Important MCQ's Based On Latest Supreme Court Judgments For Law Examinations
Yash Mittal
17 July 2024 7:29 AM GMT
Q 1. The Court called on a Public Servant under Section 319 CrPC without following the mandatory requirement of prior sanction to prosecute the public servant for the offence committed under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (PC Act). Decide.a. No Cognizance can be taken against the public servant for want of sanction under Section 19 of the PC Act.b. prosecution sanctioning is not...
Q 1. The Court called on a Public Servant under Section 319 CrPC without following the mandatory requirement of prior sanction to prosecute the public servant for the offence committed under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (PC Act). Decide.
a. No Cognizance can be taken against the public servant for want of sanction under Section 19 of the PC Act.
b. prosecution sanctioning is not required when the Court takes cognizance of the offence against a public servant.
c. Taking a sanction to prosecute a public servant is not a mandatory requirement under Section 19 of the PC Act.
d. Both (b) and (c)
Answer: Option (a)
Explanation: The Supreme Court has reiterated that the court cannot take cognizance of an offence committed by a public servant under the Prevention of Corruption Act in the absence of prosecution sanction. The Court held that this condition is applicable even for summoning a public servant as an additional accused under Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
Q 2. An accused was convicted based on the dock identification of the accused by the witness in the court. Despite knowing the fact that the accused is a stranger to the witness, a Test Identification Parade (TIP) was not conducted by the police. Decide.
a. TIP is not essential when the witness identifies the accused in the Court.
b. Identification of an accused being a stranger to a witness in a court is a good piece of evidence.
c. Corroboration with TIP is not required when a witness identifies the accused in a court.
d. Accused cannot be convicted based on Dock Identification of Accused by a Witness in the Court as TIP is essential for corroboration when the accused is a stranger to a witness.
Answer: Option (d)
Explanation: The Supreme Court observed that if the accused is a stranger to a witness, then without holding a Test Identification Parade(TIP) of the accused, the identification of the accused by a witness in the court cannot be considered a good piece of evidence for deciding conviction. The Court added that if there was no TIP, then the conviction cannot be decided solely on the identification of an accused made by a witness in the Court. The court said so to prevent the dock identification of the accused by a witness, wherein the identity of an accused always remains under the cloud of suspicion being fairly determined by a TIP.
Q 3. Recently, the Supreme Court in a case of _______________ held that a Muslim woman can claim maintenance under Section 125 of CrPC from her husband.
a. Mohd Abdul Miya v. The State of Telangana & Anr.
b. Mohd Abdul Samad v. The State of Telangana & Anr.
c. Mohd Faiz Samad v. The State of Telangana & Anr.
d. Mohd Abdul Hamad v. The State of Telangana & Anr.
Answer: Option (b)
Explanation: The Supreme Court in the case of Mohd Abdul Samad v. The State of Telangana & Anr. has held that a Muslim woman, is entitled to seek maintenance from her husband as per Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
Q 4. Mr. A approached the Writ Court for Setting Aside the auction sale of his property on the ground that the executive authority had sold his property in violation of law. However, the Writ Court dismissed the petition on the ground that the conditions of Order 21 Rule 90 for setting aside a sale were not fulfilled by Mr. A. Decide.
a. Writ Court has rightly dismissed the petition as the conditions of Order 21 Rule 90 CPC ought to have been fulfilled by Mr. A.
b. Writ Court cannot ask Mr. A to fulfill conditions of Order 21 Rule 90 CPC for setting aside an illegal sale made in violation of law.
c. Order 21 Rule 90 CPC does not apply to writ court.
d. Both (b) and (c)
Answer: Option (d)
Explanation: The Supreme Court held that a person aggrieved by an auction sale conducted by the public functionary in gross violations of the mandatory provisions of law cannot be called upon to establish the dual conditions stipulated in Order XXI Rule 90 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (“CPC”) for setting aside the auction sale. Further, the Court said that the provisions of Order 21 Rule 90 of CPC are in any case not applicable to writ proceedings.
Q 5. A transferee who purchased a suit property via a registered sale deed during the pendency of a suit sought impleadment as a necessary party to defend his title. The impleadment was denied on the ground that Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1881 renders the transfers pendente lite void. Decide.
a. The impleadment was rightly denied as the doctrine of lis pendens renders the pendente lite transfers void.
b. The doctrine of lis pendens does not render all transfers pendente lite to be void ab initio. It only impacts the rights of the persons who are party to the pending litigation.
c. The impleadment cannot be denied to a transferee as there exists no bar to the impleadment of transferees pendente lite with notice to protect his interest in the suit property purchased via registered sale deed.
d. Both (b) and (c)
Answer: Option (d)
Explanation: The Supreme Court reiterated that a registered sale deed cannot be held to be void merely because it was executed during the pendency of a suit in relation to the property. The doctrine of lis pendens under Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act 1882 does not render the pendente lite transfer void. The Court also held that there is no bar for impleadment of the transferee who has purchased the suit property via a registered sale deed during the pendency of the suit.
Q 6. A Principal has executed a Power of Attorney (POA) in favor of an Agent to sell her share in a property jointly owned by the Principal and Agent. However, before the Agent could have sold the Principal's property, the Principal acted independently of the POA and sold her part of the property. Despite knowing the fact that the Principal acted independently of POA, the Agent sold another part of the Principal's property to a third person. The third person didn't object to the sale transaction despite having knowledge of the Principal's implied revocation of POA. Decide.
a. The moment the Principal acted independently of the Agent, there is an implied revocation of POA.
b. The Principal has withdrawn the authority to act on his or her behalf by the agent.
c. The sale made by the Agent in favor of a third person is void ab initio, as despite having knowledge of the withdrawal of POA, the agent acting on behalf of the Principal.
d. All of the Above
Answer: Option (d)
Explanation: The Supreme Court on Tuesday (July 9) observed that there would be an implied revocation of Power of Attorney (“POA”) granted to the agent if the act of Principal choosing to act for himself is known to an agent and third person. The Court said that the conduct of the Principal and knowledge of the Principal's conduct to the Agent are the determinative factors while deciding the issue of whether the Principal has revoked the POA granted to the Agent.
Q 7. Recently, the Supreme Court in the case of ____________ held that there cannot be a bail condition that enables the police to constantly track the movements of the accused and virtually peep into the privacy of the accused.
a. Frank Zitus v. NCB
b. Frank Vitus v. NCB
c. Frank Vitus v. CBI
d. Brian Vitus v. NCB
Answer: Option (b)
Explanation: The Supreme Court in the case of Frank Vitus v. NCB held that there cannot be a bail condition that enables the police to constantly track the movements of the accused and virtually peep into the privacy of the accus.
Q 8. A private teacher invoked the Writ Jurisdiction of the High Court against the Army Welfare Education Society, performing the public duty of imparting education, for adjudication of the service dispute not governed by statutory provision. Decide.
a. Writ Petition not maintainable for adjudicating private service disputes.
b. Writ Petition is maintainable as the Army Welfare Education Society can be considered as 'State' within Article 12 of the Constitution as it was performing a 'public duty' of imparting education.
c. Writ Petition not maintainable against matters relating to service where they are not governed or controlled by the statutory provision.
d. Both (a) and (c)
Answer: Option (d)
Explanation: The Supreme Court held that a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution couldn't be entertained against a private education society for adjudication of private service disputes. The Court also held that the Army Welfare Education Society cannot be considered a "State" under Article 13 of the Constitution.
Q 9. An incriminating material was posed by the prosecution against the accused, however, the accused was not provided a chance to explain the incriminating material posed against him. Decide.
a. Trial Could be vitiated if provisions of Section 351 of BNSS (akin to Section 313 CrPC) are not followed.
b. Depriving an accused to explain the incriminating material posed against him by the prosecution is contrary to Section 351 BNSS.
c. Non-adherence to the provision of Section 313 of CrPC would result in an acquittal of the accused if it prejudices the accused.
d. All of the Above.
Answer: Option (d)
Explanation: The Supreme Court held that the non-questioning of an accused on 'incriminating circumstances' and depriving him of an opportunity to explain the incriminating circumstances under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure ("CrPC") would vitiate the trial if such omission result in a miscarriage of justice. The Court said that non-adherence to the provision of Section 313 of CrPC would result in an acquittal of the accused if it prejudices the accused.
Q 10. From the given options, specify the features of a Doctrine of Legitimate Expectation.
a. legitimate expectation operates in the realm of public law and private law.
b. legitimate expectation operates in the realm of private law
c. legitimate expectation can be based on a mere hope, wish, or anticipation.
d. a plea of legitimate expectation based on past practice can only be taken by someone who has dealings, or negotiations with a public authority.
Answer: Option (d)
Explanation: The Supreme Court in the case of ARMY WELFARE EDUCATION SOCIETY NEW DELHI Versus SUNIL KUMAR SHARMA & ORS. ETC. laid down the crucial features regarding the doctrine of legitimate expectation. A plea of legitimate expectation based on past practice can only be taken by someone who has dealings, or negotiations with a public authority. It cannot be invoked by a total stranger to the authority merely on the ground that the authority has a duty to act fairly generally.
Supreme Court Explains Features Of Doctrine of Legitimate Expectation
