1.Section 114 and Order 47 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure pertain to the filing of
a.Appeal
b.Revision.
c.Review
d.None of the above.
Ans.c
Sol.
- Section 114 of the Code gives a substantive right of review in certain circumstances and Order 47 provides the procedure therefor. The provision relating to review constitutes an exception to the general rule that once the judgment is signed and pronounced by the court it becomes functus officio (ceases to have control over the matter) and has no jurisdiction to alter it.
- In review, a judge, who has disposed of the matter reviews an earlier order passed by him in certain circumstances.
2.To attract principle of estoppel, which among the following conditions must be fulfilled?
a.Representation by a person to another
b.The other shall have acted upon the said representation.
c.The act should have been detrimental to the interest of person who has acted.
d.All the above.
Ans.d
Sol.
- As per S 115 IEA/ S.121 BSA the following conditions are to be satisfied in order to apply the doctrine of estoppel:
- The representation must be made by one person to another person.
- The representation made must be as to facts and not as to the law.
- The representation must be made as to an existing fact.
- The representation must be made in a manner which makes the other person believe that it is true.
- The person to whom the representation is being made must act upon that belief.
- The person to whom the representation would be made should suffer a loss by such representation.
3.In which among the following, the court can order costs to be paid by the accused to the complainant?
a.Under S.359 Cr.P.C, when a person is convicted on a complaint of a non-cognizable offence, filed by the complainant.
b.Under S.358 Cr.P.C, when a person is groundlessly arrested
c.When compensation is ordered under S.357 Cr.P.C
d.None of the above.
Ans.a
Sol.
- S.359 CrPC/ S.400 BNSS -Order to pay costs in non-cognizable cases.—(1) Whenever any complaint of a non-cognizable offence is made to a Court, the Court, if it convicts the accused, may, in addition to the penalty imposed upon him, order him to pay to the complainant, in whole or in part, the cost incurred by him in the prosecution, and may further order that in default of payment, the accused shall suffer simple imprisonment for a period not exceeding thirty days and such costs may include any expenses incurred in respect of process-fees, witnesses and pleader’s fees which the Court may consider reasonable.
- The court is empowered under this section to order the accused to pay the costs to
the complainant in addition to the penalty imposed upon him.
4.Under Indian Penal Code “illegal” signifies?
a.everything which is an offence
b.everything prohibited by law
c.Everything which furnishes ground for civil action.
d.All the above.
Ans.d
Sol.
- As per S.43 of IPC/ S.2(15) BNS the word “illegal” applies to everything which:
(a) is an offence, or
(b) is prohibited by law, or
(c) furnishes ground for civil action. - The word “illegal” is used here in its wider sense. Illegal therefore means not only an offence or anything prohibited by law but it also means any act or omission which furnishes a ground for civil action. For example, a breach of contract is illegal as a civil wrong because it furnishes a ground for civil action, that is, claim for damages.
5.Legality of Narco Analysis Test was considered by the Supreme Court in which among the following case?
a.Selvi V. State of Karnataka
b.Kathi Kalu Oghad V. State of Bombay
c.Aruna Shanbaug V. Union of India
d.Indira Jaisingh V. Union of India
Ans.a
Sol.
- In Selvi v. State of Karnataka, the Supreme Court dealt with a very important issue of involuntary subjection of the accused to the techniques of narco-analysis, lie detection and brain electro analysis technique.
- The court observed that the compulsory administration of the impugned techniques violates the “right against self-incrimination”. Subjecting the accused to narco-analysis, DNA profiling, polygraph and brain fingerprinting without his or her consent is violative
of Article 20(3).
