1.As per Order 13 Rule 9, the person entitled to receive back a document produced in a suit is
a.Only a party to the suit.
b.Plaintiff.
c.Defendant
d.Person who produced the document, whether a party or not.
Ans.d
Sol.
- Order 13(9)(1) provides for return of a document to any person, whether a party to the suit or not, producing it, after the disposal of the suit or appeal or even during the pendency of the suit provided that the necessary undertaking to produce the original in case it is required is filed, though ordinarily it is not allowed without notice to the other side and without producing certified copy of such document.
2.Where a Magistrate has imposed a substantive sentence on the accused, the sentence of imprisonment in default of fine shall not exceed of the term of sentence, which Magistrate is competent to impose as punishment?
a.One half
b.One third
c.One fourth
d.None of the above
Ans.c
Sol.
- The limits of a Magistrate’s power to award imprisonment in default of payment of fine are defined in S. 30 of the CrPC/ S.24 BNSS.
- It provides that the imprisonment in default of payment of fine can only extend to 1/4th of the
period of imprisonment which a Magistrate can award as substantive sentence.
3.Which among the following sections incorporates the principle of vicarious liability in criminal jurisprudence?
a.S.120B IPC
b.S.120A IPC
c.S.149 IPC
d.S.34 IPC
Ans.c
Sol.
- S.149 IPC/S.190 BNS incorporates the principle of vicarious liability and holds a person liable for an offence, which he might not have actually committed, by reason of his being a member of an unlawful assembly.
- The section provides that every member of an unlawful assembly having a common object is responsible for acts committed by any other member of that assembly, and is guilty of the substantive offence and hence punishable for that offence.
4.In which among the following, oral admission as to contents of documents is relevant?
a.If party proposing is able to show that he is entitled to give secondary evidence under the rules.
b.If the genuineness of the document in question is admitted.
c.If the document in question is an electronic document.
d.None of the above.
Ans.a
Sol.
- Under Section 22 IEA/ S.20 BSA, it has been laid down that when there has been a document, nobody can be allowed to prove oral admission about the contents of that document.
- There are two exceptions to this rule:
1. when a person is entitled to give secondary evidence of the contents of some documents
he will be entitled to rely on oral admission. Under Section 65 secondary evidence of the contents of a document can be given when the original is lost or when it is in possession of the opposite party and so on.
2.when the genuineness of the document produced itself is in question. - Thus we see that under Section 22 a party can prove oral admission of the contents of the document when he proves that the document has been lost, destroyed or that it is in possession of the opposite party.
- Oral evidence of admission can also be given when a document is produced and its genuineness is disputed.
5.In which case, the Supreme Court of India directed compulsory registration of all marriages?
a.Seema Shetti V. Union of India
b.Selvi V. State of Karnataka
c.Minerva Mills V. Union of India
d.Seema V. Aswinkumar
Ans.d
Sol.
- The Supreme Court vide its judgment dated 14.02.2006 in Seema Vs. Ashwani Kumar (AIR 2006 S.C 1158) has directed the State Governments and the Central Government that marriages of all persons who are citizens of India belonging to various religious denomination
should be made compulsorily registerable in their respective States where such marriages are solemnized.
