Important MCQs Based On Latest Supreme Court Judgments For Law Examinations

Q 1. Against an accused, a non-bailable warrant and proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C. is pending. Whether an application of the accused seeking anticipatory bail is maintainable before the court?

a. Yes, the right to seek anticipatory bail is a statutory right under Cr.P.C.

b. Yes, anticipatory bail cannot be denied because it should be heard on its merit uninfluenced by the pending non-bailable warrant and proclamation.

c. No, the application seeking anticipatory bail isn't maintainable.

d. Both (a) and (b)

Answer: Option (c)

Explanation: The Supreme Court held that an accused would not be entitled to pre-arrest bail if the non-bailable warrant and the proclamation under Section 82(1) Cr.P.C. is pending against him.

“Thus, it is obvious that the position of law, which was being followed with alacrity, is that in cases where an accused against whom non-bailable warrant is pending and the process of proclamation under Sections 82/83, Cr.PC is issued, is not entitled to the relief of anticipatory bail.”, the court said.

No Anticipatory Bail To Accused Against Whom Non-Bailable Warrant & Proclamation Under Section 82 CrPC Are Pending: Supreme Court

Q 2. A court directs the absconded accused to be present on the next day of the hearing. However, the accused registered its presence through his advocate by filing an anticipatory bail application. Find out the appropriate option from the available options below.

a. The accused hasn't defied the court's direction as it has shown appearance through an advocate.

b. Filing an anticipatory bail application through an advocate isn't enough to show the presence of the accused before the court.

c. Filing an anticipatory bail application through an advocate cannot be considered as an accused appearance before the court against whom proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C. is pending.

d. Both (b) and (c)

Answer: Option (d)

Explanation: The Supreme Court held that filing of an anticipatory bail through an advocate would not and could not be treated as an appearance before a court by a person against whom proclamation proceedings are pending.

Filing Of Anticipatory Bail Application Through Advocate Can't Be Considered As Appearance Of Absconding Accused: Supreme Court

Q 3. A complainant made a complaint of cheque dishonor under Section 138 of N.I. Act, and moved an application under Section 143A NI Act before the court seeking interim compensation from the accused. Find out the most appropriate option from the given set of options below.

a. Yes, the application should succeed as the accused must provide interim compensation to the complainant.

b. No, the application shouldn't succeed every time, as the power of the court to direct payment of interim compensation isn't mandatory but discretionary.

c. The court is bound to accept the complainant's application seeking interim compensation.

d. None of the above

Answer: Option (b)

Explanation: The Supreme Court observed that mere filing of the cheque dishonor complaint under the Negotiable Instruments Act would not grant a right to a complainant to seek interim compensation under Section 143A (1) of the N.I. Act, as the power of the court to grant interim compensation, isn't mandatory but discretionary and needs to be decided after prima facie evaluating the merits of the case.

S.143A NI Act | Interim Compensation In Cheque Dishonour Cases Isn't Mandatory: Supreme Court Lays Down Broad Parameters

Q 4. A complaint for cheque dishonor under Section 138 NI Act was made against 'Mr. X', the director of the company. However, Mr. X is not involved in the day-to-day affairs of the company. Decide the liability of Mr. X.

a. Being a director of the company Mr. A would be held liable.

b. Mr. A couldn't be held liable as he was not responsible for the day-to-day affairs of the company.

c. Holding a position of director in a company is sufficient to hold a person liable for cheque dishonor.

d. Both (a) and (c)

Answer: Option (b)

Explanation: The Supreme Court observed that the Director of the company not responsible for its day-to-day affairs cannot be held liable for dishonor of cheque under the Negotiable Instruments Act, of 1882.

NI Act | Director Not Responsible For Day-To-Day Affairs Of Company Can't Be Held Liable For Cheque Dishonour: Supreme Court

Q 5. Based on the filing of an incomplete chargesheet against another accused, the main accused sought default bail under Section 167 (2) Cr.P.C. Find out the most appropriate option.

a. Default bail cannot be provided to the accused merely because an incomplete chargesheet is submitted against the other accused.

b. Right to be released on default bail is a statutory right of an accused, thus default bail cannot be denied because an investigation is pending against another accused.

c. The accused can't exercise the right to get default bail on the ground that the chargesheet was incomplete or not filed as per Section 173 (2) Cr.P.C.

d. Both (a) and (c)

Answer: Option (d)

Explanation: The Supreme Court held that “the pendency of the further investigation qua the other accused or for production of some documents not available at the time of filing of chargesheet would neither vitiate the chargesheet, nor would it entitle the accused to claim right to get default bail on the ground that the chargesheet was an incomplete chargesheet or that the chargesheet was not filed in terms of Section 173(2) of Cr.P.C.”

Pending Investigation Against Co-Accused Wouldn't Give Right To Default Bail To Accused, SC Clarified

Q 6. In which of the following cases did the Supreme Court recently dismiss the Public Interest Litigation (PIL) seeking the declaration of voting rights as part of fundamental rights?

a. Devadipta Das v. Union of India

b. Devapriya Das v. Union of India

c. Deepa Das. v. Union of India

d. Devangi Das v. Union of India

Answer: Option (a)

Explanation: The Supreme Court refused to entertain a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) seeking the declaration of voting rights as part of fundamental rights.

Chief Justice of India (CJI) highlighted the necessity for a live controversy to be present before the court, emphasizing the need for a "live lis" (legal dispute) to warrant jurisdiction under Article 32.

'No Live Issue Existing': Supreme Court Dismisses PIL To Declare Right To Vote As Fundamental Right

Q 7.  A contract is entered between 'A' and 'B', where A has to supply certain goods at a decided price to B. The contract doesn't contain an arbitration clause but only provides a resolution of a dispute through a civil court. However, a general reference was made to another contract, which mentions the arbitration clause, that the supply will take place as per the terms and conditions enshrined in another contract. A dispute occurred and 'A' wanted to initiate the arbitration proceedings based on the arbitration clause contained in another contract. Find out the most appropriate option.

a. A dispute can be referred to arbitration as a reference was made to another contract that contained an arbitration clause.

b. A dispute can be settled only through the civil court as the main contract doesn't make specific reference to incorporate the arbitration clause of another contract into the main contract.

c. In a two-contract case, specific reference to the arbitration clause of another contract is required to settle the dispute through arbitration.

d. Both (b) and (c)

Answer: Option (d)

Explanation: The Supreme Court reiterated that a dispute cannot be referred to arbitration based on the arbitration clause contained in another contract unless a specific reference was made in the main contract to incorporate the arbitration clause into the main contract.

The Bench Comprising Justices B.R. Gavai and Sandeep Mehta held that unless a specific reference is made in the main contract to incorporate the arbitration clause of another contract then the parties are bound to settle their dispute through the mode of settlement agreed to in the main contract.

General Reference Won't Have Effect Of Incorporating Arbitration Clause In Another Contract, Specific Reference Needed: Supreme Court

Q 8. Person 'X' claims an adverse possession over a property based on the fact that he was in interrupted continuous possession of the property for more than 12 years. However, in the plaint 'X' didn't disclose the actual owner of the property against whom the adverse possession is claimed. State the correct option.

a. Claim for an adverse possession wouldn't survive as X failed to prove who the actual owner of the property was.

b. Claim for an adverse possession would survive as he was living continuously for more than 12 years.

c. Claim for adverse possession wouldn't survive as X's adverse possession was in the knowledge of the actual owner of the property.

d. None of the above.

Answer: Option (a)

Explanation: The Supreme Court held that a plaintiff cannot seek ownership over the property based on the claim of an adverse possession if he fails to prove (i) who was the actual owner of the property and (ii), an uninterrupted possession for more than 12 years was in the original owner's knowledge.

Party Claiming Adverse Possession Must Know Who The Actual Owner Of Property Is: Supreme Court

Q 9. 'X' was convicted for the offence of murder based on the testimony of the 'injured witness', who also happens to be an 'interested witness' in the outcome of the case. Decide whether the conviction can be sustained.

a. Yes, the conviction can be sustained as the testimony of the interested witness can't be rejected just because he was injured by the accused himself.

b. No, the conviction can't be sustained based on the testimony of the injured witness because he was interested in the outcome of the case.

c. Yes, the conviction can be sustained as the evidence of an injured witness is considered to be on a higher pedestal than that of a witness simplicitor.

d. Both (a) and (c)

Answer: Option (b)

Explanation: The Supreme Court overturned the conviction of the accused while observing that conviction cannot be sustained based on the testimony of the 'injured witness' who happens to be an 'interested witness' in the outcome of the case. The court observed that although the evidence of an injured witness is considered to be on a higher pedestal than that of a witness simpliciter yet the courts need to strike a balance between the testimony provided by the injured witness who happens to be also interested in the outcome of the case.

Court Has To Strike Balance Between Testimony Of Injured Witness & Interested Witness: Supreme Court

Q 10. An anticipatory bail was denied to an accused on the ground that a custodial interrogation of an accused is required. Find out the correct option.

a. Anticipatory bail can be denied.

b. Anticipatory bail can't be claimed as a right, as it is the discretion of the Judge to release on anticipatory bail.

c. Anticipatory bail cannot be denied on the mere ground that custodial interrogation is required.

d. Both (a) and (b)

Answer: Option (c)

Explanation: Recently, the Supreme Court held that anticipatory bail can't be denied merely because the custody of the accused is required by the State for custodial interrogation.

Anticipatory Bail Can't Be Denied On Mere Assertion Of State That Custodial Interrogation Of Accused Is Required: Supreme Court