MCQ 05 January 2024

Daily MCQs for Judiciary Prelims Exams - (05 January 2024)



Question/ Answer
Question1:- Mark the incorrect statement
  • (a) FIR is not defined under the Code of Criminal Procedure
  • (b) FIR is a substantive piece of evidence
  • (c) FIR is admissible to corroborate and contradict the maker
  • (d) FIR can be used against the maker or informant
Answer is B is correct. FIR is not a substantive piece of evidence but only can be used for the purpose of corroboration under section 157 of the Indian Evidence Act. Therefore option (b) is the correct answer.
Question2:- What is the effect of delay in lodging FIR
  • (a) Prosecution case is discarded on the basis of the delay
  • (b) Delay automatically renders the case doubtful
  • (c) Mere delay does not automatically render the case doubtful
  • (d) Dismissal of case and no new case can be filed on the same cause of action
Answer is C is correct. There is no hard and fast rule that any delay in lodging the FIR would automatically render the prosecution case doubtful. It necessarily depends upon facts and circumstances of each case whether there has been any such delay in lodging the FIR which may cast doubt about the veracity of the prosecution case and for this a host of circumstances like the condition of the first informant, the nature of injuries sustained, the number of victims, the efforts made to provide medical aid to them, the distance of the hospital and the police station, etc. have to be taken into consideration. Therefore option (c) is the correct answer.
Question3:- Information related to non-cognizable cases has been dealt under which provision of Code of Criminal Procedure
  • (a) Section 153
  • (b) Section 154
  • (c) Section 155
  • (d) Section 156
Answer is C is correct. Section 155 of the code deals with information related to non-cognizable cases. Wherein the officer-in-charge of a police station to record the information and refer the informant to the Magistrate. Sub-section (2) expressly prohibits the police officer from investigating a non-cognizable case without the order of a Magistrate. Sub-section (3) then lays down how the police officer should proceed in the case once he gets the order of the Magistrate. Sub-section (4) expressly provides that if one of the offences reported is cognizable and the report relates to two or more offences, then the case must be treated as a cognizable case. That is to say, the powers and duties under section 154 will be attracted under section 155 as well. Therefore option (c) is the correct answer.
Question4:- Mark the correct statement
  • (a) Statement made to the police as the result of the action taken under Section 154 or 155 are not privileged statements
  • (b) Statement made to the police as the result of the action taken under Section 154 or 155 can be used as evidence
  • (c) Statement made to the police as the result of the action taken under Section 154 or 155 can be used as foundation of charges
  • (d) Statement made to the police as the result of the action taken under Section 154 or 155 are privileged statements
Answer is D is correct. In Parwari v Emperor 1919, court held that the statement made to the police as the result of the action taken under Section 154 or 155 are privileged statements and cannot be used as an evidence or foundation of charges. Therefore option (d) is the correct answer.
Question5:- In which case the Supreme Court held that the scheme of the provisions of sections 154, 155, 156, 157, 162, 169, 170 and 173 of Cr PC, only the earliest or the first information in regard to the commission of a cognizable offence satisfies the requirements of section 154, Cr PC. Thus, there can be no second FIR and consequently there can be no fresh investigation receipt of every subsequent information in respect of the same cognizable offence or the same occurrence or incident-giving rise to one or more cognizable offences
  • (a) T.T. Antony v State of Kerala
  • (b) Jai Singh v State
  • (c) Kachi Hazam v Seraj Khan
  • (d) Sahebrao v State of Maharashtra
Answer is A is correct. In T.T. Antony v State of Kerala, one of the important issues, inter alia, for determination was, whether registration of a fresh case on the basis of the letter of the DGP which is in the nature of the second FIR under section 154 of Cr PC for the same incident is valid and can it form the basis of a fresh investigation? To which the court observed and held that the scheme of the provisions of sections 154, 155, 156, 157, 162, 169, 170 and 173 of Cr PC, only the earliest or the first information in regard to the commission of a cognizable offence satisfies the requirements of section 154, Cr PC. Thus, there can be no second FIR and consequently there can be no fresh investigation receipt of every subsequent information in respect of the same cognizable offence or the same occurrence or incident-giving rise to one or more cognizable offences. Therefore option (a) is the correct answer.
Question6:- When a warrant is directed to police officer for execution outside jurisdiction of the court issuing the warrant, what can the police officer do in case of getting the warrant executed without delay when there is a reason to believe that there will be a delay in obtaining endorsement from magistrate or police officer within the local limits of whose jurisdiction the warrant is to be executed?
  • (a) The police officer may execute the warrant without endorsement from Executive Magistrate or police officer within the local limits of whose jurisdiction the warrant is to be executed
  • (b) The policer officer needs to seek permission of the court that initially issued the warrant for executing it without endorsement from magistrate or police officer in within n the local limits of whose jurisdiction the warrant is to be executed
  • (c) The police officer to whom the execution of the warrant is directed needs approval to proceed with the execution of the warrant from the Chief Judicial magistrate within whose jurisdiction the warrant needs to be executed
  • (d) Either A or B
Answer is A is correct. Section 79 of the Code states (1) When a warrant directed to a police officer is to be executed beyond the local jurisdiction of the Court issuing the same, he shall ordinarily take it 49 for endorsement either to an Executive Magistrate or to a police officer not below the rank of an officer in charge of a police station, within the local limits of whose jurisdiction the warrant is to be executed. (2) Such Magistrate or police officer shall endorse his name thereon and such endorsement shall be sufficient authority to the police officer to whom the warrant is directed to execute the same, and the local police shall, if so required, assist such officer in executing such warrant. (3) Whenever there is reason to believe that the delay occasioned by obtaining the endorsement of the Magistrate or police officer within whose local jurisdiction the warrant is to be executed will prevent such execution, the police officer to whom it is directed may execute the same without such endorsement in any place beyond the local jurisdiction of the Court which issued it. Therefore option (a) is the correct answer.
Question7:- Mr Ved, is in charge of Police Station Shivpuri, received information that there has been a case of suicide in a society nearby, what would be the appropriate steps to be immediately taken by Mr Ved?
  • (a) Send an officer not below the rank of the officer as prescribed by the state government to the spot to investigate about the facts and circumstances of the case
  • (b) He shall immediately give intimation thereof to the nearest Executive Magistrate empowered to hold inquests, and, unless otherwise directed by any rule prescribed by the State Government, or by any general or special order of the District or Sub- divisional Magistrate, shall proceed to the place where the body of such deceased person
  • (c) Shall forward the body, with a view to its being examined, to the nearest Civil Surgeon
  • (d) All of the above
Answer is B is correct. Section 174 states (1) When the officer in charge of a police station or some other police officer specially empowered by the State Government in that behalf receives information that a person has committed suicide, or has been killed by another or by an animal or by machinery or by an accident, or has died under circumstances raising a reasonable suspicion that some other person has committed an offence, he shall immediately give intimation thereof to the nearest Executive Magistrate empowered to hold inquests, and, unless otherwise directed by any rule prescribed by the State Government, or by any general or special order of the District or Sub-divisional Magistrate, shall proceed to the place where the body of such deceased person is, and there, in the presence of two or more respectable inhabitants of the neighbourhood, shall make an investigation, and draw up a report of the apparent cause of death, describing such wounds, fractures, bruises, and other marks of injury as may be found on the body, and stating in what manner, or by what weapon or instrument (if any); such marks appear to have been inflicted. Therefore option (b) is the correct answer.

Syllabus

Test Series

Notification

Brochure

Result