- Home
- /
- Top Stories
- /
- Judicial Service Exams: Question...
Judicial Service Exams: Question And Answers (MCQs) Based On Latest Judgements- PART-2
Suraj Kumar
21 Jan 2024 11:37 AM IST
MCQs based on Current SC Judgments- September 2023 21. As far as the comparison between ocular evidence and the opinion of medical experts goes, which statement is correct in this regard?a) Medical expert opinions should always take precedence over eyewitness accounts.b) Ocular evidence should be considered only if it matches the medical expert opinions.c) Ocular evidence holds...
MCQs based on Current SC Judgments- September 2023
21. As far as the comparison between ocular evidence and the opinion of medical experts goes, which statement is correct in this regard?
a) Medical expert opinions should always take precedence over eyewitness accounts.
b) Ocular evidence should be considered only if it matches the medical expert opinions.
c) Ocular evidence holds greater importance than the opinion of medical experts.
d) The opinion of medical experts is the sole determinant of guilt in criminal trials.
Answer: c) Ocular evidence holds greater importance than the opinion of medical experts.
Explanation: The Supreme Court in Rameshji Amarsingh Thakor v. State of Gujarat 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 804 emphasized in its judgment that ocular evidence holds greater importance than the opinion of medical experts, as evident in the case of Darbara Singh v. State of Punjab (2012) 10 SCC 476.
22. In which case, the Supreme Court recently held that a Certified Copy Can Be Produced To Prove the Original Sale Deed In Trial?
a) Mina Pun v. State of U.P. 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 724, 2023 INSC 776
b) Drakshayanamma v. Girish, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 709
c) Appaiya vs Andimuthu@ Thangapandi & Ors, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 811
d) State of Punjab v. Shika Trading Co., 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 721: 2023 INSC 773
Answer- c) Appaiya vs Andimuthu@ Thangapandi & Ors, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 811
Explanation: The Supreme Court recently made it clear that a certified copy of an original sale deed is admissible in evidence in a trial. This is as per Sections 65, 74, and 77 read with Section 79 of the Indian Evidence Act 1872 and Section 57(5) of the Registration Act.
Certified Copy Can Be Produced To Prove Original Sale Deed In Trial : Supreme Court
23. Which section of the Indian Evidence Act 1872 allows for the admissibility of certified copies of public documents as secondary evidence?
a) Section 65
b) Section 74
c) Section 77
d) Section 79
Answer: c) Section 77
Explanation: Section 77 of the Indian Evidence Act 1872 allows for the admissibility of certified copies of public documents as secondary evidence in proof of the contents of their originals.
24. How does Section 74(2) of the Indian Evidence Act define "public documents"?
a) Documents accessible to the general public
b) Documents created by government officials
c) Public records kept of private documents
d) Documents available for public inspection
Answer: c) Public records kept of private documents
Explanation: Section 74(2) of the Indian Evidence Act defines "public documents" as public records kept of private documents, making sale deeds eligible for this classification.
25. What does Section 79 of the Indian Evidence Act pertain to regarding certified copies?
a) It pertains to the admissibility of certified copies without any conditions.
b) It pertains to the genuineness of certified copies without any presumptions.
c) It pertains to the presumption as to the genuineness of certified copies under certain conditions.
d) It pertains to the admissibility of uncertified copies in evidence.
Answer: c) It pertains to the presumption as to the genuineness of certified copies under certain conditions.
Explanation: Section 79 of the Indian Evidence Act pertains to the presumption as to the genuineness of certified copies provided the existence of a law declaring certified copy of a document of such nature to be admissible as evidence.
26. According to Section 57(5) of the Registration Act, what is required for copies given under this section to be admissible in evidence?
a) They must be signed by two witnesses.
b) They must be attested by a notary public.
c) They must be signed and sealed by the registering officer.
d) They must be certified by the seller.
Answer: c) They must be signed and sealed by the registering officer.
Explanation: Section 57(5) of the Registration Act states that all copies given under this section shall be signed and sealed by the registering officer to be admissible in evidence for proving the contents of the original documents
27. What does the Supreme Court recommend regarding the framing of substantial questions of law in Second Appeals under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC)?
a) Substantial questions of law must be framed during the trial stage.
b) Substantial questions of law should be framed at the discretion of the High Court.
c) Substantial questions of law should be framed at the admission stage.
d) Substantial questions of law should be framed only after the trial is complete.
Answer: c) Substantial questions of law should be framed at the admission stage.
Explanation: The Supreme Court recently in Suresh Lataruji Ramteke V. Sau. Sumanbai Pandurang Petkar 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 821 recommends that substantial questions of law should ordinarily be framed at the stage of admission when dealing with Second Appeals under Section 100 of the CPC.
28. In the context of Section 27 of the Evidence Act, what are the two essential conditions that must be met for a confession made to the police to be admissible?
a) The individual must be in police custody, and the confession must relate to an offense.
b) The individual must be accused of an offense, and the confession must be made to a police officer.
c) The individual must be in police custody, and the confession must be voluntary.
d) The individual must be accused of an offense, and the confession must be in writing.
Answer: b) The individual must be accused of an offense, and the confession must be made to a police officer.
Explanation: The Supreme Court recently in Rajesh v State of MP 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 814 held that for a confession made to the police to be admissible under Section 27 of the Evidence Act, two essential conditions must be met: the individual must be 'accused of any offense,' and they must be in 'police custody' at the time the confession is made.
The individual must be accused of an offense, and the confession must be made to a police officer
29. In which landmark case, the Supreme Court recently directed all the courts to prioritize cases Of HIV Positive Persons?
a) Dulu Deka v. State of Assam, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 691
b) CPL Ashish Kumar Chauhan v. Commanding Officer, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 826
c) XYZ v. State of Gujarat, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 680
d) XXX v. Union Territory of Andaman and Nicobar Islands, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 718
Answer: b) CPL Ashish Kumar Chauhan v. Commanding Officer, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 826
30. In the case related to the Human Immunodeficiency Virus and Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome (Prevention and Control) Act, 2017 (HIV Act), what vital directions did the Supreme Court issue to the Central and State Governments?
a) To provide free treatment to all HIV-positive persons
b) To implement mandatory HIV testing for all citizens
c) To ensure the effective implementation of the HIV Act
d) To criminalize HIV-positive individuals
Answer: c) To ensure the effective implementation of the HIV Act
Explanation: The Supreme Court issued vital directions to the Central and State Governments to ensure the effective implementation of the HIV Act
31. In which case, did the Supreme Court recently hold that the court cannot Ignore the Ratio Laid In An Earlier Judgment Merely Because It Stands Referred To A Larger Bench?
a) Prakash v. G. Aradhya, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 685
b) Rajnish Kumar Rai v. Union of India & Ors, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 836
c) State of West Bengal v. Mitul Kumar Jana, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 714
d) Dr. Prakasan v. State of Kerala, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 710
Answer- b) Rajnish Kumar Rai v. Union of India & Ors, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 836
Explanation: In a recent judgment, the Supreme Court held that it cannot ignore the ratio laid down in an earlier judgment merely because the same stands referred to a larger Bench. A bench comprising of Justice Anirudhha Bose and Justice Bela Trivedi held that judicial propriety did not permit it ignoring the ratio laid down in the earlier judgment as no decision regarding the same had come out from the larger Bench
32. Under what circumstances can an unregistered lease deed be admitted in evidence?
a) When it contains the main term of the lease
b) When it is the primary dispute before the Court
c) When it is compulsorily registrable under Section 49 of the Registration Act
d) When it is used for collateral purposes and not the main term of the lease
Answer: d) When it is used for collateral purposes and not the main term of the lease
Explanation: The Supreme Court recently in the case of M/S Paul Rubber Industries Private Limited v Amit Chand Mitra 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 827 ruled that an unregistered lease deed can be admitted in evidence to show the 'nature and character of possession' when it is used for collateral purposes and is not the main term of the lease.
33. What does the proviso to Section 49 of the Registration Act allow for?
a) It allows the use of unregistered documents as evidence for any purpose.
b) It allows the use of unregistered documents to prove "collateral transactions."
c) It allows the use of unregistered documents as primary evidence in court.
d) It allows the use of unregistered documents only when they are compulsorily registrable.
Answer: b) It allows the use of unregistered documents to prove "collateral transactions."
Explanation: The proviso to Section 49 of the Registration Act allows the use of unregistered documents to prove "collateral transactions," but not as primary evidence for the main terms of the transaction.
34. In which landmark case did the Supreme Court struck down Section 6A Delhi Special Police Establishment Act 1946 as unconstitutional?
a) Central Bureau of Investigation v. Dr RR Kishore, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 770
b) Subramanian Swamy v. Union of India
c) Pradeep Rameshwar Sharma v. National Investigation Agency, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 699
d) Central Bureau of Investigation v. Narottam Dhakad, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 708
Answer: b) Subramanian Swamy v. Union of India
Explanation: The Court in Subramanian Swamy v. Union of India had struck down Section 6A of the DSPE Act as unconstitutional
35. Recently, in which case did the Supreme Court hold that its 2014 judgment, which declared Section 6A of the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act 1946 as unconstitutional, will have retrospective effect.?
a) Pradeep Rameshwar Sharma v. National Investigation Agency, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 699
b) Central Bureau of Investigation v. Narottam Dhakad, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 708
c) Central Bureau of Investigation v. Dr RR Kishore, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 770
d) Anupam Shivam v. NIA, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 698
Answer- c) Central Bureau of Investigation v. Dr RR Kishore, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 770
The issue before the present constitution bench comprising Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul, Sanjiv Khanna, AS Oka, Vikram Nath, and JK Maheshwari was regarding the retrospective effect of this ruling. Answering the reference, the court has now ruled that its earlier decision will have a 'retrospective operation'.
36. In this case, the Supreme Court recently held that a revision Petition Under S115 CPC Cannot Be Entertained Against the Order Of the Trial Court Rejecting the Review Of the Decree?
a)Shri Nashik Panchavati Panjarpol Trust v. Chairman, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 711
b) Rahimal Bathu v. Ashiyal Beevi, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 829
c) Hindustan Construction Company Ltd. v. National Highways Authority of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 704
d) Bhagyashree Anant Gaonkar v. Narendra@ Nagesh Bharma Holkar, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 688
Answer- b) Rahimal Bathu v. Ashiyal Beevi, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 829
Explanation: “where an appealable decree has been passed in a suit, no revision should be entertained under Section 115 of the CPC against an order rejecting on merits a review of that decree. The proper remedy for the party whose application for review of an appealable decree has been rejected on merits is to file an appeal against that decree and if, in the meantime, the appeal is rendered barred by time, the time spent in diligently pursuing the review application can be condoned by the Court to which an appeal is filed” a division bench of Justice P S Narasimha and Justice Manoj Misra observed
37. In which case, the Supreme Court recently declared that the Arbitrator's interpretation cannot be a ground for setting aside of award, since the construction of the contract's terms is finally for the arbitrator to decide?
a)Vishwakalyan Multistate Credit Co. Op. Society Ltd. v. Oneup Entertainment, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 706
b) Batliboi Environmental Engineers Limited V Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 817
c) Industrial Development Bank of India v. Superintendent of Central Excise and Customs, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 683
d) Om Gurusai Construction Company v. V.N. Reddy, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 694
Answer- b) Batliboi Environmental Engineers Limited V Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 817
Explanation: The Supreme Court Bench comprising Justice Sanjiv Khanna and Justice M.M. Sundresh, has held that while setting aside an arbitral award for being violative of Section 28(3) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, it must be considered that the Arbitrator is empowered to interpret the contract terms reasonably. Arbitrator's interpretation cannot be a ground for setting aside of award, since the construction of contract's terms is finally for the arbitrator to decide.
Supreme Court Explains Scope Of Judicial Interference In Arbitral Awards
38. In which case, the Supreme Court recently held that under Section 313 CrPC - Failure To Put Incrimination Circumstances To Accused Will Not Vitiate Trial If No Prejudice Is Caused?
a)Sunil v. State Of NCT of Delhi, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 815
b) Irfan @ Naka v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 698
c) Phool Mohd. v. Executive Engineer, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 736
d) Niranjan Das @ Niru Das @ Mahanto v. State of West Bengal, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 732
Answer- a)Sunil v. State Of NCT of Delhi, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 815
Explanation: The Bench, comprising Justices Hrishikesh Roy and Manoj Misra, observed:
“… the legal position that emerges, inter-alia, is that to enable an accused to explain the circumstances appearing in the evidence against him, all the incriminating circumstances appearing against him in the evidence must be put to him. But where there has been a failure in putting those circumstances to the accused, the same would not ipso facto vitiate the trial unless it is shown that its non-compliance has prejudiced the accused. Where there is a delay in raising the plea, or the plea is raised for the first time in this Court, it could be assumed that no prejudice had been felt by the accused.”
39. The Supreme Court recently held that it's High Time To Have a Code Of Investigation For Police So That the Guilty Don't Walk Free On Technicalities?
a) Rajesh v the State of MP, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 814
b) Odi Jerang v. Nabajyoti Baruah, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 702
c) Ankita v. State(NCT) Delhi, 2023 Livelaw 800
d) Subhashni v. State of Jharkhand, 2023 Livelaw 755
Answer- a) Rajesh v State of MP, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 814
Explanation: The Supreme Court recently expressed exasperation at having to acquit three accused persons in a case of murder and kidnapping due to glaring lapses in police investigation. It observed, "It is high time, perhaps, that a consistent and dependable code of investigation is devised with a mandatory and detailed procedure for the police to implement and abide by during the course of their investigation so that the guilty do not walk free on technicalities, as they do in most cases in our country.
40. Recently, in which intriguing case, the Supreme Court held that the court can't Convict One Accused and acquit Another When the Evidence Is the Same while acquitting persons who didn't File appeal?
a)Javed Shaukat Ali Qureshi v. State of Gujarat, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 782
b) Buddhadeb Saha v. State of West Bengal, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 794
c) M. Sivadasan v. State of TN, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 720
d) Shubham v. State of UP, 2023 Livelaw 752
Answer- a)Javed Shaukat Ali Qureshi v. State of Gujarat, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 782
Explanation: While considering the appeal filed by another accused person, the Court noted that the evidence against all the accused persons were the same. Hence, the benefit of acquittal given to one accused has to be extended to the other accused also, even if they haven't approached the Supreme Court.
41. In which case, the Supreme Court recently held that “Legislature Can't Directly Overrule Judgment, But Law Can Be Made To Alter Basis Of Court Verdict”?
- National Commission for Homeopathy v. Swanirbhar Homeopathic Medical College Sanchalak Mahamandal Gujarat State, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 726
- Riya Bawri v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 695
- NHPC Ltd v. State of HP, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 756
- Payal v. State of Bihar, 2023 Livelaw 788
Answer- c) NHPC Ltd v. State of HP, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 756
Explanation: The Supreme Court has ruled that it is permissible for the legislature to remove a defect in earlier legislation, as pointed out by a constitutional court in the exercise of its powers of judicial review. The court said the defect can be removed both prospectively and retrospectively by a legislative process and previous actions can also be validated.
