MCQ 21 Oct 2023

Daily Static MCQs for Judiciary Prelims Exams - (21 October 2023)



Question/ Answer
Question1:-A partition can be re-opened by
  • 1. A son begotten at the time of partition but born after the partition even if a share is reserved for him at the time of partition.
  • 2. A son begotten at the time of partition but born after partition if no share is reserved for him at the time of partition.
  • 3. A son begotten as well as born after partition where the father has reserved a share to himself.
  • 4. Both (A) and (B)
Answer is 2 is correct. Partition can be re-opened when no share was reserved at the time of partition and a son was conceived during that time though he was born only after partition. This right to an unborn child is provided under Section 20 of the Hindu Succession Act 1956. Therefore option (2) is the correct answer.
Question2:-Tick the correct option:
  • 1. Compelling non-party to submit to DNA Test is not permissible.
  • 2. Compelling non-party to submit to DNA Test is permissible.
  • 3. Compelling non-party to submit to DNA Test is permissible.
  • 4. Compelling non-party to submit to DNA Test is qualified.
Answer is 1 is correct. In Ashok Kumar vs Raj Gupta and others 2021 has observed that forcing an unwilling party to undergo DNA test impinges on his personal liberty and right to privacy. Further added, “In the circumstances where other evidence is available to prove or dispute the relationship, the court should ordinarily refrain from ordering blood tests.” Therefore option (1) is the correct answer.
Question3:-Compensation awarded shall be recovered
  • 1. By filing money suit.
  • 2. By issuing warrant.
  • 3. As if it were a fine imposed by Magistrate.
  • 4. By filing a miscellaneous case.
Answer is 3 is correct. Section 358(3) of CrPC states “All compensation awarded under this section may be recovered as if it were a fine, and, if it cannot be so recovered, the person by whom it is payable shall be sentenced to simple imprisonment for such term not exceeding thirty days as the Magistrate directs, unless such sum is sooner paid. Further Section 237(5) of CrPC states Compensation awarded under sub- section (4) shall be recovered as if it were a fine imposed by a Magistrate. Clause 4 deals with the situation when no reasonable accusation is made with regard to Defamation. Therefore option (3) is the correct answer.
Question4:-A is tried for causing grievous hurt and convicted. The person injured afterwards died. A may be tried again for",
  • 1. Murder
  • 2. Attempt to murder
  • 3. Culpable homicide
  • 4. Grievous hurt
Answer is 3 is correct. In the given facts, A is tried for causing grievous hurt and is convicted. However the injured person subsequently dies. As the situation is based upon same facts, hence the person can be tried for culpable homicide as it is more serious kind of offence. So there is no bar on second trial on the same facts as per Section 300 CrPC and the principle of double jeopardy will not apply. Therefore option (3) is the correct answer.
Question5:-Police officer can detain in custody a person arrested without warrant
  • 1. For 4 days
  • 2. For 6 days including Journey
  • 3. Not more than 24 hours
  • 4. Upto 20 days at the order of Magist
Answer is 3 is correct. As per Section 57 of CrPC,“No police officer shall detain in custody a person arrested without warrant for a longer period than under all the circumstances of the case is reasonable, and such period shall not, in the absence of a special order of a Magistrate under section 167, exceed twenty- four hours exclusive of the time necessary for the journey from the place of arrest to the Magistrate's Court.” Therefore option (3) is the correct answer.
Question6:- A threat to commit suicide amounts to
  • 1. Undue influence
  • 2. Mistake
  • 3. Misrepresentation
  • 4. Coercion.
Answer is 4 is correct. Coercion means compelling someone to do something against their will by using force or threat. Hence a threat to commit suicide amounts to coercion. Therefore option (4) is the correct answer.
Question7:-Alienation by the Karta without legal necessity or the benefit of estate is
  • 1. Void ab initio
  • 2. Valid
  • 3. Voidable at the instance of Coparcener.
  • 4. Voidable at the instance of the allia
Answer is 3 is correct. Alienation of property without legal necessity or benefit of estate is voidable at the instance of the Coparcener this was held in the case of Balmukand vs. Kamlawati 1964. The simple reason behind this is that in Hindu law the joint property belongs to all in the house until it is divided through partition. Therefore option (3) is the correct answer.