Important MCQs Based On Latest Supreme Court Judgments For Law Examinations
Q 1. An indigent wanted to prefer an appeal before the High Court, however, the High Court dismissed the appeal on the ground that the indigent was awarded compensation by the Motor Accident Claim Tribunal, thus, he no longer remains an indigent person. On the other hand, it was contended by an indigent that though compensation was awarded to him but he has not received the...
Q 1. An indigent wanted to prefer an appeal before the High Court, however, the High Court dismissed the appeal on the ground that the indigent was awarded compensation by the Motor Accident Claim Tribunal, thus, he no longer remains an indigent person. On the other hand, it was contended by an indigent that though compensation was awarded to him but he has not received the compensation, therefore, he should be treated as an indigent person for filing an appeal. Decide.
a. Indigency Extinguishes as soon as compensation is awarded.
b. Indigency doesn't extinguish on awarding of compensation.
c. Indigency Extinguishes only after receiving the compensation amount.
d. Both (b) and (c)
Answer: Option (d)
Explanation: The Supreme Court observed that even though the original claimant/ appellant was awarded money, no money was paid to her. Thus, her indigency was not extinguished.
Q 2. A tenant continues to remain on the rented premises after the expiry of the tenancy agreement and refuses to pay compensation to the landlord for the additional days he stayed on the property after the expiry of the tenancy agreement. Decide.
a. The tenant would not be entitled to compensate the landlord because there was no eviction order against the tenant.
b. The landlord would be entitled to receive compensation in the form of 'mesne profit' despite no eviction order against the tenant.
c. The moment the tenancy right is extinguished the tenant becomes 'tenant at sufferance'.
d. Both (b) and (c)
Answer: Option (d)
Explanation: The Supreme Court held that if the tenant continues to remain in the rented premises even after the tenancy rights are extinguished, then the landlord would be entitled to receive compensation in the form of 'mesne profit' from the tenant.
Q 3. A suit was filed belatedly, however, the Court refused to dismiss the suit on the point of limitation because the defence of limitation was not set up while deciding the admissibility of the suit. Decide.
a. Suit filed after the limitation period should be dismissed, even if a defence of limitation is not set up.
b. The court has to dismiss any suit instituted after the prescribed period of limitation irrespective of the fact that limitation has not been set up as a defence.
c. Suit should not be dismissed unless a defence of limitation is not set up.
d. Both (a) and (b)
Answer: Option (d)
Explanation: The Supreme Court held that even if the plea of limitation is not set up as a defence, the Court has to dismiss the suit if it is barred by limitation. As per the mandate of Section 3 of the Limitation Act, the court has to dismiss any suit instituted after the prescribed period of limitation irrespective of the fact that limitation has not been set up as a defence.
Time-Barred Suit Must Be Dismissed Even If Plea Of Limitation Isn't Raised As Defence: Supreme Court
Q 4. Upon receiving a private complaint, the magistrate exercised its judicial powers to order an investigation by the police under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. However, the High Court set aside the magistrate's order. Decide.
a. High Court should not have set aside the magistrate's order as the magistrate is not considered to have taken cognizance of an offence while directing a police investigation.
b. High Court should not have set aside the magistrate's order as the magistrate is considered to have taken cognizance of an offence after the completion of an investigation by resorting to Section 200 of Cr.P.C.
c. High Court should not have set aside the magistrate's order passed in the proper exercise of his judicial powers.
d. All of the above
Answer: Option (d)
Explanation: Recently, the Supreme Court reiterated that a Judicial Magistrate cannot be said to have taken cognizance of an offence by directing an investigation by the police under Section 156 (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
Q 5. A suit for the specific performance of the contract wasn't preferred by the plaintiff immediately after the breach of contract but on the last day of the prescribed limitation period of three years. Decide.
a. The specific performance can be refused even if a suit is preferred within limitation.
b. Despite knowing the fact of the breach of the contract well before the filing of the suit if a suit is not preferred within a reasonable time then the specific performance may denied due to the plaintiff's conduct.
c. Three-year limitation period for filing the suit for specific performance of the contract wouldn't grant liberty to a plaintiff to file a suit at the last moment and obtain specific performance despite knowing about the breach of contract.
d. All of the above
Answer: Option (d)
Explanation: Even though the limitation period for filing a suit for specific performance of a contract is three years, the Supreme Court held that every suit for specific performance of the contract filed within the period of limitation cannot be decreed.
Q 6. Recently, the Supreme Court in the case of _________________ recommended Union to frame a Sentencing Policy To Reduce Judge-Centric Disparities while awarding a sentence to the convict.
a. SUNITA DEVI VERSUS THE STATE OF BIHAR & ANR.
b. GUNITA DEVI VERSUS THE STATE OF BIHAR & ANR.
c. SUNITA DEVI VERSUS THE STATE OF JHARKHAND & ANR.
d. SUNITA DEVI VERSUS THE STATE OF RAJASTHAN & ANR.
Answer: Option (a)
Explanation: Observing that there existed wide disparity in the sentencing of convicts as it is completely judge-centric, the Supreme Court in SUNITA DEVI VERSUS THE STATE OF BIHAR & ANR has recommended that the Union Government on the feasibility of introducing a comprehensive sentencing policy and a report thereon, within six months.
Q 7. The Court granted bail to an accused against whom serious allegations were labeled by the prosecution. Can there be a cancelation of bail despite the conditions imposed were not violated or misused by the accused? Decide.
a. Yes, the bail can be canceled if the allegations labeled against an accused are serious.
b. Non-misusing of bail conditions, not a material factor while canceling bail.
c. Bail can be canceled by the superior court if the below court has not taken into consideration the relevant material available on record or has not looked into the gravity of the offence.
d. All of the above.
Answer: Option (d)
Explanation: In a recent decision, the Supreme Court observed that the same Court that granted bail to an accused can cancel the bail if there are serious allegations against him although the accused has not misused the bail.
Q 8. The conviction of an accused for the offence of rape was set aside on the ground that the statements of the accused recorded under Section 313 of CrPC were not put to use in evidence while cross-examining the prosecutrix/victim.
a. Conviction can be set aside if the accused statements recorded under Section 313 CrPC were not suggested to the victim during her cross-examination.
b. If the accused alleges something about the victim in Section 313 statements, then such allegation must be put to use in evidence while cross-examining her to enable the victim to respond to the allegations.
c. Statements recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. do not have a bearing on the output of the trial as the accused statements were recorded just to know his version of the incident.
d. Both (a) and (b)
Answer: Option (d)
Explanation: In a recent case concerning an offence of rape, the Supreme Court observed that the conviction can't be set aside if the accused statements recorded under Section 313 of CrPC (stating that there was a prosecutrix consent to perform sexual intercourse) are not put to use in evidence by the accused in the form of suggestion while cross-examining the prosecutrix. The Court observed that if the part of the accused statements recorded under Section 313 states facts about the victim that she had consented to sexual intercourse, and such a fact is not suggested to the victim during her cross-examination, then the accused statements cannot be considered in isolation. They have to be considered in conjunction with the evidence adduced by the prosecution.
Q 9. Upon noting that the dying declaration of the deceased victim was not corroborated, the court acquitted the accused. Decide in light of Section 32 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872.
a. Corroboration of dying declaration is not required when it inspires the confidence of the court.
b. Minor inconsistencies in the witness deposition would not impact the evidentiary value of the dying declaration if the witness deposition were in convergence with the deceased statements.
c. It cannot be laid down as an absolute rule of law that a dying declaration cannot form the sole basis of conviction unless it is corroborated.
d. All of the Above
Answer: Option (d)
Explanation: The Supreme Court held that corroboration of the dying declaring statement isn't required when it inspires the confidence of the court to convict the accused. "The law relating to dying declaration is now well settled. Once a dying declaration is found to be authentic inspiring confidence of the court, then the same can be relied upon and can be the sole basis for conviction without any corroboration. However, before accepting such a dying declaration, court must be satisfied that it was rendered voluntarily, it is consistent and credible and that it is devoid of any tutoring.", the court held.
Principles Relating To Dying Declaration : Supreme Court Explains
Q 10. The owner of the benami property instituted criminal proceedings against the holder of the benami property on the ground that the holder has not paid the profit earned from the benami property to its owner. Decide.
a. Criminal Proceedings aren't barred against the holder of the benami property.
b. Owner can file suit for recovery of profit in the civil court as civil suits are not barred.
c. Both the civil and criminal proceedings against the holder are barred.
d. Both (a) and (b)
Answer: Option (c)
Explanation: In a recent decision related to the Benami Act, the Supreme Court held that the person claiming to be the owner of the Benami property cannot institute a suit/proceedings against the person in whose name the properties are held.