accurate?

A. The requirement of Section 138(b) is not satisfied because actual personal receipt of the notice by the drawer is mandatory; receipt by a family member cannot constitute service.

B. The requirement of Section 138(b) is satisfied only if the complainant proves that the drawer actually read the notice or had conscious knowledge of its contents.

C. Dispatch of the notice by registered post to the drawer's correct address gives rise to a rebuttable presumption of service, and the burden shifts to the drawer to establish circumstances such as an incorrect address, lack of knowledge despite proper dispatch, or an incorrect postal endorsement.

D. Receipt of the notice by a family member conclusively establishes service, and the drawer has no opportunity to rebut the presumption merely because the notice was sent to his correct address.

Answer: C

Case Title : SAINABA VERSUS STATE OF KERALA & ANR., CITATION : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 1005

Explanation: The controlling principle is that “giving of notice” under proviso (b) to Section 138 does not necessarily require proof of personal physical receipt by the drawer. Where the statutory notice is dispatched by registered post to the correct address of the drawer, a presumption of service arises. This presumption is rebuttable. The drawer may demonstrate, for example, that the address was incorrect, that he had no knowledge of the notice being brought to the address, or that the postal endorsement was incorrect.

S. 138 NI Act | Cheque Dishonour Sent To Drawer's Address Is Validly Served Though Received By Family Member : Supreme Court

10. A Magistrate of the First Class acquits an accused in a criminal case. The victim seeks to challenge the acquittal by invoking the proviso to Section 413 of the BNSS, 2023. The victim files the appeal directly before the High Court, contending that an appeal against an acquittal is ordinarily governed by the provision dealing with appeals against acquittal.

Which of the following is the correct legal position?

A. The appeal lies before the High Court because every appeal against an order of acquittal is governed exclusively by Section 419 BNSS, irrespective of whether it is filed by the State or the victim.

B. The appeal lies before the Sessions Court because the proviso to Section 413 creates a specific appellate remedy for a victim, and the appeal must be filed before the court to which an appeal ordinarily lies against a conviction passed by that Magistrate.

C. The appeal lies before the High Court if the offence is punishable with imprisonment exceeding seven years, irrespective of the court which passed the order of acquittal.

D. The victim must first obtain leave from the High Court under Section 419 BNSS, and only thereafter can the appeal be transferred to the Sessions Court.

Answer: B

Cause Title: Subhas Chandra Sarkar Versus The State of West Bengal & Ors., Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 990

Explanation: Under Section 415(3) BNSS, where the conviction is recorded by a Magistrate of the First or Second Class, the appeal ordinarily lies to the Court of Session. Consequently, where a Magistrate acquits an accused, a victim's appeal under the proviso to Section 413 lies before the Sessions Court, and not directly before the High Court.

S.413 BNSS | Victim's Appeal Against Acquittal By Magistrate Lies Before Sessions Court : Supreme Court