Judicial Service Examination- Questions Based On Latest Supreme Court Judgements

a. Criminal trial ends with order of conviction and power under Section 319 cannot exercised during the pendency of pre-sentence hearing

b. 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: d

Supreme 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 retrospective

b. Section 17A of Prevention of Corruption Act is prospective

c. Section 17A of Prevention of Corruption Act is retroactive

d. 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 prevail

b. In case of conflict between RERA and SARFAESI, the former would prevail

c. 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

d. 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 PMLA

b. Bribe giver can not be prosecuted under PMLA

c. Bribe giver is a party connected to the proceeds of the crime

d. 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 active participation on part of the person concerned, the money would not assume the character of being proceeds of crime. The relevant expressions from Section 3 of the PML Act are thus wide enough to cover the role played by such person.", the bench of CJI UU Lalit and Justice Bela M. Trivedi observed.

7. In the recent case of Neeraj Duttu v. State (NCT of Delhi), it was observed by the Supreme Court that:

a. Direct evidence of demand or acceptance of bribe is not necessary to convict a public servant under the Prevention of Corruption Act

b. Direct evidence of bribe demand not necessary to convict public servant under Prevention of Corruption Act

c. The demand or acceptance of bribe may also be proved by circumstantial evidence

d. Both b and c

Answer: d

Explanation: The bench observed that in order to bring home the guilt of the accused, the prosecution has to first prove the demand of illegal gratification and the subsequent acceptance as a matter of fact. This fact in issue can be either proved by direct evidence, in nature of oral evidence/documentary evidence. Further, the fact in issue namely, the proof of demand and acceptance of illegal gratification, can also be proved by circumstantial evidence in the absence of direct, oral or documentary evidence".

8. Which of the following proposition is true?

a. Accused is enticed to have a copy of Section 164(5), CrPC statement before chargesheet is filed

b. Accused is entitled to have a copy of Section 164(5), CrPC statement, soon after it is recorded

c. Accused is entitled to have a copy of Section 164(5), CrPC statement, only after the chargesheet is filed.

d. None of the above

Answer: c

Supreme Court observed in X v. Mahendra Reddy, that a rape victim's statement made under Section 164 CrPC should not be disclosed to any person including the accused till the chargesheet is filed.

9. Supreme Court of India in a landmark judgment held that the applications for appointment on compassionate ground ought to be decided in a time bound manner and not beyond a period of _________ from the date of submission of the completed applications.

a. Six months

b. Two months

c. One month

d. One year

Answer: a

Explanation: The Supreme Court, opined in Malaya Nanda Sethy v. State of Orissa that the applications for appointment on compassionate ground ought to be decided in a time bound manner and not beyond a period of six months from the date of submission of the completed applications. The Apex Court was apprehensive that if the applications are not decided expeditiously, then the whole purpose of such appointments would be frustrated.

10. As per the recent dictum of the Supreme Court, if the power is not invoked or exercised in the main trial till its conclusion and if there is a split-up (bifurcated) case, the power under Section 319 of CrPC can be invoked or exercised in the bifurcated trial:

a. if there is evidence to that effect, pointing to the involvement of the additional accused to be summoned in the split up (bifurcated) trial.

b.if there is evidence to that effect, pointing to the involvement of the additional accused to be summoned in the split up (bifurcated) trial or the mail trial

c. Such a power cannot be invoked in the bifurcated trial

d. None of the above

Answer: a

Explanation: Supreme Court has observed in the case of Sukhpal Singh Khaira v. State of Punjab that if the power is not invoked or exercised in the main trial till its conclusion and if there is a split-up (bifurcated) case, the power under Section 319 of CrPC can be invoked or exercised only if there is evidence to that effect, pointing to the involvement of the additional accused to be summoned in the split up (bifurcated) trial.