Judicial Service Examination- Questions Based On Latest Supreme Court Judgements

1. In Sukhal Singh Khaira v. State of Punjab, the Supreme Court made some important observations with respect to Section 319, CrPC. Which of the following is true with respect to the same?a. Criminal trial ends with order of conviction and power under Section 319 cannot exercised during the pendency of pre-sentence hearingb. Trial against the convicted accused is concluded with the imposition of sentence.c. In the case of acquittal, the trial ends when the judgment of acquittal is pronounced.d. Both b and c Answer: dSupreme Court observed in this case: It is clear that the conclusion of the trial in a criminal prosecution if it ends in conviction, a judgment is considered to be complete in all respects only when the sentence is imposed on the convict, if the convict is not given the benefit of Section 360 of CrPC. Similarly, in a case where there are more than one accused and if one or more among them are acquitted and the others are convicted, the trial would stand concluded as against the accused who are acquitted and the trial will have to be concluded against the convicted accused with the imposition of sentence.", the bench observed. 2. Pilot Courts in 5 states were directed to be constituted by the Supreme Court in 2022, for trial of cases under Section 138, NI Act. Which of the following is not one of these states? a. Uttar Pradesh b. Karnataka c. Maharashtra d. Delhi Answer: b The 5 states are: Maharashtra, Gujrat, Delhi, Rajasthan and Uttar Pradesh 3. In the Ryan School Murder case, Supreme Court made important observations as to the preliminary assessment under Juvenile Justice Act, 2015. Which of the following is true? a. During preliminary assessment, it is in discretion of the Juvenile Justice Board to seek assistance of the psychologist. b. During preliminary assessment, it is mandatory for the Juvenile Justice Board to seek assistance of the psychologist. c. The expression "may" in the proviso to section 15(1) would operate in mandatory form d. Both b and c Answer: d Explanation: The bench observed: "the expression "may" in the proviso to section 15(1) would operate in mandatory form and the Board would be obliged to take assistance of experienced psychologists or psychosocial workers or other experts. However, in case the Board comprises of at least one such member, who has been a practicing professional with a degree in child psychology or child psychiatry, the Board may take such assistance as may be considered proper by it; and in case the Board chooses not to take such assistance, it would be required of the Board to state specific reasons therefor." 4. Supreme Court in the case of State of Rajasthan v. Tejmal Chaudhary, held that a. Section 17A of Prevention of Corruption Act is retrospectiveb. Section 17A of Prevention of Corruption Act is prospectivec. Section 17A of Prevention of Corruption Act is retroactived. None of the above Answer: b Explanation: The Supreme Court has observed that Section 17A of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 is not retrospective in nature. The court opined that it is a cardinal principle of construction that every statute is prospective, unless it is expressly or by necessary implication made to have retrospective operation and there is a presumption against retrospectivity. 5. In the landmark case of Union Bank of India vs Rajasthan Real Estate Regulatory Authority & Ors, the Supreme court held that: a. In case of conflict between RERA and SARFAESI, the latter would prevailb. In case of conflict between RERA and SARFAESI, the former would prevailc. Real Estate Regulatory Authority can entertain complaints by home buyers against the bank which took possession of a real estate project as a secured creditord. Both b and c Answer: d Explanation: The Supreme Court held that Real Estate Regulatory Authority can entertain complaints by home buyers against the bank which took possession of a real estate project as a secured creditor. RERA authority has the jurisdiction to entertain a complaint by an aggrieved person against the bank as a secured creditor if the bank takes recourse to any of the provisions contained in Section 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act 6. In the case of Directorate of Enforcement vs Padmanabhan Kishore, the Supreme Court held that: a. Bribe giver can also be prosecuted under PMLAb. Bribe giver can not be prosecuted under PMLAc. Bribe giver is a party connected to the proceeds of the crimed. Both a and c Answer: d Explanation: The Supreme Court in this case set aside a Madras High Court judgment which quashed PMLA proceedings initiated against a 'bribe giver'. "By handing over money with the intent of giving bribe, such person will be assisting or will knowingly be a party to an activity connected with the proceeds of crime. Without such...

Judicial Service Examination- Questions Based On Latest Supreme Court Judgements

Paras Ahuja

Tags