Important MCQs Based On Latest Supreme Court Judgments For Law Examinations
Q 1. Recently, in an important ruling of ______________ the Supreme Court clarified the legal requirements and sanctity of Hindu marriages under the Hindu Marriage Act 1955. Also, the court held that the registration of marriage doesn't confer sanctity to the marriage but only acts as proof of the marriage.a. Baby Rani v. Manish Kumar Chanchalb. Dolly Rani v. Manish Kumar Chanchalc. Dolly Rani...
Q 1. Recently, in an important ruling of ______________ the Supreme Court clarified the legal requirements and sanctity of Hindu marriages under the Hindu Marriage Act 1955. Also, the court held that the registration of marriage doesn't confer sanctity to the marriage but only acts as proof of the marriage.
a. Baby Rani v. Manish Kumar Chanchal
b. Dolly Rani v. Manish Kumar Chanchal
c. Dolly Rani v. Mahesh Kumar Chanchal
d. Boby Rani v. Manish Kumar Chanchal
Answer: Option (b)
Explanation: The Supreme Court in Dolly Rani v. Manish Kumar Chanchal emphasized that for a Hindu marriage to be valid, it must be performed with the appropriate rites and ceremonies, such as saptapadi (seven steps around the sacred fire) if included, and proof of these ceremonies is essential in case of disputes.
Q 2. In a cheque dishonor case, the complainant was compensated by the accused for the cheque amount. The accused sought the compounding of offence under Section 147 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, of 1881 but the complainant didn't provide consent to compound the offence. Decide.
a. The court can compel the complainant to give consent to compound the offence of cheque dishonor once the complainant is compensated for the cheque amount by the accused.
b. The court cannot compel the complainant to give consent to compound the offence of cheque dishonor as mere repayment of the cheque amount wouldn't absolve the accused from criminal liability.
c. Once the complainant was compensated for the cheque dishonor amount then his consent becomes immaterial for compounding of an offence under NI Act.
d. Both (a) and (c)
Answer: Option (b)
Explanation: Recently, the Supreme Court observed that the Courts cannot compel the complainant in a cheque dishonor case to give consent for the compounding of the complaint merely because the accused has compensated the complainant. The Court also observed that mere repayment of the amount cannot mean that the appellant is absolved from the criminal liabilities under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.
Q 3. The accused sought exemption from personal appearance before the magistrate under Section 205 of Cr.P.C. before the grant of bail. However, the magistrate denied exemption from personal appearance on the ground that before the grant of bail there was no provision in Cr.P.C. to grant such an exemption from personal appearance to the accused. Decide.
a. The magistrate didn't commit any error as a grant of bail is a pre-requisite before seeking exemption from personal appearance.
b. The magistrate committed an error as grant of bail isn't a pre-requisite before seeking exemption from personal appearance.
c. The power to grant exemption from personal appearance under the Code of Criminal Procedure should not be read in a restrictive manner as applicable only after the accused has been granted bail.
d. Both (b) and (c)
Answer: Option (d)
Explanation: The Supreme Court observed that even before the grant of bail, the accused can be exempted from showing his personal appearance before the court.
“The observation (of the High Court) that there is no provision for granting exemption from personal appearance prior to obtaining bail, is not correct, as the power to grant exemption from personal appearance under the Code(Code of Criminal Procedure) should not be read in a restrictive manner as applicable only after the accused has been granted bail.”, the bench comprising Justices Sanjiv Khanna and SVN Bhatti said.
S.205 CrPC | Court Can Exempt Accused From Personal Appearance Before Grant Of Bail: Supreme Court
Q 4. What is the position of law concerning the accused 'Plea of Juvenility' under the Juvenile Justice (Care & Protection) Act, 2015?
a. The plea of juvenility can only be raised at the court of first instance.
b. The plea of juvenility can be raised at any stage of a trial, even after the disposal of the case, before any court.
c. The courts shouldn't ignore the plea of juvenility and must direct the proper inquiry to be conducted to ascertain the age of the accused.
d. Both (b) and (c)
Answer: Option (d)
Explanation: Observing that the plea of juvenility of the accused may be raised before any court at any stage, even after final disposal of the case, the Supreme Court held that such a plea of juvenility couldn't be rejected without conducting a proper inquiry.
JJ Act | Plea Of Juvenility Can Be Raised At Any Stage Even After Disposal Of Case: Supreme Court
Q 5. It was the case of the prosecution that the accused committed murder of his wife within the firewalls of the house when no one was present in the house except the accused and her wife. The prosecution stated that the accused had all the opportunity to plan and commit the offence and it would be difficult for the prosecution to lead direct evidence to establish the guilt of the accused, thus prosecution wanted the accused to prove the fact which is within the special knowledge of an accused under Section 106 of Evidence Act. Decide.
a. Since the burden of proving the guilt of the accused lies on the prosecution, therefore, Section 106 of the Evidence Act can't be invoked.
b. Prosecution can't invoke the provision of Section 106 of the Evidence Act to make the accused explain the incident.
c. Since no prima facie case is established by the prosecution, therefore, the burden wouldn't shift to the accused to explain the facts which are within his personal knowledge.
d. Once the prima facie case is established by the prosecution, then the onus of proving the facts which are within the personal knowledge of the accused lies on the accused.
Answer: Option (d)
Explanation: The prosecution has established the prima facie case against the accused by proving the fact that during the time of the incident only the accused and his wife were present in the firewalls of the house. Therefore, the onus would shift to the accused to prove that he was not guilty of committing the offence.
"The court should apply Section 106 of the Evidence Act in criminal cases with care and caution...Section 106 of the Evidence Act cannot be invoked to make up the inability of the prosecution to produce evidence of circumstances pointing to the guilt of the accused. This section cannot be used to support a conviction unless the prosecution has discharged the onus by proving all the elements necessary to establish the offence.", the court said in Anees V. State of NCT.
Q 6. The accused was convicted by the trial court for committing a serious offence. Pending the appeal against the conviction, the accused preferred an application under Section 389 Cr.P.C. before the trial court seeking suspension of sentence based on the factors of the likelihood of delay in deciding the appeal and incarceration for a particular period. Decide.
a. There should be a suspension of sentence pending the appeal against the conviction of the accused as per the mandate of Section 389 of Cr.P.C.
b. Mere likelihood of delay in deciding the appeal against the conviction and long incarceration would not be a ground to invoke Section 389 of Cr.P.C.
c. Suspension of sentence pending the appeal against the conviction of the accused is the general rule except when the accused is convicted for committing a serious offence.
d. Both (b) and (c)
Answer: Option (d)
Explanation: The Supreme Court observed that factors of the likelihood of delay and incarceration for a particular period should not be a sole consideration while deciding the plea of the accused to suspend the sentence pending the appeal against the conviction under Section 389 of Cr.P.C. The court held that although the suspension of sentence is a normal rule but when the accused is convicted of committing a serious offence then the suspension of sentence wouldn't be a normal rule but an exception.
Q 7. Recently, in the case of _________________the Supreme Court rejected the petitions seeking 100% cross-verification of EVM data with VVPAT records.
a. Association of Democratic Reforms v. Election Commission of India & Anr.
b. Association of Democratic Movement v. Election Commission of India & Anr.
c. Association of Constitutional Reforms v. Election Commission of India & Anr.
d. Association of Parliamentary Reforms v. Election Commission of India & Anr.
Answer: Option (a)
Explanation: The Supreme Court in the case of Association of Democratic Reforms v. Election Commission of India & Anr. rejected the petitions seeking 100% cross-verification of EVM data with VVPAT records and observed that the suspicions regarding EVM tampering are unfounded and reverting back to the ballot paper system, as prayed, would undo the reforms that have taken place over the years.
EVMs Can't Be Tampered With, Return To Ballot Paper Will Undo Electoral Reforms: Supreme Court
Q 8. The employee was terminated from employment on the date of the acceptance of the resignation letter by the appointing authority. Meanwhile, the employee revoked the resignation letter and sought willingness to return to work. However, the employment was denied citing his resignation from the job. The employee sought reinstatement to the employment based on the claim that the decision of termination from the employment was not communicated to the employee. Decide.
a. The employee cannot be terminated without providing communication of the termination to the employee.
b. The employment is deemed to be terminated from the moment the resignation letter is accepted by the authority.
c. Non-communication of the acceptance of the resignation wouldn't render the termination ineffective..
d. Both (b) and (c)
Answer: Option (d)
Explanation: The Supreme Court observed that before the withdrawal of the resignation letter by the employee, if the resignation is accepted by the appropriate authority, then the non-communication of the acceptance of the resignation to the employee would not render the termination ineffective.
Q 9. Citing the misuse of Section 498A of IPC, recently the Supreme Court in the case of _________________ requested the Parliament to amend the corresponding Section 498A of IPC in Bhartiya Nyay Sanhita, 2023.
a. Sachin Gupta v. State of Haryana
b. Achin Gupta v. State of U.P.
c. Achin Gupta v. State of Haryana
d. Sachin Gupta v. State of U.P.
Answer: Option (c)
Explanation: Raising serious concerns about the misuse of Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code proceedings against the husband and in-laws by the wife, the Supreme Court in Achin Gupta v. State of Haryana requested the Parliament to bring out necessary changes to the new IPC i.e., Bhartiya Nyay Sanhita, 2023 (“BNS”) which contained provisions such Section 85 and 86 akin to Section 498A of IPC.
Q 10. In a cheque dishonor case, the complainant/payee sought a change of date of the cheque in the cheque dishonor complaint after the stage of evidence in the trial. Decide.
a. The complainant cannot seek the change of the date of the cheque in the complaint.
b. Being a typographical mistake, the complainant can seek the change of the date of the cheque in the complaint.
c. The complainant can seek the change of the date of the cheque in the complaint even after the recording of evidence.
d. Both (b) and (c)
Answer: Option (a)
Explanation: The Supreme Court recently set aside a judgment of the High Court which allowed a complainant in a cheque dishonour case to amend the date of the cheque mentioned in the complaint. The Supreme Court noted that the amendment application was moved after the evidence stage was over. Here, the date of the cheque was mentioned as 22.07.2010 in the complaint. The same date was mentioned in the legal notice which was issued after the dishonour of the cheque. Also, in the evidence as well, the very same date was mentioned.
(The questions are drafted by Mr. Yash Mittal. In case of doubt, he can be reached at yash@livelaw.in)