Important MCQs Based On Latest Supreme Court Judgments For Law Examinations

Q 1. Based on the testimony of the prosecution witness who was not the eyewitness to the incident, the trial court summoned the person to add as an additional accused under Section 319 of Cr.P.C. Decide.

a. Mere testimony of the prosecution witness is sufficient to invoke powers under Section 319.

b. Testimony given by the prosecution witness is not trustworthy as he wasn't an eyewitness to the incident.

c. The degree of satisfaction is much stricter to summon a person as an additional accused.

d. Both (b) and (c)

Answer: Option (d)

Explanation: The Supreme Court held that to summon a person as an additional accused invoking powers under Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the degree of satisfaction is much stricter. The evidence should be such that it should lead to the conviction of the accused if it is unrebutted. Further, the court observed that the extraordinary jurisdiction under Section 319 of Cr. P.C. could only be invoked when the evidence to summon the accused is stronger and more reliable than the mere probability of his involvement in the crime.

S.319 CrPC | Stronger Evidence Needed To Summon Person As Additional Accused During Trial: Supreme Court

Q 2. Recently, in the case of __________________the Supreme Court sought the establishment of the designated authority for a given judicial examinations recruitment process with clearly defined roles, functions, and responsibilities so that candidates can approach such a designated authority to seek clarification in case of any doubt, and would assuage the anxiety of the candidates to a considerable extent.

a. ABHIMEET SINHA & ORS. VERSUS HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA & ORS.

b. ABHIMEET SINHA & ORS. VERSUS HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD & ORS.

c. ABHINEET SINHA & ORS. VERSUS HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA & ORS.

d. ABHIMEET SINHA & ORS. VERSUS HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY & ORS.

Answer: Option (a)

Explanation: In the case of ABHIMEET SINHA & ORS. VERSUS HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA & ORS. the Supreme Court has flagged concerns about the absence of a designated authority by the High Courts which can be approached by the candidates of judicial services examinations to seek clarification in case of any doubt.

Judicial Service Recruitment | Supreme Court Requests High Courts To Notify An Authority Who Can Address Doubts & Grievances Of Candidates

Q 3. As per Section 101(2) of the JJ Act, 2015, what is the prescribed time within which the appeal against the decision of the preliminary assessment board passed under Section 15(1) of the JJ Act be filed?

a. No time limit is prescribed.

b. 30 Days

c. 60 Days

d. Appeal can't be filed against the decision of the preliminary assessment board.

Answer: Option (b)

Explanation: Noting that no time limit has been prescribed under the Juvenile Justice(Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 to prefer an appeal against the preliminary assessment order of the Juvenile Justice Board (JJB), the Supreme Court in a recent judgment deemed it appropriate to fill up this gap by prescribing 30 days' time limit for preferring an appeal against the JJB's preliminary assessment order.

Supreme Court Prescribes 30 Days Time Limit To Prefer Appeal Against Juvenile Justice Board Preliminary Assessment Order

Q 4. The appeal was filed against the trial court decision before the First Appellate Court (FAC), however, without framing the point of determination arising from the appeal, the First Appellate Court has examined each issue arising out of an appeal. Decide in light of Order 41 Rule 31 of CPC.

a. FAC committed error is not a framing point of determination as it is one of the requirements under Order 41 Rule 31 of CPC.

b. Examination of each issue arising out of an appeal by FAC would not be sufficient as there's no compliance with Order 41 Rule 31 of CPC.

c. Omission to frame point of determination is not necessary when there's substantial compliance with Order 41 Rule 31 whereby the FAC has led evidence on each issue out of an appeal.

d. Both (a) and (b)

Answer: Option (c)

Explanation: The Supreme Court held that an omission to frame points of determination by the first appellate court as per Order 41 Rule 31 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (“CPC”) would not prove fatal as long as that first appellate court dealt with all the issues that arise for deliberation in the said appeal.

Order 41 Rule 31 CPC | Omission To Separately Frame Issues Not Fatal If Appellate Court Has Otherwise Dealt With Them: Supreme Court

Q 5. The police have done a seizure, but haven't sent the seizure report to the magistrate 'forthwith' as per the mandate of Section 102(3) of Cr.P.C. However, the police explained the delay in sending the report to the magistrate. Decide.

a. The seizure would not be vitiated if there's a sufficient explanation regarding the delay caused in sending the seizure report to the magistrate.

b. The report could be vitiated if the seizure report is not sent forthwith to the magistrate despite the police explanation regarding the delay caused in sending the seizure report.

c. There shouldn't be a delay in sending the seizure report to the magistrate as the worth 'forthwith' is interpreted as 'immediately'.

d. Both (b) and (c)

Answer: Option (a)

Explanation: The Supreme Court on Monday (May 13) observed that the delay in reporting the seizure report by the police to the magistrate wouldn't vitiate the act of seizure by police under Section 102(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The court observed that although the law requires the police to send the seizure report to the magistrate 'forthwith' (came to be interpreted as 'as soon as possible') but the delay in sending the report to the magistrate wouldn't vitiate the act of seizure by the police altogether if there's a sufficient explanation by the police explaining the delay caused in sending the seizure report to the magistrate.

S. 102(3) Cr.P.C. | Police Seizure Wouldn't Get Vitiated Altogether Due To Delayed Reporting To Magistrate: Supreme Court

Q 6. The principal contractor executed a 'power of attorney' in favor of the agent. After the death of the principal contractor, his agent initiated the proceedings against the opposite party. The opposite party opposed the action of the agent because the agency stands terminated on the death of the principal as per Section 201 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872. However, the agent argued that Section 201 shouldn't be read in isolation but be read with Section 202 when there exists an interest of the agent in the subject matter of the contract. Decide.

a. In the event of the death of the principal the agency would stand terminated under Section 201, therefore, no relief could be provided to the agent.

b. Agency wouldn't stand terminated if the agent holds interest in the contract.

c. Section 201 should be read with Section 202 when the agent holds interest in the contract.

d. Both (b) and (c)

Answer: Option (d)

Explanation: The Supreme Court observed that the death of the original contractor would not preclude the agent (power of attorney) from initiating the proceedings arising out of the contract if the agent holds an interest in the contract being expressly mentioned in the contract. The court opined that when the power of attorney, being an agent, holds an interest in the contract then there wouldn't be an automatic termination of the agency upon the death of the principal contractor under Section 201 of the Act as Section 201 of the Indian Contract Act couldn't be read in isolation by ignoring Section 202 of the Act when the agent holds an interest in the contract.

Agency Won't Be Terminated Upon Death Of Principal If Agent Has Interest In Property Which Is Subject Matter Of Contract: Supreme Court

Q 7. While executing a decree, the executing court sells off the entire property of the judgment debtor without examining whether the part selling of the judgment debtor's property could satisfy the decree. Decide.

a. The executing court doesn't commit an error while selling off the entire property of the judgment debtor in the execution of the decree.

b. The executing courts shouldn't order the sale of the whole property when the part property could have satisfied the decree.

c. Attaching the judgment debtor's whole property would cause a huge loss to the judgment debtor and undue benefit to the auction purchaser.

d. Both (b) and (c)

Answer: Option (d)

Explanation: In a recent judgment, the Supreme Court held that during the execution proceedings if the attachment of the judgment debtor's property takes place, then the executing courts shouldn't order the sale of the whole property when the part property could have satisfied the decree.

Sale Of Judgment Debtor's Whole Property Impermissible When Sale Of Part Property Can Satisfy Decree: Supreme Court

Q 8. Upon the payment of the compensation to the rape victim by the convict, the trial court reduced the sentence imposed on the convict by one year. Decide in light of Section 357 of Cr.P.C.

a. The sentence can be reduced upon payment of compensation to the victim by the accused.

b. Payment of compensation can become a consideration for reducing the sentence.

c. The compensation to be paid is the victim's loss or injury as a result of the offence and has nothing to do with the sentence that has been passed.

d. Both (a) and (b)

Answer: Option (c)

Explanation: The Supreme Court held that an order for the convict to pay compensation to the victim would not result in the reduction of the sentence imposed on the convict. “if payment of compensation becomes a consideration for reducing sentence, then the same will have a catastrophic effect on the criminal justice administration.”, the court said.

S. 357 Cr.P.C. | Payment Of Compensation To Victim Not A Factor To Reduce Convict's Sentence: Supreme Court

Q 9. A female Hindu claimed ownership over the Hindu Undivided Family (HUF) Property under Section 14(1) of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956. However, she was not in possession of the property but acquired the property through her husband after his death. Decide.

a. She can't claim ownership over the HUF property as she was not in possession of the HUF property.

b. Mere acquiring property is sufficient to claim full ownership over the HUF property, possession isn't necessary.

c. Mere acquiring property isn't sufficient to claim full ownership over the HUF property, possession is necessary.

d. Both (a) and (c)

Answer: Option (d)

Explanation: The Supreme Court held that for a female Hindu to claim absolute ownership of an undivided property of a Hindu Undivided Family(HUF), she should have been in possession of the property apart from fulfilling the condition of acquiring the property.

Hindu Succession Act | Hindu Woman Can Claim Full Ownership Of Property Under S.14(1) Only If She Possesses It : Supreme Court

Q 10. The applicant has filed a suit seeking a permanent injunction against the opposite party restraining him from alienating the suit property in favor of a third person. The suit property was part of the sale agreement entered between the applicant and the opposite party. Despite, the injunction being in operation against the opposite party, he alienated the suit property in favor of the third person. Since, the entire proceedings took place in the State of Punjab, therefore, the opposite claimed that Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (Lis pendens) would not be applicable to the State of Punjab. Decide.

a. Doctrine of lis pendens not to be enforceable in the State of Punjab as provisions of S. 52 of TPA aren't applicable there.

b. Even if Section 52 of TPA isn't applicable in the State of Punjab, then also the doctrine of lis pendens would be applicable there.

c. Section 52 TPA would be applicable because the principles of lis-pendens are based on justice, equity, and good conscience. 

d. Both (b) and (c)

Answer: Option (d)

Explanation: The Supreme Court held that the non-applicability of the provisions of Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1881 (“TPA”) wouldn't bar the applicability of principles of lis-pendens, which are based on justice, equity, and good conscience. "It is a well- nigh settled position that wherever TP Act is not applicable, such principle in the said provision of the said Act, which is based on justice, equity and good conscience is applicable in a given similar circumstance, like Court sale etc.....”, the court said.

'Lis Pendens' Doctrine Can Be Applied Even If S.52 Transfer Of Property Act Is Not Strictly Applicable In A State: Supreme Court

(The questions are drafted by Mr. Yash Mittal. In case of doubt, he can be reached at yash@livelaw.in)