Important MCQ's Based On Latest Supreme Court Judgments For Law Examinations
Q 1. A litigant filed an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 seeking condonation of delay on the grounds of a subsequent change in law. Decide the maintainability of such an application.a. Application would not be maintainable as subsequent overruling of a judgment cannot be "sufficient cause" for seeking condonation of delay.b. Application would be maintainable as...
Q 1. A litigant filed an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 seeking condonation of delay on the grounds of a subsequent change in law. Decide the maintainability of such an application.
a. Application would not be maintainable as subsequent overruling of a judgment cannot be "sufficient cause" for seeking condonation of delay.
b. Application would be maintainable as subsequent overruling of a judgment can be "sufficient cause" for seeking condonation of delay.
c. If a subsequent change of law is allowed as a valid ground for condonation of delay, then there would be no end to litigation.
d. Both (a) and (c)
Answer: Option (d)
Explanation: In a batch of land acquisition cases, the Supreme Court recently observed that subsequent change in law cannot be a ground for condonation of delay. The court summed up its observation on the point thus, "subsequent change of law will not be attracted unless a case is pending before the competent court awaiting its final adjudication. To say it differently, if a case has already been decided, it cannot be re-opened and re-decided solely on the basis of a new interpretation given to that law."
Subsequent Change In Law Can't Be A Ground For Condonation Of Delay: Supreme Court
Q 2. An application was filed under Section 29A (4) of the Arbitration Act seeking an extension of the time limit for passing an arbitral award before the High Court not having an original civil jurisdiction. However, the High Court rejected the said application. Decide.
a. The High Court having an original civil jurisdiction can only entertain the application seeking an extension of a time limit.
b. There's no bar for the High Court not having an original civil jurisdiction to entertain the application seeking an extension of a time limit.
c. When the High Court doesn't have an original civil jurisdiction then the appropriate court would be the principal civil court in the district.
d. Both (a) and (c)
Answer: Option (d)
Explanation: The Supreme Court held that a High Court that does not have original civil jurisdiction does not have the power to extend the time limit for passing of the arbitral award as per Section 29A of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act 1996 (“Act”). The court clarified that as per the mandate of Section 29A (4) of the Act, the power to extend the time limit for passing of the arbitral award vests within the principal Civil Court of original jurisdiction, but there is no impediment for the High Court who is exercising the ordinary original civil jurisdiction to extend the time limit.
Q 3. A trial court refused to take cognizance of an offence against the police official for committing an offence of dereliction of duty (for not registering an FIR) under the Schedule Caste & Schedule Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. The trial court was of the view that cognizance of the offence couldn't be taken unless the administrative enquiry report was submitted to the court. Feeling aggrieved, the complainant preferred to challenge the trial court's decision before the High Court. The High Court reversed the trial court decision and directed prosecution against the police official. Decide.
a. Refusal of a police official to register an FIR under the SC/ST Act is a clear dereliction of duty and no administrative enquiry report is needed to prosecute the police official.
b. Requirement of calling an administrative enquiry report against the police official is an inbuilt safeguard to the public servant from initiation of prosecution by every dissatisfied complainant.
c. The cognizance of an offence of dereliction of duty shall be taken based on the recommendation provided by an administrative enquiry.
d. Both (b) and (c)
Answer: Option (d)
Explanation: The Supreme Court held that the absence of a recommendation by an administrative enquiry to initiate a case against the public servant would bar taking cognizance of an offence of dereliction of duty against the public servant under the Schedule Caste & Schedule Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (“Act”). The court stated that the recommendation of the administrative enquiry is a sine qua non, to set in motion the penal proceedings including taking cognizance for an offence of commission and omission i.e., wilful neglect/dereliction of duty by a public servant under section 4(2) of the Act of 1989.
Q 4. The trial court altered the charge framed against the accused from Section 302 r/w Section 149 of IPC to Section 302 r/w Section 34 of IPC. However, the accused was not granted an opportunity to recall/examine the witness in reference to the altered charges. Decide.
a. An opportunity must be granted to the accused in reference to the altered charges to recall/examine the witness.
b. The conviction of the accused may be set aside if an opportunity was not granted to the accused to recall/examine the witness.
c. Both (a) and (b)
d. Section 217 CrPC doesn't warrant a grant of an opportunity to the accused to recall/examine the witness.
Answer: Option (c)
Explanation: The Supreme Court held that in the event of an alteration of charges, an opportunity must be provided to the parties to recall or re-examine witnesses in reference to such altered charges, and the reasons for the alteration of charges must be recorded in the judgment. "A Court may alter or add to any charge before judgment is pronounced but when charges are altered, opportunity must be given under Section 217 of the Cr.P.C., both to the Prosecution and the defence, to recall or re-examine witnesses in reference to such altered charges.", the court said.
Q 5. A judgment was pronounced against the defendant upon his failure to submit the written statement within the stipulated time, moreover, the plaintiff has not proved his case. Decide as per Order VIII Rule 10 of CPC.
a. Court can't pronounce judgment upon the defendant's failure to submit the written statement within the given time limit.
b. Defandant's default in submitting the written statement would not relieve the plaintiff from proving his case.
c. Pronouncing judgment against the defendant on its failure to file a written statement is not a mandate.
d. All of the above
Answer: Option (d)
Explanation: Setting aside a decree passed in a civil suit, the Supreme Court held that a Court cannot pronounce judgment in a suit merely on the default of the defendant to file a written statement if the plaintiff doesn't prove his case. The Court observed that the failure on the part of the defendant to file the written statement within the time permitted by the court would not tantamount to the pronouncement of judgment against the defendant when it is incumbent upon the plaintiff to prove the case by adducing evidence.
Q 6. An accused bail stood canceled as he failed to show his appearance before the court when called upon by the court. Decide.
a. Bail could be canceled upon the non-appearance of the accused.
b. Bail could not be canceled merely due to the non-appearance of the accused.
c. The bail already granted may be cancelled, if it is found that the person who has been granted the benefit of bail has violated any of the conditions or misused the liberty by influencing the witnesses or tampering with the evidence.
d. Both (b) and (c)
Answer: Option (d)
Explanation: The Supreme Court recently observed that the non-appearance of the accused party is no ground for cancellation of bail. “..we find that merely because the appellant did not appear personally could not have been a ground for cancellation of bail. The parameters for the grant of bail and cancellation of bail are totally different. The bail already granted may be canceled, if it is found that the person who has been granted the benefit of bail has violated any of the conditions or misused the liberty by influencing the witnesses or tampering with the evidence.”, the court said.
Bail Cannot Be Cancelled Merely Due To Non-Appearance Of Accused Before Court: Supreme Court
Q 7. An accused not being in formal custody of the police provides information to the police which led to the discovery of the evidence under Section 27 of the Evidence Act. Decide the admissibility of the accused statement under Section 25 of the Evidence Act.
a. The statement would not be admissible because the accused was not in formal police custody as provided under Section 25 of the Evidence Act.
b. The statement would be admissible as for the recording of Statements under Section 27, formal custody of an accused is not required.
c. Statement of an accused recorded by the police when the accused was not formally arrested would not be admissible.
d. Both (a) and (c)
Answer: Option (d)
Explanation: In a significant judgment, the Supreme Court has held that the expression 'custody' used in Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act does not mean formal custody. "It includes any kind of restriction, restraint or even surveillance by the police. Even if the accused was not formally arrested at the time of giving information, the accused ought to be deemed, for all practical purposes, in the custody of the police," the court said.
Q 8. The complainant filed an application under Section 143A of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 seeking interim compensation to the tune of 20% of the cheque amount from the accused based on the cheque dishonor complaint filed against the accused. Decide the maintainability of the application seeking interim compensation.
a. Application would not be maintainable as a grant of interim compensation pending the complaint is not mandatory but directory.
b. Application would be maintainable as a grant of interim compensation pending the complaint is mandatory.
c. Mere filing of the cheque dishonor complaint would not grant a right to the complaint to seek interim compensation from the complainant.
d. Both (a) and (c)
Answer: Option (d)
Explanation: The Supreme Court on Friday (March 15) 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.
Q 9. Without ascertaining the mental and physical capacity of a 'child in conflict with law' was tried. Decide in light of Sections 15 and 19 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection) Act, 2015.
a. The conviction cannot be sustained in the absence of a preliminary assessment of the child's capacity to commit an offence conducted by the Juvenile Justice Board under Section 15.
b. A need for a trial of the accused child as an adult or a juvenile under Section 19 of the JJ Act could only be decided based on the preliminary assessment conducted by the JJ Board.
c. The procedure provided under Sections 15 and 19 is to be mandatorily followed by the court while trying the accused child for committing the heinous offence(s) under JJ Act.
d. All of the above.
Answer: Option (d)
Explanation: Recently, the Supreme Court held that the conviction of the accused child who was a 'child in conflict with law' cannot be sustained unless the preliminary assessment to ascertain the physical and mental capacity of the child to commit the crime and the need to try the child as an adult or a juvenile was adhered to as the mandatory requirements under the Juvenile Justice Act, 2015.
Q 10. An acquittal of the accused was reversed to a conviction by the High Court upon re-appreciating the partial evidence. Decide.
a. High Court committed an error in re-appreciating the partial evidence.
b. Re-appreciation of partial evidence is permissible.
c. High Court has the power to re-appreciate partial evidence.
d. Both (b) and (c)
Answer: Option (a)
Explanation: The court noted that although the High Court while exercising the power of an Appellate Court could re-appreciate the evidence, however, the re-appreciation of such evidence shall be in entirety and not just partial appreciation. “In an appeal, as much as in a trial, appreciation of evidence essentially requires a holistic view and not a myopic view. Appreciation of evidence requires sifting and weighing of material facts against each other and a conclusion of guilt could be arrived at only when the entire set of facts, lined together, points towards the only conclusion of guilt. Appreciation of partial evidence is no appreciation at all and is bound to lead to absurd results.”, the court said.