Important MCQs Based On Latest Supreme Court Judgments For Law Examinations

Q 1. After the arguments concluded, the complainant filed an application seeking further investigation under Section 173(8) of the Cr.P.C. The application was filed based on the evidence he led during the trial without averring new material or grounds for further investigation. Decide.

a. The application would not be maintainable due to the complainant's failure to produce new material.

b. There should be a reasonable basis for triggering the court's power to order further investigation.

c. There's no bar to seek further investigation even after the conclusion of arguments albeit a fresh material needs to be produced.

d. All of the Above

Answer: Option (d)

Explanation: The Supreme Court observed that the courts should refrain from ordering further investigation when the party requesting further investigation under Section 173(8) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) has not whispered about anything new in its evidence and has based its application for further investigation without averring fresh materials.

[K. Vadivel Versus K. Shanthi & Ors. 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 757]

S. 173(8) CrPC | No Further Investigation Be Ordered If Application Was Filed Without Any Fresh Material : Supreme Court

Q 2. A Person's conviction in a murder case was approved by the Supreme Court, however, after the judgment and order of conviction and sentence granted against a person has attained finality, a Miscellaneous Application was preferred by the Convict seeking a 'plea of juvenility' that he was juvenile during the time of incident. Decide 

a. Plea of Juvenility can be taken at any stage before any forum.

b. Plea of Juvenility can't be taken after judgment and order of conviction and sentence granted attained finality.

c. Convict can be released if the plea of juvenility is taken after the order of conviction and sentence granted attained finality.

d. Both (a) and (c)

Answer: Option (d)

Explanation: The Supreme Court observed that the plea of juvenility can be filed even after the judgment and order of conviction and sentence granted against a person has attained finality. While holding so, the bench comprising Justices BV Nagarathna and N Kostiswar Singh acquitted the accused in a murder case who had filed a plea for juvenility after the order of conviction and sentence was passed against him.

[STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH VERSUS RAMJI LAL SHARMA & ANOTHER, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 791]

Juvenile Justice Act | Plea Of Juvenelity Can Be Raised Even After Conviction & Sentence Attained Finality : Supreme Court

Q 3. In a tenancy dispute case, as per Order XII Rule 6 of CPC, a trial court delivers a judgment based on an admission made by the tenant in 'another case'. The admission made by the tenant extinguishes his right to a tenancy granted under the law. Decide whether a judgment can be delivered based on such an admission made in another case. 

a. No Judgment can be delivered based on an admission that is against the law.

b.  A judgment can't be delivered based on an unclear and ambiguous admission

c. Both (a) and (b)

d. A judgment can't be delivered based on an admission made in another case.

Answer: Option (c)

Explanation: Recently, the Supreme Court observed that as per Order XII Rule 6 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (“C.P.C.”), a judgment can't be delivered based on an unclear and ambiguous admission. According to the court, when the testimony supplied in an admission contains both mixed questions of fact and law then such an admission against the law can never be an “admission” as visualized under Order XII Rule 6.

[RAJESH MITRA @RAJESH KUMAR MITRA & ANR. VERSUS KARNANI PROPERTIES LTD. 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 790]

Order XII Rule 6 CPC | Judgment Can't Be Delivered Based On Unclear, Ambiguous & Conditional Admissions : Supreme Court

Q 4. An accused was acquitted for an offence of murder after noting that the FIR was ante-timed i.e., one day delay occurred in forwarding the FIR to the magistrate which was sufficiently explained. Decide.

a. Delay in forwarding the FIR to the magistrate may prove fatal to the prosecution's case.

b. Delay in forwarding the FIR to the magistrate might not prove fatal to the prosecution's case unless the accused shows that the delay prejudiced his case. 

c. In heinous offences like murder it is not necessary to forward the FIR to the magistrate.

d. Both (a) and (c)

Answer: Option (b)

Explanation: The Supreme Court observed that a mere delay in forwarding the FIR to the jurisdictional magistrate would not be fatal to the prosecution's case unless it is shown by the accused that the delay had caused prejudice to his case. Mere delay by itself is not sufficient to discard and disbelieve the case of the prosecution.

[RAMA DEVI VERSUS THE STATE OF BIHAR AND OTHERS, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 776]

Delay In Forwarding FIR To Magistrate Wouldn't Be Fatal To Prosecution's Case If No Prejudice Caused To Accused : Supreme Court

Q 5. An accused demanded parity with other co-accused who were granted the benefit of suspension of sentence under Section 389 of CrPC. However, his application was opposed by the prosecution contending that another criminal trial is pending him making him ineligible to seek the benefit of suspension of sentence. Decide.

a. A pendency of trial against the accused in one case cannot be a ground to deny him the benefit of a suspension of sentence.

b. Accused can seek parity with other co-accused who were granted the benefit of suspension of sentence irrespective of the fact that a criminal trial is pending against him in another case.

c. Both (a) and (b)

d. Accused can't seek the benefit of suspension of a sentence when a criminal trial in another case is pending against him.

Answer: Option (c)

Explanation: The Supreme Court observed that a pendency of trial against the accused in one case cannot be a ground to deny him the benefit of a suspension of sentence. The bench comprising Justices Dipankar Datta and Prashant Kumar Mishra granted a relief to the accused who was convicted in a murder case but denied the benefit of the suspension of sentence by the High Court.

[JITENDRA & ORS. VERSUS STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 782]

S. 389 CrPC | Suspension Of Sentence Can't Be Denied Merely Because Another Trial Is Pending Against Accused : Supreme Court

Q 6. Recently, the Supreme Court in ___________ held that mere storage of child pornographic material without any intention to transmit the same would be an offence under the POCSO Act.

a. JUST RIGHTS FOR CHILDREN ALLIANCE vs. S. HARISH

b. JUST RIGHTS FOR CHILDREN ALLIANCE vs. N. HARISH

c. JUST RIGHTS FOR CHILDREN MOVEMENT vs. S. HARISH

d. JUST RIGHTS FOR CHILDREN MOVEMENT vs. S. NARESH

Answer: Option (a)

Explanation: The Supreme Court in JUST RIGHTS FOR CHILDREN ALLIANCE vs. S. HARISH overturned the Madras High Court judgment which held that mere storage of child pornographic material without any intention to transmit the same was not an offence under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act (POCSO Act). The Court held that the storage of such material, without deleting or without reporting the same, would indicate an intention to transmit.

Storage Of Child Pornography Without Deletion Or Reporting Indicates Intention To Transmit, Constitutes POCSO Act Offence : Supreme Court

Q 7. Mr. A is sent an unknown link by Mr. B, which upon clicking opened a child pornographic video on Mr. A's phone. Without closing the link, Mr. A watched the video and failed to report the same to the authorities. Decide Mr. A's liability.

a. Mr. A would not be liable as he unintentionally opened the video without knowing the content of the video.

b. Mr. A would be liable as he failed to close the video even after knowing that the video contained child pornography content. 

c. Failure of Mr. A to report the video would not absolve him from liability. 

d. Both (b) and (c)

Answer: Option (d)

Explanation: The Court said that when an unknown link containing a child pornographic video is sent, the person who unknowingly opened it would be absolved of liability only if he reports the same to the authorities.

[JUST RIGHTS FOR CHILDREN ALLIANCE vs. S. HARISH, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 728]

Person who opened the child pornographic link without knowledge liable on failure to report : Supreme Court

Q 8. A person immediately after storing and watching child pornography on his mobile phone deletes the same before an FIR can be registered. Decide whether he can be held liable under Section 15 of the POCSO Act for storage and possession of child pornography content. 

a. He can't be held liable because it is necessary to have storage and possession of child pornography content at the time of registration of FIR.

b. There is no requirement under Section 15 of the POCSO that 'storage' or 'possession' must continue to exist at the time of initiation of the criminal proceeding.

c. An offence can be made out under Section 15 if it is established that the person accused had 'stored' or 'possessed' of any child pornographic material with the specified intention at any particular point of time even if it was before such initiation or registration of criminal proceedings. 

d. Both (b) and (c)

Answer: Option (d)

Explanation: The Court clarified that the term 'storage' and 'possession' that has been used in the said provision does not require that such 'storage' or 'possession' must continue to be there at the time of registration of an FIR or any criminal proceeding.

[JUST RIGHTS FOR CHILDREN ALLIANCE vs. S. HARISH, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 728]

Just because material was deleted before FIR registration, it cannot be said that no offence is made out : Supreme Court

Q 9. A government seeks to exempt a specific college within a State University from UGC Regulations by enacting a new law to repeal the previous one that applied UGC regulations to the university. Essentially, this action isolates one university from others in similar circumstances, rendering UGC Regulations inapplicable to it. The government claims that this repeal is intended to safeguard the college's esteemed reputation. Decide whether it is permissible to single out one entity from other similarly situated entities through legislation, especially in the absence of any prior discussion before the enactment of this law.

a. It is permissible for the legislation to single out one entity from the rest of the group, it must be based on reasonable classification having nexus with the object to be achieved.

b. There must exist special circumstances warranting the legislature to enact a legislation affecting single entity/undertaking from the rest of the others.

c. Failure to supply reason by the State Government behind the enactment of the Repeal Act to single out one University from the rest of the others amounts to discrimination and violates Article 14 of the Constitution.

d. All of the above

Answer: Option (d)

Explanation: Observing that it would be impermissible for the legislature to single out one entity from other entities without a reasonable classification, the Supreme Court today (Oct. 3) struck down the Khalsa University (Repeal) Act, 2017 (“Repeal Act”) as unconstitutional which sought to single out the Khalsa University amongst 16 private Universities in the State. The bench comprising Justices BR Gavai and KV Viswanathan declared the Repeal Act as unconstitutional for being violative of Article 14 of the constitution because no reasonable classification was pointed out to discriminate the Khalsa University against the other private Universities.

[KHALSA UNIVERSITY AND ANOTHER VERSUS THE STATE OF PUNJAB AND ANOTHER, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 773]

'No Special Circumstance To Justify Law Affecting Single Entity' : Supreme Court Strikes Down Khalsa University (Repeal) Act 2017

Q 10. Recently, the Supreme Court in ________________ laid down crucial guidelines for the prevention of segregation and division of labour solely based on the caste of the prisoners in Prisons.

a. Sukanya Shantha v. Union of India

b. Sukanya Shantha v. State of Uttar Pradesh

c. Sukanya Shantha v. State of Bihar

d. Sukanya Shantha v. Union Ministry of Labour & Employment

Answer: Option (a)

Explanation: The Supreme Court in the case of Sukanya Shantha v. Union of India struck down the provisions of the Prison Manuals of several States as per which jobs were assigned to prisons based on their castes. The Court held that assigning cleaning and sweeping to the marginalized castes and assigning cooking to higher-caste prisoners is nothing but direct caste discrimination and a violation of Article 15.

End Caste-Based Allotment Of Work To Prisoners, Delete Caste Column In Prison Registers : Supreme Court

(For Feedback/suggestions, the author can be reached at yash@livelaw.in)