Kerala Judiciary Mock Test 2 — Questions & Solutions
Every question from this prelims mock with the correct answer and a detailed, source-backed solution. Free to read. Want the real exam feel — a timer, instant scoring, and a subject-wise weakness report? Take it as a test.
100
Questions
12
Subjects
+ solutions
Every question
Take this as a timed mock test — instant score + subject-wise analytics. First mock free, then ₹999/year for unlimited.
A Judicial Magistrate of the first class, under the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, may pass a sentence of imprisonment for a term not exceeding -
atwo years, or fine not exceeding twenty-five thousand rupees, or both.
bseven years, or fine not exceeding one lakh rupees, or both.
cone year, or fine not exceeding ten thousand rupees, or both, or community service.
dthree years, or fine not exceeding fifty thousand rupees, or both, or community service.
Answer: D
Section 23(2) BNSS authorises a Magistrate of the first class to impose imprisonment up to three years, or fine up to fifty thousand rupees, or both, or community service.
A receives information at his police station about a cognizable offence which was committed within the limits of another police station situated in a different district. Under the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, the officer in charge -
amay register it only after obtaining the written permission of the Superintendent of Police.
bshall register the First Information Report irrespective of the area where the offence is committed (a Zero FIR) and thereafter transfer it to the police station having jurisdiction.
cmust refuse to register the case and direct the informant to the police station having jurisdiction.
dcan register it only if the informant is a resident of his jurisdiction.
Answer: B
Section 173(1) BNSS statutorily mandates registration of an FIR on information of a cognizable offence regardless of territorial jurisdiction, giving effect to the concept of the Zero FIR.
Where information given to a police officer relates to a cognizable offence made punishable for three years or more but less than seven years, the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 permits the officer, with prior permission of an officer not below the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police, to -
aarrest the accused before any enquiry.
bregister the FIR only after completing a preliminary enquiry within fourteen days to ascertain whether there exists a prima facie case.
cforward the matter directly to the Magistrate for cognizance.
ddecline registration of the FIR altogether.
Answer: B
Section 173(3) BNSS allows the officer, with prior approval of an officer not below DSP rank, to conduct a preliminary enquiry within fourteen days to ascertain a prima facie case before registering an FIR for offences punishable from three to less than seven years.
Under the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, a police officer ordinarily shall not arrest a person who is above sixty years of age, in the case of an offence punishable with imprisonment of less than three years, without -
athe prior order of a Judicial Magistrate of the first class.
bthe prior permission of an officer not below the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police.
cthe consent of the person to be arrested.
da warrant issued by the Court of Session.
Answer: B
Section 35(7) BNSS provides that no person who is above sixty years of age (or infirm) shall be arrested, for an offence punishable with imprisonment of less than three years, without the prior permission of an officer not below the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police.
Under Section 187 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, the maximum total period of detention authorised by the Magistrate where the investigation relates to an offence punishable with death, imprisonment for life, or imprisonment for not less than ten years is -
aninety days.
bseventy-five days.
cone hundred and eighty days.
dsixty days.
Answer: A
Section 187 BNSS caps Magistrate-authorised detention at ninety days for offences punishable with death, life imprisonment, or imprisonment of not less than ten years, and sixty days for other offences, after which the accused is entitled to default bail.
A files a private complaint before a Magistrate alleging an offence by B. Under the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, after examining the complainant and witnesses on oath, before taking cognizance the Magistrate must -
adismiss the complaint if no police report accompanies it.
bissue process to the accused at once without any further step.
cgive the accused an opportunity of being heard.
dforward the complaint to the police for investigation in every case.
Answer: C
The proviso to Section 223(1) BNSS introduces a new safeguard: no cognizance of an offence shall be taken on a complaint without giving the accused an opportunity of being heard, a departure from the old Section 200 CrPC.
The Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 makes the audio-video recording (videography) of the process of search and seizure -
apermissible only with the prior sanction of the Court.
bpurely discretionary with the investigating officer.
cpermissible only in offences punishable with death or imprisonment for life.
dmandatory, the recording being preferably done on a mobile phone or other electronic device.
Answer: D
Section 105 BNSS introduces mandatory videography of the conduct of search and seizure, including the preparation of the list of seized items, preferably through a mobile phone or other electronic device.
Under the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, where a person declared a proclaimed offender has absconded to evade trial with no immediate prospect of arrest, a trial in his absence may commence only -
aimmediately upon the framing of charge.
bafter a period of ninety days from the date of framing of charge.
cafter a period of thirty days from the date of framing of charge.
dafter a period of one year from the date of proclamation.
Answer: B
Section 356 BNSS permits trial in absentia of a proclaimed offender, but the proviso requires that the trial commence only after ninety days have elapsed from the date of framing of the charge.
A magistrate is moved to order maintenance in favour of a wife, child or parent unable to maintain itself against a person having sufficient means who neglects them. The relevant provision under the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 is -
aSection 125.
bSection 173.
cSection 223.
dSection 144.
Answer: D
Section 144 BNSS (corresponding to the former Section 125 CrPC) empowers a Magistrate to order monthly maintenance for a wife, children and parents who are unable to maintain themselves.
Under the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, an application for interim maintenance under Section 144 shall, as far as possible, be disposed of within -
athirty days from the date of service of notice.
bforty-five days from the date of service of notice.
cninety days from the date of service of notice.
dsixty days from the date of service of notice.
Answer: D
The proviso to Section 144(1) BNSS provides that an application for interim maintenance shall, as far as possible, be disposed of within sixty days from the date of service of notice of the application to the person concerned.
A person apprehending arrest on an accusation of having committed a non-bailable offence may, under the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, apply for a direction that in the event of arrest he shall be released on bail, to -
athe Executive Magistrate of the district.
bthe Judicial Magistrate of the first class only.
cthe officer in charge of the police station only.
dthe High Court or the Court of Session.
Answer: D
Section 482 BNSS (anticipatory bail, corresponding to former Section 438 CrPC) enables a person apprehending arrest for a non-bailable offence to apply to the High Court or the Court of Session for a direction for release on bail.
Under the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, a Magistrate of the second class may pass a sentence of imprisonment for a term not exceeding -
asix months, or fine not exceeding five thousand rupees.
btwo years, or fine not exceeding twenty thousand rupees, or both.
cthree years, or fine not exceeding fifty thousand rupees.
done year, or fine not exceeding ten thousand rupees, or both, or community service.
Answer: D
Section 23(3) BNSS authorises a Magistrate of the second class to impose imprisonment up to one year, or fine up to ten thousand rupees, or both, or community service.
The Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 introduces, as a distinct form of punishment that a Magistrate may order on conviction, the concept of -
acommunity service, being work that benefits the community for which the convict is not entitled to any remuneration.
bcompulsory rehabilitation in a State institution.
cpreventive detention for a fixed term.
dhouse arrest with electronic monitoring.
Answer: A
The Explanation to Section 23 BNSS defines community service as work the Court may order a convict to perform as a form of punishment that benefits the community, for which he is not entitled to any remuneration.
Under the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, a petition for mercy on behalf of a convict sentenced to death may be made to the President of India within -
aninety days from confirmation of the sentence by the High Court.
bseven days from the date of pronouncement of sentence.
cthirty days from the date of receipt of information of dismissal of an appeal or special leave petition by the convict.
dsixty days from the date of conviction.
Answer: C
Section 472 BNSS provides that a convict under a death sentence (or the jail authorities on his behalf) may, within thirty days of being informed of the disposal of the appeal or special leave petition, present a mercy petition to the President of India.
Under the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, where an offence is punishable with imprisonment for less than three years and the person to be arrested is infirm or above sixty years of age, no arrest shall be made -
awithout the prior permission of the Superintendent of Police.
bwithout the prior permission of an officer not below the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police.
cwithout the prior written order of the jurisdictional Magistrate.
din any circumstance, as such persons are wholly immune from arrest.
Answer: B
The proviso to Section 35(7) BNSS bars arrest of an infirm person or one above sixty years, for an offence punishable with less than three years, except with the prior permission of an officer not below the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police. This is a new safeguard absent in the old CrPC.
For a cognizable offence punishable with imprisonment for three years or more but less than seven years, the officer in charge of a police station may, with the prior permission of an officer not below the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police, conduct a preliminary enquiry to ascertain a prima facie case. Such enquiry must be completed within -
aseven days.
bfourteen days.
cthirty days.
dtwenty-one days.
Answer: B
Section 173(3) BNSS permits a preliminary enquiry, with prior DSP-rank permission, for offences punishable with three to seven years' imprisonment, and requires it to be completed within fourteen days.
Where the property is situate within the jurisdiction of different courts, a suit to obtain relief respecting, or compensation for wrong to, immovable property may, under Section 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, be instituted -
aonly in the court within whose limits the defendant resides.
bonly with the prior leave of the High Court.
cin any court within whose local limits of jurisdiction any portion of the property is situate.
donly in the court within whose limits the larger portion of the property is situate.
Answer: C
Section 17 allows a single suit, where the property is situate within the jurisdiction of different courts, to be instituted in any court within whose local limits any portion of the property is situate, subject to its pecuniary competence.
In a suit of a nature cognisable by a Court of Small Causes, the value of the subject-matter of the original suit was Rs. 8,000. The suit was decreed. The aggrieved defendant wishes to appeal. As per Section 96(4) CPC, an appeal -
alies only on a question of law.
bdoes not lie at all.
clies as of right both on questions of fact and law.
dlies only with the leave of the appellate court.
Answer: A
Section 96(4) CPC bars an appeal except on a question of law from a decree in any suit of the nature cognisable by Courts of Small Cause where the amount or value of the subject-matter does not exceed ten thousand rupees.
Where a defendant fails to file his written statement within thirty days from the date of service of summons, the court may permit him to file it on a later day, but such later day shall not be -
alater than one hundred and twenty days from the date of service of summons.
blater than ninety days from the date of service of summons.
clater than sixty days from the date of service of summons.
dlater than thirty days from the date fixed for filing the written statement.
Answer: B
Under Order 8 Rule 1 CPC, on failure to file the written statement within thirty days, the court may, for reasons recorded in writing, allow it on a later day not later than ninety days from the date of service of summons.
An ex parte decree was passed against a defendant who was duly served with summons but failed to appear. The remedy of applying to set aside the ex parte decree on the ground that he was prevented by sufficient cause from appearing is provided under -
aOrder 9 Rule 9 CPC.
bSection 151 CPC.
cOrder 9 Rule 13 CPC.
dOrder 9 Rule 7 CPC.
Answer: C
Order 9 Rule 13 CPC enables a defendant against whom an ex parte decree is passed to apply to have it set aside on showing that the summons was not duly served or that he was prevented by sufficient cause from appearing.
A person disobeys a temporary injunction granted against him under Order 39 Rule 1 CPC. Under Order 39 Rule 2A CPC, the court may order the attachment of his property and detain him in civil prison for a term -
anot exceeding three months.
bnot exceeding one year.
cnot exceeding one month.
dnot exceeding six months.
Answer: A
Order 39 Rule 2A CPC empowers the court, on disobedience or breach of an injunction, to order attachment of property and to detain the person in civil prison for a term not exceeding three months unless sooner released.
In a former suit for injunction, a question which might and ought to have been made a ground of defence was not raised by the defendant. In a subsequent suit between the same parties, he seeks to raise it. He is barred by -
aconstructive res judicata under Explanation IV to Section 11 CPC.
bSection 10 CPC (stay of suit).
cSection 12 CPC (bar to further suit).
dOrder 2 Rule 2 CPC.
Answer: A
Explanation IV to Section 11 CPC embodies constructive res judicata: a matter which might and ought to have been made a ground of attack or defence in the former suit is deemed to have been directly and substantially in issue.
A suit is sought to be instituted against the Government in respect of an act purporting to be done by a public officer in his official capacity. Under Section 80 CPC, no such suit shall be instituted until the expiration of -
atwo months after notice in writing has been delivered.
bthree months after notice in writing has been delivered.
cone month after notice in writing has been delivered.
dsix months after notice in writing has been delivered.
Answer: A
Section 80(1) CPC requires that no suit against the Government or a public officer (for acts in official capacity) shall be instituted until the expiration of two months after notice in writing has been delivered.
An appeal from an appellate decree was heard and decided by a Single Judge of the High Court of Kerala. The aggrieved party seeks to file a further intra-court appeal (Letters Patent Appeal). Such further appeal is -
abarred by Section 100A CPC.
bmaintainable as of right under the Letters Patent.
cmaintainable only with the certificate of the Single Judge.
dbarred by Section 96(3) CPC.
Answer: A
Section 100A CPC provides that where an appeal from an original or appellate decree or order is heard and decided by a Single Judge of a High Court, no further appeal shall lie, overriding the Letters Patent.
A subordinate court decides a matter in which no appeal lies to the High Court, exercising a jurisdiction not vested in it by law. The High Court's power to interfere and call for the record is exercisable under -
aSection 100 CPC.
bSection 115 CPC.
cSection 96 CPC.
dSection 104 CPC.
Answer: B
Section 115 CPC vests revisional jurisdiction in the High Court over a case decided by a subordinate court where no appeal lies, if that court exercised a jurisdiction not vested in it, failed to exercise one so vested, or acted illegally or with material irregularity.
A second appeal under Section 100 CPC shall lie to the High Court from a decree passed in appeal only if the High Court is satisfied that -
afresh evidence has been discovered.
bthe case involves a question of fact wrongly decided.
cthe lower appellate court's finding is against the weight of evidence.
dthe case involves a substantial question of law.
Answer: D
Section 100 CPC permits a second appeal to the High Court only where it is satisfied that the case involves a substantial question of law, which must be formulated.
Which one of the following is NOT a ground for rejection of a plaint under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC?
aThe relief claimed is undervalued and the valuation is not corrected within time.
bThe suit appears from the statement in the plaint to be barred by any law.
cThe plaintiff has failed to appear on the date of hearing.
dThe plaint does not disclose a cause of action.
Answer: C
The grounds under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC include no cause of action, undervaluation, insufficient stamp, bar by law, non-filing in duplicate and non-compliance with Rule 9; non-appearance of the plaintiff is dealt with under Order 9, not Order 7 Rule 11.
A review of a judgment may be sought under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC on the ground of -
aa mistake or error apparent on the face of the record.
bthe judgment being against the weight of authority.
can erroneous appreciation of evidence by the court.
da substantial question of law arising in the case.
Answer: A
Order 47 Rule 1 CPC permits review on discovery of new and important matter, a mistake or error apparent on the face of the record, or any other sufficient reason; mere erroneous appreciation of evidence is not a ground.
Under Order 33 Rule 1 CPC, where no court fee is prescribed for the plaint, a person is an 'indigent person' if he is not entitled to property worth -
aten thousand rupees, excluding exempt property and the subject-matter of the suit.
bone thousand rupees, excluding exempt property and the subject-matter of the suit.
cfive thousand rupees, excluding exempt property and the subject-matter of the suit.
dfive hundred rupees, excluding exempt property and the subject-matter of the suit.
Answer: B
Under Order 33 Rule 1 CPC, where no fee is prescribed, a person is indigent if not entitled to property worth one thousand rupees, excluding property exempt from attachment and the subject-matter of the suit.
Under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, the offence of criminal intimidation is dealt with under -
aSection 352.
bSection 506.
cSection 356.
dSection 351.
Answer: D
Criminal intimidation is defined and punished under Section 351 BNS (corresponding to Sections 503/506 IPC), the simple form being punishable with imprisonment up to two years.
Under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, the offence of defamation is contained in -
aSection 354.
bSection 499.
cSection 356.
dSection 351.
Answer: C
Defamation is dealt with in Section 356 BNS (formerly Sections 499/500 IPC), punishable with simple imprisonment up to two years, or fine, or both, and now also community service.
Under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, an assembly is designated an "unlawful assembly" only where the number of persons constituting it is -
aseven or more.
btwo or more.
cfive or more.
dthree or more.
Answer: C
Section 189 BNS designates an assembly of five or more persons, sharing a prohibited common object, as an unlawful assembly. This carries forward the threshold of the old Section 141 IPC.
A and B suddenly grab a chain from the neck of a passer-by and run away. Under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, this manner of committing theft by suddenly or forcibly seizing movable property is specifically designated as -
arobbery under Section 309.
bextortion under Section 308.
cdacoity under Section 310.
dsnatching under Section 304.
Answer: D
Section 304 BNS introduces the new offence of "snatching", where theft is committed if the offender suddenly or quickly or forcibly seizes, secures, grabs or takes away movable property. It is punishable with imprisonment up to three years and fine.
To constitute the offence of dowry death under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, the death of the woman by burns, bodily injury or otherwise than under normal circumstances must occur -
aat any time during the subsistence of the marriage.
bwithin three years of her marriage.
cwithin five years of her marriage.
dwithin seven years of her marriage.
Answer: D
Section 80 BNS retains the seven-year period from the date of marriage as the outer limit for an unnatural death of a woman, coupled with cruelty for dowry, to be treated as dowry death, punishable with imprisonment not less than seven years.
For the offence of kidnapping from lawful guardianship under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, a "child" taken or enticed out of the keeping of the lawful guardian must be -
aunder sixteen years if a male and under eighteen years if a female.
bunder fourteen years of age, irrespective of sex.
cunder twelve years if a male and under sixteen years if a female.
dbelow eighteen years of age, irrespective of sex.
Answer: D
Section 137(1) BNS now adopts a uniform age threshold of eighteen years for any child, regardless of sex, departing from the earlier gender-based ages of 16 (male) and 18 (female) under Section 361 IPC.
Under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, where a person causes death by rash and negligent driving of a vehicle not amounting to culpable homicide, and escapes from the scene without reporting it to a police officer or Magistrate soon after the incident, the maximum imprisonment that may be imposed is -
afive years.
btwo years.
cten years.
dseven years.
Answer: C
Section 106(2) BNS enhances punishment to imprisonment up to ten years and fine where the driver causing death by rash or negligent driving escapes without reporting the incident soon after to a police officer or Magistrate.
When a criminal act is done by several persons in furtherance of the common intention of all, each such person is liable as if the act were done by him alone. This principle is now embodied in the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 in -
aSection 190.
bSection 3(5).
cSection 61.
dSection 34.
Answer: B
The rule of joint liability for acts done in furtherance of common intention, earlier in Section 34 IPC, is re-enacted as Section 3(5) BNS within the general explanations.
Whoever, by deceiving any person, fraudulently or dishonestly induces the person so deceived to deliver any property to any person commits the offence of cheating. Under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, the definition of cheating is contained in -
aSection 318.
bSection 320.
cSection 314.
dSection 316.
Answer: A
Section 318 BNS defines cheating, with sub-section (4) penalising cheating that dishonestly induces delivery of property with imprisonment up to seven years and fine. This corresponds to Sections 415 and 420 IPC.
A man follows a woman and repeatedly contacts her to foster personal interaction despite a clear indication of disinterest by her. Under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, he commits the offence of -
asexual harassment under Section 75.
bvoyeurism under Section 77.
cstalking under Section 78.
dassault to outrage modesty under Section 74.
Answer: C
Section 78 BNS defines stalking, covering a man who follows a woman and repeatedly contacts or attempts to contact her to foster personal interaction despite a clear indication of disinterest.
Under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, the offence of voluntarily causing grievous hurt by use of acid is punishable under -
aSection 124.
bSection 122.
cSection 118.
dSection 117.
Answer: A
Section 124 BNS penalises voluntarily causing grievous hurt by use of acid, etc., with imprisonment of not less than ten years which may extend to life, and fine. This corresponds to Section 326A IPC.
When two or more persons, by fighting in a public place, disturb the public peace, the offence committed under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 is -
aaffray under Section 194.
bunlawful assembly under Section 189.
ccriminal force under Section 129.
drioting under Section 191.
Answer: A
Section 194 BNS defines affray as two or more persons disturbing the public peace by fighting in a public place, punishable with imprisonment up to one month or fine up to one thousand rupees, or both.
Under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, the offence of theft is confined to -
aboth movable and immovable property.
bimmovable property only.
cmovable property only.
dany property capable of valuation.
Answer: C
Section 303 BNS defines theft as dishonestly moving movable property out of another's possession without consent; a thing attached to the earth becomes capable of theft only after severance.
Any motive or preparation for any fact in issue or relevant fact, and the conduct of any party influenced by such fact, are made relevant by -
aSection 6 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 (BSA).
bSection 12 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 (BSA).
cSection 4 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 (BSA).
dSection 9 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 (BSA).
Answer: A
Section 6 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 makes motive, preparation and previous or subsequent conduct relevant facts (corresponding to the repealed Section 8 IEA).
A person of unsound mind is not incompetent to testify under Section 124 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 (BSA) -
ain any circumstances whatsoever.
bunless he is examined in the presence of his guardian.
cunless a medical certificate of fitness is produced.
dunless his unsoundness of mind prevents him from understanding the questions and giving rational answers.
Answer: D
Under Section 124 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023, a person of unsound mind is not incompetent to testify unless he is prevented by his unsoundness of mind from understanding the questions put to him and giving rational answers.
Where an electronic record produced by a computer is to be admitted in evidence, a certificate identifying the electronic record and describing the manner of its production is required under -
aSection 63 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 (BSA).
bSection 57 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 (BSA).
cSection 67 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 (BSA).
dSection 61 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 (BSA).
Answer: A
Section 63 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 governs the admissibility of electronic records and, under sub-section (4), requires a certificate identifying the record and describing the manner of its production (corresponding to the repealed Section 65B IEA).
An accused in police custody states to the investigating officer, "I have hidden the stolen ornaments in a pit behind my house," and the ornaments are recovered in consequence. Under the proviso to Section 23 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 (BSA), how much of this information may be proved against him?
aOnly so much of the information as relates distinctly to the fact thereby discovered.
bOnly the portion which does not amount to a confession.
cNothing, as it was made to a police officer while in custody.
dThe whole statement, since recovery has corroborated it.
Answer: A
The proviso to Section 23(2) of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 lifts the bar on confessions made in police custody only to the extent that the information, whether or not it amounts to a confession, relates distinctly to the fact thereby discovered; the rest remains inadmissible (corresponding to the repealed Section 27 IEA).
A confession made by an accused while in the custody of a police officer is, as a rule, inadmissible against him under Section 23(2) of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 (BSA). The only exception recognised by that provision is where the confession is made -
aafter the accused has been informed of his right to silence.
bin the presence of two independent witnesses.
cin the immediate presence of a Magistrate.
dvoluntarily and reduced to writing by the police officer.
Answer: C
Section 23(2) of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 bars proof of a confession made while in police custody unless it be made in the immediate presence of a Magistrate, which is the sole statutory exception (corresponding to the repealed Section 26 IEA). The custody rule lies in Section 23(2), not Section 23(1) which deals with confessions made to a police officer.
A confessional statement of a co-accused is hit by Section 23(1) of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 (BSA), having been made to a police officer. The prosecution seeks to use it against another co-accused jointly tried for the same offence by invoking Section 24. Decide.
aIt can be used, but only as corroboration and not as substantive evidence.
bA statement inadmissible under Section 23(1) cannot be made admissible against a co-accused by stretching it through Section 24.
cIt can be used provided the maker is also convicted in the same trial.
dIt can be taken into consideration against the co-accused, as Section 24 is an independent enabling provision.
Answer: B
The expression 'confession proved' in Section 24 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 means a confession legally admissible; one barred by Section 23 cannot be revived against a co-accused through Section 24 (corresponding to the repealed Sections 25/30 IEA).
The fact that a person was born during the continuance of a valid marriage between his mother and any man shall be conclusive proof of his legitimacy under Section 116 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 (BSA), unless it is shown that -
athe child was born within 280 days of the dissolution of the marriage.
ba DNA test excludes the husband as the biological father.
cthe husband had publicly disowned the child.
dthe parties to the marriage had no access to each other at any time when he could have been begotten.
Answer: D
Under Section 116 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 the conclusive presumption of legitimacy can be displaced only by proof of non-access of the spouses at the relevant time; even a DNA test cannot by itself rebut it (corresponding to the repealed Section 112 IEA).
When the question is whether a person has committed the dowry death of a woman and it is shown that soon before her death she had been subjected by such person to cruelty or harassment in connection with a demand for dowry, the court under Section 118 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 (BSA) -
amay presume only if the death occurred within three years of marriage.
bshall presume that such person caused the dowry death.
cmay presume that such person caused the dowry death.
dshall treat the cruelty as conclusive proof of dowry death.
Answer: B
Section 118 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 uses the mandatory expression 'the court shall presume', unlike Section 117 (abetment of suicide) which uses the discretionary 'may presume' (corresponding to the repealed Section 113B IEA).
A married woman commits suicide within seven years of her marriage and it is shown that her husband had subjected her to cruelty. As to the presumption of abetment of suicide under Section 117 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 (BSA), the court -
amust treat the cruelty as conclusive proof of abetment.
bshall presume that the suicide was abetted by the husband.
ccan draw no presumption in the absence of a dying declaration.
dmay presume, having regard to all the other circumstances, that the suicide was abetted by the husband.
Answer: D
Section 117 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 confers a discretionary presumption: the court 'may presume', having regard to all the circumstances, that the suicide was abetted, 'cruelty' bearing the meaning in Section 86 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (corresponding to the repealed Section 113A IEA).
Where a party seeks to prove, by way of secondary evidence, information contained in an electronic record, Section 63 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 (BSA) requires -
aa certificate satisfying the conditions of Section 63(4) identifying and authenticating the electronic record.
bthe prior sanction of the Magistrate before it is exhibited.
cthe attestation of two witnesses to the printout.
dmerely that the witness producing it depose to its accuracy on oath.
Answer: A
Sections 61 to 63 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 form a complete code for electronic evidence; secondary evidence of an electronic record is inadmissible unless accompanied by the written certificate under Section 63(4) (corresponding to the repealed Section 65B IEA).
A statement made by a person as to the cause of his death, who subsequently dies, is admissible under Section 26(a) of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 (BSA) (dying declaration). Such a statement is relevant -
awhether or not the person was, at the time it was made, under expectation of death.
bonly if the declarant was under expectation of imminent death when he made it.
conly if it was recorded by a Magistrate.
donly in cases of homicide and not in civil proceedings.
Answer: A
Under the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023, unlike English law, a dying declaration under Section 26(a) is admissible whether or not the declarant was under expectation of death at the time the statement was made (corresponding to the repealed Section 32(1) IEA).
A is charged with culpable homicide and pleads the general exception of private defence. As to the existence of circumstances bringing his case within the exception, Section 108 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 (BSA) provides that -
athe prosecution must disprove the exception beyond reasonable doubt.
bno burden lies on the accused once a plea of defence is raised.
cthe accused must prove the exception beyond reasonable doubt.
dthe burden of proving the exception is on the accused and the court shall presume the absence of such circumstances.
Answer: D
Section 108 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 places the burden of proving a general or special exception on the accused and directs the court to presume the absence of such circumstances, the accused discharging this burden on a preponderance of probabilities (corresponding to the repealed Section 105 IEA).
The Supreme Court first held the Preamble to be a part of the Constitution, thereby departing from its earlier view in the Berubari case, in -
aA.K. Gopalan v. State of Madras.
bGolak Nath v. State of Punjab.
cKesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala.
dMinerva Mills Ltd. v. Union of India.
Answer: C
In the Berubari Union case the Preamble was treated as not part of the Constitution; this was overruled in Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala, which held the Preamble to be a part of the Constitution.
In Minerva Mills Ltd. v. Union of India, the Supreme Court struck down certain clauses inserted by the 42nd Amendment which had attempted to -
aabolish the right to property as a fundamental right.
bconfer unlimited amending power on Parliament and exclude judicial review of amendments.
cintroduce the words 'Socialist' and 'Secular' in the Preamble.
dcreate the office of Lokpal at the Union level.
Answer: B
The 42nd Amendment had inserted clauses (4) and (5) in Article 368 granting Parliament unrestrained amending power and ousting judicial review; Minerva Mills struck these down as violative of the basic structure.
The right guaranteed by Article 32 to move the Supreme Court for enforcement of fundamental rights was described by Dr. B.R. Ambedkar in the Constituent Assembly as -
athe very heart and soul of the Constitution.
bexercisable only through the High Courts.
csubordinate to the Directive Principles.
da mere paper guarantee with no real value.
Answer: A
Dr. Ambedkar described Article 32 as the 'very soul of the Constitution and the very heart of it', it being itself a fundamental right that guarantees constitutional remedies.
Which of the following is NOT a fundamental duty enumerated in Article 51A of the Constitution?
aTo safeguard public property and to abjure violence.
bTo pay taxes to the State honestly and in time.
cTo develop the scientific temper, humanism and the spirit of inquiry and reform.
dTo promote harmony and the spirit of common brotherhood amongst all the people of India.
Answer: B
Paying taxes is not among the fundamental duties listed in Article 51A; the duties to develop scientific temper, safeguard public property and promote harmony are expressly enumerated.
The position that the right to property is no longer a fundamental right, with the consequence that its violation cannot, by itself, be agitated directly before the Supreme Court under Article 32, is the result of -
athe 25th Amendment, 1971.
bthe 86th Amendment, 2002.
cthe 44th Amendment, 1978.
dthe 1st Amendment, 1951.
Answer: C
After the 44th Amendment deleted Articles 19(1)(f) and 31 and inserted Article 300A, the right to property ceased to be a fundamental right enforceable directly under Article 32.
The word 'integrity' was added to the Preamble of the Constitution, alongside 'unity of the Nation', by -
athe 7th Amendment, 1956.
bthe 42nd Amendment, 1976.
cthe 44th Amendment, 1978.
dthe 61st Amendment, 1988.
Answer: B
The 42nd Amendment, 1976 changed 'unity of the Nation' to 'unity and integrity of the Nation' in the Preamble, in addition to inserting 'Socialist' and 'Secular'.
The doctrine of "basic structure" of the Constitution, which limits the amending power of Parliament under Article 368, was propounded by the Supreme Court in -
aShankari Prasad v. Union of India.
bI.C. Golak Nath v. State of Punjab.
cKesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala.
dSajjan Singh v. State of Rajasthan.
Answer: C
In Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973) a thirteen-Judge Bench held that the power to amend under Article 368 does not extend to altering the basic structure of the Constitution.
With the implied consent of the true owners, A is the ostensible owner of immovable property and transfers it for consideration to B. The true owners later seek to avoid the transfer. Under Section 41 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, the transfer to B is protected provided that -
aA was the ostensible owner for at least twelve years.
bthe transfer was registered, irrespective of B's good faith.
cB took the transfer for consideration, regardless of his diligence.
dB, after taking reasonable care to ascertain that A had power to transfer, acted in good faith.
Answer: D
Section 41 protects the transferee from an ostensible owner only where the transfer was for consideration AND the transferee, after taking reasonable care to ascertain the transferor's power, acted in good faith.
The rule against perpetuity under Section 14 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 prohibits the creation of an interest to take effect beyond -
athe lifetime of one or more persons living at the date of transfer plus the minority of some person in existence at the expiration of that period.
ba fixed period of twenty-one years from the date of transfer.
cthe lifetime of the transferor alone.
dthe lifetime of one or more living persons plus a period of eighteen years.
Answer: A
Section 14 forbids an interest taking effect after the lifetime of one or more persons living at the date of the transfer plus the minority of a person who is in existence at the expiration of that period and to whom the interest is to belong on attaining majority.
A wishes to assign to B a debt of Rs. 50,000 owed to him by C. Under Section 130 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, the transfer of this actionable claim shall be effected -
aonly by a registered instrument attested by two witnesses.
bonly by an instrument in writing signed by the transferor or his duly authorised agent.
conly after notice of the transfer is given to the debtor C.
dby mere oral agreement coupled with delivery of the debt instrument.
Answer: B
Section 130 requires that the transfer of an actionable claim, whether with or without consideration, be effected only by an instrument in writing signed by the transferor or his duly authorised agent; the transfer is complete on execution, notice to the debtor not being a condition of validity.
A transfers property to B for life, and then to the eldest son of C (C being unmarried at the date of transfer) absolutely. Which provisions of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 govern the validity of the gift to the unborn son of C?
aSections 13 and 14.
bSections 25 and 35.
cSections 105 and 106.
dSections 5 and 6.
Answer: A
A transfer for the benefit of an unborn person is governed by Section 13 (which requires the whole remaining interest to be conferred so as to take effect on his coming into existence) read with Section 14 (the rule against perpetuity).
An oral agreement to sell immovable property, followed by part performance, is sought to be enforced by way of defence. The bar in the proviso to Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 does NOT protect the transferee as against -
athe transferor himself.
bthe legal heirs of the transferor.
ca transferee for consideration who has no notice of the contract or of the part performance.
da person claiming under the transferor otherwise than for consideration.
Answer: C
The proviso to Section 53A preserves the rights of a transferee for consideration who has no notice of the contract or of its part performance; against everyone else claiming under the transferor, the equity of part performance operates.
A grants a lease of his shop building to B by a deed for a term of five years at a yearly rent. Under Section 107 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, such a lease can be made only -
aby an unregistered instrument signed by the lessor alone.
bby a registered instrument.
cby an oral agreement accompanied by delivery of possession.
dby an instrument attested by two witnesses but not registered.
Answer: B
Under Section 107, a lease of immovable property from year to year, or for any term exceeding one year, or reserving a yearly rent, can be made only by a registered instrument; other leases may be made by registered instrument or by oral agreement with delivery of possession.
A makes a gift of his house to B. B accepts the gift but A dies before the registered gift deed is executed and before B has accepted during A's lifetime in the manner required. Under Section 122 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, a valid gift requires that acceptance be made -
awithin six months of the execution of the gift deed.
bduring the lifetime of the donor and while he is still capable of giving.
cat any time, even after the death of the donor.
donly after the donor becomes incapable of giving.
Answer: B
Section 122 requires that the donee accept the gift during the lifetime of the donor and while he is still capable of giving; a gift not so accepted is void.
'When consent to an agreement is caused by coercion, fraud or misrepresentation, the agreement is a contract voidable at the option of the party whose consent was so caused.' This statement is -
aFalse
bNone of the above
cPartly true and partly false
dTrue
Answer: D
Section 19 makes a contract whose consent was caused by coercion, fraud or misrepresentation voidable at the option of the aggrieved party. The statement is a correct reproduction of Section 19.
A surety is discharged from liability under Section 134 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872 -
aby any contract between the creditor and the principal debtor by which the principal debtor is released.
bwhere the principal debtor dies during the continuance of the guarantee.
cwhere the creditor merely forbears to sue the principal debtor.
donly where the creditor expressly releases the surety.
Answer: A
Section 134 discharges the surety by any contract between the creditor and principal debtor releasing the latter, or by any act or omission of the creditor whose legal consequence is the discharge of the principal debtor. Mere forbearance to sue does not discharge the surety (Section 137).
Where, by a contract of guarantee, a person gives a guarantee for a series of transactions which is to be revoked as to future transactions, such a guarantee is called a -
aconditional guarantee.
bspecific guarantee.
cimplied guarantee.
dcontinuing guarantee.
Answer: D
Section 129 defines a 'continuing guarantee' as a guarantee which extends to a series of transactions; under Section 130 it may be revoked as to future transactions by notice to the creditor.
A finds a purse on the floor of B's shop and gives it to the shopkeeper to keep till the true owner is found. The legal position of the shopkeeper is that of a -
abailee, bound by the responsibilities of a bailee.
bfinder of goods who is the owner.
cpawnee with a right to sell.
dbailor.
Answer: A
Under Section 71, a person who finds goods belonging to another and takes them into his custody is subject to the same responsibility as a bailee. Once entrusted to the shopkeeper, he holds them under the duties of a bailee.
Under Section 73 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872, compensation for loss caused by breach of contract is -
arecoverable only where the contract expressly provides for damages.
bnot to be given for any remote and indirect loss or damage sustained by reason of the breach.
crecoverable for any remote or indirect loss sustained by reason of the breach.
dlimited to the amount of penalty stipulated in the contract.
Answer: B
The explanation/last paragraph of Section 73 expressly states that compensation is not to be given for any remote and indirect loss or damage sustained by reason of the breach, codifying the rule in Hadley v. Baxendale.
A contract for the sale of goods which expressly provides that 'time is of the essence' but is not performed by the agreed date is -
avoidable at the option of the promisee.
bvoid ab initio.
cvalid, time being presumed not of the essence in commercial contracts.
dvoid for uncertainty.
Answer: A
Under Section 55, where time is of the essence and the promisor fails to perform within the stipulated time, the contract becomes voidable at the option of the promisee. It is not void ab initio.
The legal maxim 'audi alteram partem', a facet of the principles of natural justice, means -
ano one shall be a judge in his own cause
bhe who comes to equity must come with clean hands
chear the other side, or let the other party be heard as well
dthe act of court shall prejudice no one
Answer: C
'Audi alteram partem' means no person shall be condemned unheard; the other side must be given a fair opportunity to be heard. ('No one a judge in his own cause' is nemo judex in causa sua.)
The expression 'ratio decidendi' of a judicial decision refers to -
athe legal principle or reason on which the decision is based and which binds as precedent
bthe operative part directing the relief granted
can observation by the court not necessary for the decision
da dissenting opinion recorded by a minority judge
Answer: A
Ratio decidendi is the rule of law upon which the decision is founded and which constitutes the binding precedent, as distinct from obiter dicta (observations not essential to the decision).
Under the criminal law in force from 1 July 2024, the principal substantive penal code applicable in India is the -
aBharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023
bBharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023
cIndian Penal Code, 1860
dBharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023
Answer: D
The Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 replaced the Indian Penal Code, 1860 with effect from 1 July 2024. The BNSS replaced the CrPC and the BSA replaced the Evidence Act.
Under the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023, the section corresponding to the former Section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act, providing that no confession made to a police officer shall be proved against an accused, is -
aSection 22
bSection 27
cSection 24
dSection 23
Answer: D
Section 23(1) of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 provides that no confession made to a police officer shall be proved as against a person accused of any offence.
The legal maxim 'actus curiae neminem gravabit' embodies the principle that -
aa thing once decided cannot be reopened
ban act of the court shall prejudice no one
cignorance of law is no excuse
dthe law does not concern itself with trifles
Answer: B
'Actus curiae neminem gravabit' means an act of the court shall prejudice no man; it underlies the doctrine of restitution recognised in Section 144 CPC.
Statements: All judges are honest. Some honest persons are wealthy. Conclusions: (I) Some judges are wealthy. (II) Some wealthy persons are honest. Which conclusion logically follows?
aOnly conclusion (I) follows
bBoth (I) and (II) follow
cOnly conclusion (II) follows
dNeither (I) nor (II) follows
Answer: C
Conclusion II is the valid converse of 'Some honest persons are wealthy.' Conclusion I does not follow because the overlap between honest and wealthy need not include any judge.
Q84Reasoning & Mental Ability
A is the brother of B. B is the brother of C. C is the husband of D. E is the father of A. How is D related to E?
aWife
bDaughter
cDaughter-in-law
dSister-in-law
Answer: C
A, B and C are brothers and E is their father, so C is E's son. As D is the wife of C, D is the daughter-in-law of E.
Q85Reasoning & Mental Ability
In a row of advocates facing north, Ravi is 7th from the left end and 18th from the right end. How many advocates are there in the row?
a23
b26
c24
d25
Answer: C
Total number = (position from left) + (position from right) - 1 = 7 + 18 - 1 = 24.
Q86Reasoning & Mental Ability
If 'P + Q' means 'P is the mother of Q', 'P - Q' means 'P is the brother of Q', and 'P x Q' means 'P is the father of Q', then which expression shows that M is the grandmother of T?
aM x N + T
bM + N x T
cM + N - T
dM - N + T
Answer: B
M + N means M is the mother of N, and N x T means N is the father of T. Hence M is the mother of T's father, i.e., M is the grandmother of T.
Q87Reasoning & Mental Ability
Choose the pair that is related in the same way as the pair 'Plaintiff : Defendant'.
aPetitioner : Respondent
bWitness : Evidence
cCounsel : Client
dJudge : Advocate
Answer: A
Plaintiff and Defendant are the two opposing parties in a civil suit; likewise Petitioner and Respondent are the two opposing parties in a petition. The other pairs are not opposing-party relationships.
Q88Specific Relief Act
After the 2018 amendment, the requirement under Section 16(c) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 is that the plaintiff seeking specific performance must -
aprove that he had performed the entire contract before filing the suit.
bshow that compensation in money would not afford adequate relief.
cdeposit the consideration in court at the time of instituting the suit.
daver and prove that he has performed or has always been ready and willing to perform the essential terms of the contract.
Answer: D
Section 16(c) requires the plaintiff to plead and prove that he has performed or has always been ready and willing to perform the essential terms of the contract which are to be performed by him, other than terms whose performance has been prevented or waived by the defendant.
Under Section 20 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 (as substituted in 2018) dealing with substituted performance, where a contract is broken, the party who suffers the breach -
amay have substituted performance only with the consent of the party in breach.
bmay immediately have the contract performed by a third party without any prior notice.
cmay have the contract performed by a third party or his own agency after giving not less than thirty days' notice in writing to the party in breach.
dmust obtain leave of the court before engaging a third party to perform the contract.
Answer: C
Section 20(2) requires a written notice of not less than thirty days calling upon the party in breach to perform; on refusal or failure, the aggrieved party may get the contract performed by a third party or his own agency and recover the expenses.
A party who has obtained substituted performance of a contract under Section 20 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 -
ashall not be entitled to claim relief of specific performance against the party in breach.
bremains entitled to seek specific performance against the party in breach.
cmust elect between recovering expenses and claiming specific performance.
dmay claim specific performance only with the leave of the court.
Answer: A
Section 20(3) provides that where the aggrieved party has got the contract performed through a third party or his own agency after due notice, he shall not be entitled to claim the relief of specific performance against the party in breach, though he may recover expenses by way of compensation.
Under Section 20A of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 (inserted in 2018), in a suit involving a contract relating to an infrastructure project specified in the Schedule -
aonly a mandatory injunction, and not a prohibitory injunction, may be granted.
bno injunction shall be granted where it would cause impediment or delay in the progress or completion of such infrastructure project.
can injunction may be granted with the prior approval of the Central Government.
dan injunction may be granted on the plaintiff furnishing security equal to the project cost.
Answer: B
Section 20A bars the grant of any injunction in a suit involving a contract relating to an infrastructure project specified in the Schedule where granting it would cause impediment or delay in the progress or completion of such project.
Section 20C of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 (inserted by the 2018 amendment) provides that a suit filed under the provisions of the Act shall be disposed of -
awithin six months from the date of service of summons, extendable by a further three months.
bwithin twelve months from the date of institution of the suit, without any extension.
cwithin twelve months from the date of service of summons on the defendant, extendable for a further period not exceeding six months.
dwithin two years from the date of institution of the suit.
Answer: C
Section 20C mandates disposal within twelve months from the date of service of summons on the defendant; this period may be extended by the court, for reasons recorded in writing, by a further period not exceeding six months.
Under Section 11(4)(ii) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965, a landlord may seek eviction of a tenant who uses the building in such a manner as to -
areduce its value or utility, whether temporarily or permanently.
balter its appearance without the landlord's written consent.
cdestroy or reduce its value or utility materially and permanently.
dcause any nuisance or annoyance to neighbouring occupiers.
Answer: C
Section 11(4)(ii) permits eviction only where the tenant uses the building so as to destroy or reduce its value or utility materially and permanently; mere temporary or non-material damage is insufficient.
Under the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965, eviction on the ground that the tenant has ceased to occupy the building continuously for six months without reasonable cause is provided for under -
aSection 11(4)(iii).
bSection 11(4)(v).
cSection 11(4)(iv).
dSection 11(7).
Answer: B
Section 11(4)(v) allows eviction where the tenant ceases to occupy the building continuously for six months without reasonable cause; clause (iii) deals with the tenant already having his own sufficient building and clause (iv) with reconstruction.
Where a landlord obtains eviction under Section 11(4)(iv) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965 (building needing reconstruction) and then wilfully neglects to reconstruct the building completely within the time fixed by the Rent Control Court, he is liable, on petition, to a fine of -
arupees one hundred.
brupees two thousand.
crupees five hundred.
drupees one thousand.
Answer: C
The first proviso to Section 11(4)(iv) makes a landlord who wilfully neglects to reconstruct completely within the fixed/extended time liable to a fine of rupees five hundred, and the evicted tenant has the first option to have the reconstructed building allotted to him.
Under the first proviso to Section 11(3) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965, a landlord seeking eviction for his own occupation shall NOT be granted such a direction if -
athe landlord is not ordinarily resident within the State of Kerala.
bthe tenant has resided in the building for more than twelve years.
cthe tenant has paid all arrears of rent due under the tenancy.
dthe landlord has another building of his own in his possession in the same city, town or village, except for special reasons.
Answer: D
The first proviso to Section 11(3) bars a bona fide-need eviction where the landlord already has another building of his own in his possession in the same city, town or village, unless the Rent Control Court finds special reasons making it just and proper.
Which of the following is NOT among the presumptions raised under Section 118 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881?
aThat the holder of the instrument is a holder in due course.
bThat every transfer of a negotiable instrument was made before its maturity.
cThat every negotiable instrument was made or drawn for consideration.
dThat the signature on the instrument is that of the person by whom it purports to have been signed.
Answer: D
Section 118 presumes consideration, date, time of acceptance, time of transfer, order of indorsements, due stamping of a lost instrument and that the holder is a holder in due course. It does not raise a presumption that a signature is genuine; genuineness of signature must be proved.
A criminal court can take cognizance of an offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 only upon a complaint, in writing, made by -
aany aggrieved person.
bthe payee or, as the case may be, the holder in due course of the cheque.
cthe drawer of the cheque.
dthe banker on whom the cheque is drawn.
Answer: B
Section 142(1)(a) requires a written complaint made by the payee or, as the case may be, the holder in due course of the cheque.
On dishonour of a cheque, the payee must, under the proviso to Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, make a demand for payment by giving a notice in writing to the drawer within -
afifteen days of the receipt of information of return of the cheque.
bthirty days of the receipt of information from the bank regarding return of the cheque as unpaid.
cone month of the date on which the cheque is drawn.
dforty-five days of dishonour of the cheque.
Answer: B
Proviso (b) to Section 138 requires the payee to give written notice demanding payment within thirty days of receipt of information from the bank that the cheque was returned unpaid.
After receipt of the statutory notice of demand, the drawer of a dishonoured cheque must make payment of the amount within fifteen days; failing which the offence under Section 138 is complete. The complaint must thereafter be filed, under Section 142(b) of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, within -
afifteen days of the cause of action arising.
bthree months of the cause of action arising.
cone month of the date on which the cause of action arises.
dsix months of presentation of the cheque.
Answer: C
Section 142(b) requires the complaint to be filed within one month of the date on which the cause of action arises under clause (c) of the proviso to Section 138 (the court may condone delay under the proviso).
Law Mock is an independent preparation resource and is not affiliated with any High Court, Public Service Commission, or government body. All exam information is sourced from official notifications and is updated periodically.
