1. A Judicial Magistrate dismissed a private complaint u/s 203 CrPC. The aggrieved complainant approached the Chief Judicial Magistrate for remedy. The Chief Judicial Magistrate ordered the same Judicial Magistrate to make further inquiry.
A. The Chief Judicial Magistrate is not empowered to direct.
B. The Chief Judicial Magistrate is empowered to direct.
C. The power of revision is available only to the High Court and the Sessions Court.
D. Both C and A
***Explanation: Section 192 of the Code of Criminal Procedure - 1) Any Chief Judicial Magistrate may, after taking cognizance of an offence, make over the case for inquiry or trial to any competent Magistrate subordinate to him.
2) Any Magistrate of the first class empowered in this behalf by the Chief Judicial Magistrate may, after taking cognizance of an offence, make over the case for inquiry or trial to such other competent Magistrate as the Chief Judicial Magistrate may, by general or special order, specify, and thereupon such Magistrate may hold the inquiry or trial.
Section 203 of the Code of Criminal Procedure provides as under: If after considering the statements on oath (if any) of the complainant and of the witnesses and the result of the inquiry or investigation (if any) u/s 202, the magistrate is of the opinion that there is no sufficient ground for proceeding, he shall dismiss the complaint, and in every such case he shall briefly record his reasons for so doing.***
***A complaint cannot be dismissed in the absence of the complainant, according to Section 203 of the Code. In other words, there is no provision at this stage for dismissing the complaint in his absence. If the first complaint was dismissed due to an error by the court or a Magistrate, the second complaint can be filed on the same facts.***
2. The case of Rudul Sah v. State of Bihar is concerned with -
A. Protection of basic rights of prisoners
B. Assault
C. Compensation for illegal detention
D. None of the above
Explanation: The Supreme Court granted compensation to Rudul Sah, who had been a victim of illegal detention for several years. Despite being acquitted by the Additional Sessions" Judge Muzaffarpur in Bihar on 3 June 1968, Sah remained imprisoned for over 14 years. Sah filed a habeas corpus petition, requesting that the Supreme Court order his release on the grounds that his detention in jail was illegal. Before the petition was heard in 1982, the government of the state of Bihar informed the court that Sah had been released from jail on October 16, 1982. The Supreme Court not only ruled that Rudul Sah's detention in prison following his acquittal was unjustified, but also ordered the state government to pay the petitioner Rs 30 000 as an interim measure, in addition to the Rs 5 000 already paid. The Court noted that the order for compensation was only palliative in nature, and that this did not preclude the petitioner from bringing a suit to recover appropriate damages from the state and its erring officials.
3. The provision relating to health and safety of arrested person have been prescribed under which one of the following Sections of the Cr. P. C.?
A. Section 50 A
B. Section 53 A
C. Section 55 A
D. Section 60 A
Explanation: Sec. 55A Cr. P. C. It shall be the duty of the person having the custody of an accused to take reasonable care of the health and safety of the accused
4. How many circumstances has been enumerated under Section 300 of the Indian Penal Code under which culpable homicide is murder?
A. 2
B. 3
D. 5
5. Which amongst the following is not a main organ of the United Nations?
A. Trusteeship Council
B. Economic and Social Council
C. United Nations Secretariat
D. United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
Explanation: The main bodies of the United Nations are the General Assembly, the Security Council, the Economic and Social Council, the Trusteeship Council, the International Court of Justice, and the UN Secretariat. All were established under the UN Charter when the Organization was founded in 1945.
6. Which one of the following statement(s) is not correct
(A) Right to equality includes the principles of natural justice
(B) Right to personal liberty includes right to livelihood
(C) Protection available to accused persons includes protection against ex-post facto laws in civil matters
(D) Protection against arrest and detention includes right to consult and to be defended by lawyer of one's choice
Explanation: The Constitution's many Articles provide a strong foundation for the natural justice ideas. All of the fairness found in the principles of natural justice can be read into Article 21 when a person is deprived of his or her life or personal liberty since Article 21 introduces the idea of substantive and procedural due process. In other areas, Article 14 contains the concepts of natural justice. Article 14 covers both arbitrary or discriminatory state action as well as discriminatory class legislation. Natural justice is a violation of the equality clause of Article 14 because it leads to arbitrariness.
Protection against an ex post facto law applies only to criminal laws.
Also, check Article 22 of the Constitution of India
7. Under the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 for an admission to be considered as substantive evidence
(A) it need not be voluntary
(B) it must be judicial admission
(C) it must be binding to the question of law
(D) it need not be in writing
Explanation: Admission is the best piece of evidence. The admission must be unequivocal. It is well settled that a party's admission as defined in Section 17 to 20 of the Indian Evidence Act fulfilling the requirement of Section 21 is substantive evidence proprie vigore. In fact, an admission is a 'self harming statement express or implied, oral or written, which is adverse to a party's case.'
8. Point out the incorrect response:
The period of limitation for taking cognizance of an offense shall be
A. six months, if the offence is punishable with fine only
B. one year, if the offence is punishable with imprisonment for a term not exceeding one year
C. three years, if the offence is punishable with imprisonment for a term exceeding one year but not exceeding three years.
D. five years, if offence is punishable with death sentence
Explanation: According to Section 468 CrPC, the period of limitation shall be six months, if the offence is punishable with fine only;one year, if the offence is punishable with imprisonment for a term not exceeding one year;three years, if the offence is punishable with imprisonment for a term exceeding one year but not exceeding three years.
9. The MMDRA enacted by Parliament grants the Union Government the:
(A) Right to obtain ownership of land containing mineral wealth
(B) Power to exclude the State Government from ownership rights of land containing mineral wealth
(C) Right to regulate the grant of mining rights
(D) Right to impose taxes on all mining activities
10. The doctrine of eclipse was first used to interpret
(a) Article 13 (1)
(b) Article 13 (2)
(c) Article 13 (3)
(d) Article 13 (4)
Explanation: The doctrine of eclipse is referenced in Indian Constitutional Article 13(1).