Judicial Service Exams: Question And Answers (MCQs) Based On Latest Judgements- PART-1

MCQs based on Current SC Judgments- September 2023

1. Recently, in Zunaid v. State of UP 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 730, what power did the Supreme Court affirm regarding the Magistrate's authority after receiving the final police report under Section 173 CrPC?

a) The Magistrate must accept the final report without any discretion.

b) The Magistrate can only order a reinvestigation.

c) The Magistrate can exercise discretion to treat a protest petition as a complaint case.

d) The Magistrate can only take cognizance of the offense upon the police's recommendation.

Answer: c) The Magistrate can exercise discretion to treat a protest petition as a complaint case.

Explanation: The Supreme Court in this case ruled that the Magistrate has the discretion to treat a protest petition as a complaint case, even after receiving the final police report under Section 173 CrPC.

Magistrate Can Take Cognizance Of Protest Petition After Rejecting Police Final Report : Supreme Court

2. In which case, the Supreme Court recently clarified that High Courts can quash an FIR under Section 482 CrPC during the pendency of a petition, even if a chargesheet has been filed?

a) Abhishek v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 731

b) Rajesh v. State of MP, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 814

c) Balvir Singh v. State of Uttarakhand, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 861

d) M. Sivadasan v. A.Soudamini, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 721

Answer: a) Abhishek v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 731

Explanation: The Supreme Court clarified that High Courts can quash an FIR under Section 482 CrPC during the pendency of a petition, even if a chargesheet has been filed.

HC Can Act On Section 482 Petition To Quash FIR Even If Chargesheet Has Been Filed During Its Pendency : Supreme Court

3. In which recent Supreme Court judgment was it held that a child born from a void or voidable marriage is entitled to parents' share in a Hindu Undivided Family (HUF) governed by Mitakshara law but cannot be treated as a coparcener by birth?

a) Revanasiddappa v. Mallikarjun, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 737

b) Munna Pandey v. State of Bihar, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 744

c) Union of India v. Manjurani Routray, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 745

d) UT of Ladakh v. Jammu and Kashmir National Conference, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 749

Answer: a) Revanasiddappa v. Mallikarjun, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 737

Explanation: In the case titled "Revanasiddappa v. Mallikarjun," it was held that a child born from a void or voidable marriage is entitled to parents' share in a Hindu Undivided Family (HUF) governed by Mitakshara law but cannot be treated as a coparcener by birth

Children Of Invalid Marriages Have Right In Their Parents' Share In Hindu Joint Family Property: Supreme Court

4. Recently, In the case of Revanasiddappa vs. Mallikarjun (2023 LiveLaw (SC) 737, what rights did the Supreme Court recognize for children born out of invalid marriages concerning their parents' share in Hindu joint family property?

a) They have no rights in their parents' share.

b) They are entitled to inherit all the coparcenary property.

c) They are entitled to inherit a share in the property of their deceased parents under Hindu Mitakshara law.

d) They are entitled to inherit the properties of any coparcener other than their parents.

Answer: c) They are entitled to inherit a share in the property of their deceased parents under Hindu Mitakshara law.

Explanation: The Supreme Court held that children born out of void/voidable marriages have the right to inherit a share in their parents' property under Hindu Mitakshara law

Children Of Invalid Marriages Have Right In Their Parents' Share In Hindu Joint Family Property: Supreme Court

5. In the case of succession to Mitakshara coparcenary property, what is the first step to ascertain the shares of the heirs, as per the recent Supreme Court judgment?

a) Determine the shares of the heirs first.

b) Ascertain the share of the deceased himself in the coparcenary property on the date of death.

c) Calculate the total value of the coparcenary property.

d) Consult the local revenue department.

Answer: b) Ascertain the share of the deceased himself in the coparcenary property on the date of death.

Explanation: The Supreme Court, in the case titled "Derha v. Vishal 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 740 highlighted that the first step to ascertain the shares of the heirs in Mitakshara coparcenary property is to determine the share of the deceased himself in the property on the date of death.

Hindu Succession Act | To Decide Shares Of Heirs, First Step Is To Ascertain Share Of Deceased In Coparcenary Property On Date Of Death : Supreme Court

6. According to the recent Supreme Court judgment when can the power under Section 323 CrPC be invoked by a Magistrate?

a) Only before the deposition or examination-in-chief of a witness.

b) Only during cross-examination of a witness.

c) Even after the deposition or examination-in-chief of a witness.

d) Only during the final arguments of the case.

Answer: c) Even after the deposition or examination-in-chief of a witness.

Explanation: The recent Supreme Court judgment in the case titled "Archana v. State of West Bengal 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 742 clarified that the power under Section 323 CrPC can be invoked by a Magistrate even after the deposition or examination-in-chief of a witness

Section 323 CrPC - Power Can Be Invoked Even After Deposition/Chief Examination Of Witness: Supreme Court

7. In which recent Supreme Court judgment was it held that anticipatory bail can be granted to a proclaimed offender only in exceptional and rare cases?

a) State of Haryana v. Dharamraj, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 739

b) Satbir Singh v. State of Haryana & Ors, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 743.

c) Lavesh v State (NCT of Delhi), Criminal Appeal No. 1331 of 2023.

d) Madhya Pradesh v Pradeep Sharma, Criminal Appeal No. 1009 of 2023.

Answer: a) State of Haryana v. Dharamraj, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 739

Explanation: The case titled "State of Haryana v. Dharamraj” held that anticipatory bail can be granted to a proclaimed offender only in exceptional and rare cases

Can Anticipatory Bail Be Granted To Proclaimed Offender? Only In Exceptional & Rare Cases, Holds Supreme Court

8. In which recent Supreme Court judgment, did the court emphasize that the power To Recall Witness Must Be Invoked When It Is Essential For a Just Decision under section 311 CrPC?

a) Bharwad Sanotshbhai Sondabhai v. State of Gujarat, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 728

b) Satbir Singh v. State of Haryana & Ors, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 743.

c) Lavesh v State (NCT of Delhi), Criminal Appeal No. 1331 of 2023

d) Madhya Pradesh v Pradeep Sharma, Criminal Appeal No. 1009 of 2023.

Answer: b) Satbir Singh v. State of Haryana & Ors, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 743.

Explanation: The case titled "Satbir Singh v. State of Haryana & Ors" emphasized the cautious use of Section 311 CrPC concerning the recall of witnesses for just decisions in criminal cases

Section 311 CrPC | Power To Recall Witness Must Be Invoked When It Is Essential For Just Decision : Supreme Court

9. In which case, the Supreme Court recently held that High Courts cannot refuse to follow a binding SC judgment due to a reference or pending review?

a) Ved Kumari v. Municipal Corporation of Delhi, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 730

b) Munna Pandey v. State of Bihar, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 744

c) Union of India v. Manjurani Routray, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 745

d) UT of Ladakh v. Jammu and Kashmir National Conference,2023 LiveLaw (SC) 749

Answer: d) UT of Ladakh v. Jammu and Kashmir National Conference, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 749

Explanation: The case titled "UT of Ladakh v. Jammu and Kashmir National Conference" clarified that High Courts cannot refuse to follow a binding SC judgment on the ground of reference or pending review.

High Courts Cannot Refuse To Follow SC Judgment On Ground Of Review/Reference Pending Against It

10. In which case, the Supreme Court recently held that the theory can be invoked only when it stands proved beyond reasonable doubt?

a) Suresh Thipmppa Shetty v. State of Maharashtra, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 682

b) S.K. Khaja v. State of Maharashtra, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 715

c) R Sreenivasa v. State of Karnataka, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 751

d) Union of India v. Manjurani Routray, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 745

Answer: d) R Sreenivasa v. State of Karnataka, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 751

Explanation: In the case titled "R Sreenivasa v. State of Karnataka," it was held that the 'last seen' theory can be invoked only when it stands proved beyond reasonable doubt

Last Seen Theory Can Be Invoked Only If It Stands Proved Beyond Reasonable Doubt : Supreme Court Acquits Murder Accused

11. According to the Supreme Court in Munna Pandey v. State of Bihar 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 744 what is the Court's position on the power of a Trial Judge to contradict witnesses?

a) A Trial Judge cannot contradict witnesses suo motu.

b) Section 162 CrPC prevents a Trial Judge from contradicting witnesses.

c) A Trial Judge can look into documents and contradict witnesses suo motu.

d) A Trial Judge can only contradict witnesses if requested by the defense.

Answer: c) A Trial Judge can look into documents and contradict witnesses suo motu.

Explanation: In Munna Pandey v. State of Bihar 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 744, the Supreme Court held that Section 162 CrPC does not prevent a Trial Judge from looking into documents or putting questions to witnesses suo motu to contradict them.

Section 162 CrPC Does Not Prevent A Trial Court From Putting Questions To Witnesses Suo Motu To Contradict Them : Supreme Court

12. In which case did the Supreme Court recently held that a person buying goods for resale or large-scale profit-making activity is not a 'consumer' under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986?

a) K. Hymavathi v. State of Andhra Pradesh, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 752

b) Rohit Chaudhary & Anr. v. M/s Vipul Ltd., 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 754

c) Nimmanapally Surya Reddy v. Honorable Chief Justice High Court Of Telangana, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 755

d) Vipul Pramodchandra Shah v. State of Maharashtra

Answer: b) Rohit Chaudhary & Anr. v. M/s Vipul Ltd., 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 754

Explanation: In the case of Rohit Chaudhary & Anr. v. M/s Vipul Ltd., the Supreme Court ruled that a person buying goods either for resale or for use in large-scale profit-making activity is not a 'consumer' under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

Consumer Protection Act | If Commercial Use Is By Purchasers Themselves For Earning Livelihood By Self-Employment, They'll Be 'Consumers' : Supreme Court

13. In which case did the Supreme Court rule that an SLP (Special Leave Petition) cannot be filed to challenge an order passed by a High Court on the administrative side?

a) K. Hymavathi v. State of Andhra Pradesh, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 752

b) Nimmanapally Surya Reddy v. Honorable Chief Justice High Court Of Telangana, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 755

c) Anuj Sarwesh v. Delhi HC, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 722

d) Satendra Babu vs. HC of Allahabad, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 766

Answer: b) Nimmanapally Surya Reddy v. Honorable Chief Justice High Court Of Telangana, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 755

Explanation: In Nimmanapally Surya Reddy v. Honorable Chief Justice High Court Of Telangana, the Supreme Court ruled that SLP cannot be filed to challenge an order passed by a High Court on the administrative side

SLP Cannot Be Filed To Challenge An Order Passed By High Court On Administrative Side: Supreme Court

14. As per Apex Court's recent ruling, under what circumstances can a cheque bounce case be quashed under Section 482 CrPC?

a) When the debt is time-barred.

b) When the cheque amount is not recoverable.

c) When the complainant withdraws the case.

d) When the accused pleads guilty.

Answer: b) When the cheque amount is not recoverable.

Explanation: In K. Hymavathi v. State of Andhra Pradesh 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 752, the Supreme Court held that a cheque bounce case can be quashed under Section 482 CrPC only if the cheque amount is patently non-recoverable

Cheque Bounce Case Can Be Quashed U/S 482 Only If Amount Is Patently Non-Recoverable; Whether Debt Time-Barred Or Not Is A Question Of Evidence :SC

15. What did the bench of Justices BR Gavai and Prashant Kumar Mishra emphasize in the case of Satendra Babu v. State of Uttar Pradesh 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 766 recently?

a) The need for stricter bail conditions.

b) The importance of plea bargaining.

c) The duty of police to produce accused persons before the trial court.

d) The presumption of guilt of accused persons.

Answer: c) The duty of police to produce accused persons before the trial court.

Explanation: The bench of Justices BR Gavai and Prashant Kumar Mishra emphasized the duty of the police to produce accused persons before the trial court in the case of Satendra Babu vs. State of Uttar Pradesh

It Is Duty Of Police To Produce Imprisoned Accused Before Court, Accused Can't Be Blamed For Police's Negligence : Supreme Court

16. Can procedural changes in criminal trials be applied retrospectively?

a) Yes, Article 20(1) allows for retrospective application of procedural changes.

b) No, Article 20(1) prohibits any retrospective application.

c) Procedural changes depend on the discretion of the court.

d) Procedural changes can only be applied prospectively.

Answer: a) Yes, Article 20(1) allows for retrospective application of procedural changes.

Explanation: According to the Supreme Court's ruling in the case of Central Bureau of Investigation v. Dr RR Kishore, procedural changes in criminal trials can be applied retrospectively as Article 20(1) does not bar such application

Public Servants Lose Immunity In Pre-2014 Corruption Cases; Supreme Court Clarifies That Striking Down Of Sec 6A DSPE Act Has Retrospective Effect

17. When no time is fixed for the specific performance of a contract, what is the limitation period for a specific performance suit as per Article 54 of Part II of the Schedule to the Limitation Act, 1963?

a) The limitation period is always three years from the date fixed for performance.

b) The limitation period is three years from the date when the plaintiff has notice of refusal to perform the contract.

c) The limitation period is five years from the date of the contract.

d) The limitation period is determined by the discretion of the trial court.

Answer: b) The limitation period is three years from the date when the plaintiff has notice of refusal to perform the contract.

The SC recently in A. Valliammai v. K.P. Murali 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 777 clarified that the limitation period is three years from the date when the plaintiff has notice of refusal to perform the contract.

Specific Performance Suit - When No Time Is Fixed For Performance, Limitation Runs From Period When Plaintiff Had Notice Of Refusal : Supreme Court

18. In which case, the Supreme Court recently held that the Standard Of Proof To Prove Insanity Is Only 'Reasonable Doubt”?

a) Ilvarasan v. Superintendent of Police, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 735

b) Mursaleen Tyagi v. State of Uttar Pradesh, SLP(Crl) No. 000898/ 2023

c) Rupesh Manger (Thapa) v. State of Sikkim, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 771

d) Zunaid v. State of U.P, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 730

Answer- c) Rupesh Manger (Thapa) v. State of Sikkim, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 771

Explanation- The Supreme Court observed that an accused seeking exoneration from liability under Section 84 of IPC has to prove legal insanity, not medical insanity. The standard of proof required is 'reasonable doubt.'

Standard Of Proof To Prove Insanity Is Only 'Reasonable Doubt' : Supreme Court Acquits Man Accused Of Killing His Grandfather

19. What did the Supreme Court recently emphasize regarding the rejection of a plaint under Order VII Rule 11(d) of the CPC?

a) Res judicata is a ground for rejecting a plaint.

b) Plaint rejection should be based on procedural errors.

c) Order VII Rule 11(d) cannot be invoked for plaint rejection.

d) Plaint rejection should be based on the doctrine of res judicata.

Answer: c) Order VII Rule 11(d) cannot be invoked for plaint rejection.

Explanation: The Supreme Court clarified in Keshav Sood v. Kirti Pradeep Sood 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 799 that Order VII Rule 11(d) of the CPC cannot be invoked as a ground for the rejection of a plaint based on the principle of res judicata.

Res Judicata Can't Be Decided In Application Under Order VII Rule 11 CPC As Previous Suit Documents Have To Be Seen : Supreme Court

20. Which of the statements is true regarding service under Order V Rule 2 of the CPC?

a) Service of summons and plaint must be simultaneous.

b) Service under this rule is optional.

c) Service only involves delivering a copy of the plaint.

d) Service is not required in civil cases.

Answer: a) Service of summons and plaint must be simultaneous.

Explanation: The Supreme Court clarified in the case of National Insurance Company Ltd v. M/S National Building Construction India Ltd that service under Order V Rule 2 of the CPC implies service of summons along with the copy of the plaint, and both must be simultaneous.

Order V Rule 2 Of Civil Procedure Code Requires Service Of Summons With Plaint: Supreme Court