← APP
Past Questions
A leading case on the admissibility of tape recorded conversation is
A)
R.M Malkani vrs State of Maharashtra
B)
Kalu Mirza vrs Emperor
C)
Bhola Nath vrs Emperor
D)
Badri Rai vrs State of Bihar
The case of R.M. Malkani v. State of Maharashtra (1972) is the landmark judgment by the Supreme Court of India regarding the admissibility of tape-recorded conversations. In this case, the Court held that a tape recording is admissible as evidence if the voice of the speaker is identified, the accuracy of the recording is proved, and it is established that the recording has not been tampered with. The court categorized such recordings as 'documents' under the Indian Evidence Act.
Regarding the other options:
- Kalu Mirza v. Emperor and Bhola Nath v. Emperor are older cases, often related to different aspects of criminal law or evidence, but they are not the 'leading' authority on the modern admissibility of electronic tape recordings.
- Badri Rai v. State of Bihar is not the primary precedent cited for the general admissibility criteria of tape-recorded conversations in the same way R.M. Malkani is.
Which of the following documents are not admissible in evidence
A)
Documents improperly procured
B)
Documents procured by illegal means
C)
Both (a) & (b)
D)
Neither (a) nor (b)
Under the Indian Evidence Act (and general common law principles followed in Indian jurisprudence), the admissibility of a document is determined by its relevance to the facts in issue, not by the method used to obtain it.
1. **Relevance vs. Admissibility**: If a document is relevant under the provisions of the Evidence Act, it is generally admissible regardless of whether it was procured improperly or illegally (e.g., stolen or obtained through unauthorized access).
2. **Judicial Precedents**: The Supreme Court of India and various High Courts have consistently held that 'illegally obtained evidence' is not automatically excluded. The court distinguishes between the 'admissibility' of the evidence and the 'punishability' of the act used to obtain it. While the person who procured the document illegally may be liable for criminal prosecution (e.g., theft or trespass), the document itself remains admissible if it is relevant to the case.
3. **Analysis of Options**:
- Option (a) 'Documents improperly procured' are admissible if relevant.
- Option (b) 'Documents procured by illegal means' are admissible if relevant.
- Since neither (a) nor (b) are categorically 'not admissible', the correct answer is (d).
An inscription on a metal plate or stone is
A)
A fact
B)
A document
C)
An opinion
D)
A motive
Under the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (which governs the legal framework for these examinations), the definition of a 'document' is intentionally broad. Section 3 of the Act defines a document as 'any matter written, expressed or recorded upon any substance which is intended to be used, or which may be used, for the purpose of recording that matter'.
1. Why 'A document' is correct: An inscription on a metal plate or stone is a matter 'recorded upon a substance' (metal or stone) intended to record specific information. Therefore, it fits perfectly within the statutory definition of a document.
2. Why 'A fact' is incorrect: While the existence of the inscription is a fact, the inscription itself—as a medium of recorded information—is categorized specifically as a document for evidentiary purposes.
3. Why 'An opinion' is incorrect: An opinion is a subjective belief or professional conclusion (governed by Sections 45-51 of the Evidence Act), not a physical record.
4. Why 'A motive' is incorrect: Motive refers to the reason why a person commits an act; it is a psychological state, not a physical object or record.
A non confessional statement recorded under Sec 164 CrPC is
A)
A substantive piece of evidence
B)
Not a substantive piece of evidence
C)
Depends upon facts, may or may not be substantive piece of evidence
D)
None of these
Under the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), Section 164 allows a Magistrate to record confessions and statements. A non-confessional statement recorded under Section 164 is essentially a statement made by a witness or victim before a Magistrate. According to established legal principles and precedents by the Supreme Court of India, such statements are not 'substantive evidence'. This means they cannot be used as the sole basis for convicting an accused person. Instead, these statements are used for the purpose of 'corroboration' (to support the witness's testimony in court) or 'contradiction' (to impeach the witness's credibility under Section 145 of the Evidence Act) when the witness is examined during the trial. Substantive evidence is that which is given under oath during the trial and is subject to cross-examination. Since a Section 164 statement is recorded prior to the trial, it serves as a tool to verify the consistency of the testimony rather than as independent proof of the facts stated.
If the court is of the opinion that the law is inoperative or invalid but has not been so declared by the High court or Supreme court to which that court is subordinate, it can make
A)
Revision
B)
Reference
C)
Review
D)
Appeal
The question pertains to the legal procedure followed when a subordinate court believes a law is invalid or inoperative. Under the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) and similar provisions in the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), the mechanism of 'Reference' is used. Specifically, when a court is faced with a question regarding the validity of an Act, Ordinance, or Regulation, and that validity has not yet been declared invalid by the High Court or the Supreme Court, the subordinate court cannot unilaterally strike down the law. Instead, it 'refers' the question of validity to the High Court for a decision.
Why other options are incorrect:
- a. Revision: This is the power of a higher court to examine the record of any proceeding of a lower court to ensure the legality, propriety, or correctness of a finding.
- c. Review: This is the process where a court re-examines its own previous judgment to correct a manifest error.
- d. Appeal: This is a statutory right to challenge a final judgment or order of a lower court in a higher court.
In case the chargesheet under section 173 CrPC is not filed within 90 days or 60 days as the case may be, the accused who is in custody is entitled to be
A)
Released on bail
B)
Acquitted
C)
Discharged
D)
Released on bail on making application for bail
This question pertains to the 'Default Bail' or 'Statutory Bail' provision under Section 167(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC).
1. **Legal Provision**: Section 167(2) CrPC stipulates that if a police report (chargesheet) is not filed within the prescribed period (90 days for offenses punishable by death, life imprisonment, or imprisonment for a term of not less than 10 years; and 60 days for all other offenses), the accused is entitled to be released on bail.
2. **The 'Indefeasible Right'**: While the right to bail becomes 'indefeasible' once the period expires without a chargesheet, this right is not automatic. The accused must actually move an application for bail before the court to be released.
3. **Analysis of Options**:
- **Option (a)** is partially correct in spirit but legally incomplete because the court does not release the prisoner automatically; an application is required.
- **Option (b) Acquitted** is incorrect. Acquittal happens after a full trial where the accused is found not guilty.
- **Option (c) Discharged** is incorrect. Discharge happens when the judge finds no prima facie case to proceed to trial.
- **Option (d)** is the most accurate legal description. The entitlement to bail under Section 167(2) is triggered by the failure to file the chargesheet, but the mechanism for release is the filing of a bail application.
Therefore, the accused is entitled to be released on bail upon making an application for the same.
A confession during the course of an investigation must be made before
A)
Superintendent of Police
B)
Sessions Judge
C)
Judicial Magistrate
D)
Executive magistrate
The legal validity of a confession during an investigation is governed by the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) and the Indian Evidence Act. Under Section 164 of the CrPC, any confession made during the course of an investigation must be recorded by a Metropolitan Magistrate or a Judicial Magistrate of the first class.
1. Why Option (c) is correct: Section 164 CrPC specifically empowers Judicial Magistrates to record confessions to ensure that the statement is made voluntarily and without police coercion.
2. Why Option (a) is incorrect: Confessions made to a police officer (including the Superintendent of Police) are generally inadmissible in court under Section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act.
3. Why Option (d) is incorrect: Executive Magistrates do not have the judicial authority to record confessions under Section 164 CrPC for the purpose of trial evidence.
4. Why Option (b) is incorrect: While a Sessions Judge is a judicial authority, the statutory procedure for recording confessions during the investigation stage is specifically assigned to the Magistrate level under Section 164.
Secondary evidence of a document means
A)
Copies of that document
B)
Oral account of the contents of the document
C)
Both (a) & (b)
D)
None of the above
Under the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (which governs the legal framework for these examinations), Section 63 defines 'Secondary Evidence'. According to Section 63, secondary evidence means: (1) Certified copies of documents; (2) Copies made from the original by mechanical processes without change in the original; (3) Copies made from the original by correct copying; and (4) Oral accounts of the contents of a document given by some person who has himself seen it. Therefore, both 'Copies of that document' (covering points 1, 2, and 3) and 'Oral account of the contents of the document' (covering point 4) constitute secondary evidence. Since both options (a) and (b) are legally accurate definitions of secondary evidence, option (c) is the correct choice.
Section 13 of the Evidence Act
A)
Is confined to public rights and does not cover private rights
B)
Is not confined to public rights and covers private rights also
C)
Is confined to private rights and does not cover public rights
D)
Either (a) or (c) is correct
Section 13 of the Indian Evidence Act deals with 'Facts referred to as public notions' or more specifically, the 'Facts which are public notions' (often discussed in the context of judicial notice and public documents). However, in the specific context of legal interpretation regarding the scope of public records and the application of the Act to public/private rights, the law establishes that the rules governing the admissibility and proof of certain facts (especially those relating to public records or official acts) are not restricted solely to matters of public law or public rights. They extend to private rights as well, provided the criteria for the evidence are met. Therefore, the application of the section is broad and covers both public and private rights, making option (b) the correct legal position.
The person who cannot make an arrest as per the provisions of the CrPC is
A)
Judicial Magistrate
B)
Armed forces personnel
C)
Executive magistrate
D)
Private person
Under the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), the power to arrest is specifically granted to certain authorities and individuals under specific circumstances:
1. **Judicial Magistrate (Option a):** Under Section 44 of the CrPC, a Judicial Magistrate may arrest any person who obstructs them in the execution of their warrant or who commits any offence in their presence within their local jurisdiction.
2. **Executive Magistrate (Option c):** Under Section 44 of the CrPC, an Executive Magistrate also has the power to arrest persons who obstruct them or commit an offence in their presence within their local jurisdiction.
3. **Private Person (Option d):** Under Section 43 of the CrPC, a private person may arrest any person who in their presence commits a non-bailable and cognizable offence, or a proclaimed offender.
**Armed forces personnel (Option b)** do not have a general power of arrest under the provisions of the CrPC. While they may have powers under specific military laws (like the Army Act) or during the imposition of emergency/martial law, they are not listed as authorities empowered to make arrests under the general procedural framework of the CrPC for civilian crimes. Therefore, they are the correct answer as the entity that cannot make an arrest 'as per the provisions of the CrPC'.
The examination of a witness by the adverse party shall be called
A)
Re examination
B)
Examination in chief
C)
Cross Examination
D)
None of these
This question pertains to the order of examination of witnesses as defined under the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (specifically Section 137).
1. **Examination-in-chief (Option b):** This is the examination of a witness by the party who calls them. Its purpose is to bring out the facts of the case from the witness's perspective.
2. **Cross-Examination (Option c):** This is the examination of a witness by the adverse party (the opposing side). Its primary purpose is to test the veracity of the witness, impeach their credit, and expose contradictions in their testimony.
3. **Re-examination (Option a):** This occurs after the cross-examination and is conducted by the party who called the witness to clarify matters raised during the cross-examination.
Since the question specifically asks for the examination conducted by the 'adverse party', the correct legal term is Cross Examination.
There shall be no appeal by a convicted person in cases where
A)
the only sentence is one of imprisonment upto 6 months or upto Rs 1000 fine passed by High Court
B)
the only sentence is of imprisonment upto 3 months passed by High Court
C)
the sentence is of upto one month imprisonment with fine
D)
None of these
This question pertains to the restrictions on appeals under the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC). Specifically, Section 374 of the CrPC outlines the right to appeal. However, Section 376 of the CrPC (No appeal in certain cases) provides specific limitations. According to Section 376, no appeal shall lie in certain cases where the sentence is petty. Specifically, when a High Court passes a sentence of imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months, or a fine not exceeding one thousand rupees, or both, there is no provision for a further appeal against that conviction.
- Option (a) accurately reflects the statutory limit for sentences passed by the High Court where no appeal is permitted.
- Option (b) is incorrect because the limit is 6 months, not 3 months.
- Option (c) is incorrect as it does not specify the court and the limits are lower than the statutory threshold provided in Section 376.
Police cannot compel the attendance of any person as a witness if he is under the age of
A)
16years
B)
21 years
C)
15 years
D)
18 years
This question pertains to the powers of the police to summon witnesses under the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC). According to Section 160 of the CrPC, a police officer making an investigation may, by order in writing, require the attendance of any person who appears to be acquainted with the facts and circumstances of the case. However, the proviso to Section 160 explicitly states that no such order shall be made to a person under the age of 15 years. This is a protective measure to ensure that young children are not subjected to the intimidation or pressure of a police station environment. Therefore, the police cannot compel the attendance of any person as a witness if they are under 15 years of age. Options a, b, and d are incorrect as they do not align with the statutory age limit specified in the CrPC.
Law of evidence is
A)
A substantive law
B)
An adjective law
C)
Both (a) & (b)
D)
Neither (a) nor (b)
In legal terminology, laws are broadly categorized into two types: Substantive Law and Adjective (or Procedural) Law.
1. **Substantive Law** defines the rights, duties, and liabilities of individuals. For example, the Indian Penal Code (IPC) is substantive law because it defines what constitutes a crime and prescribes the punishment.
2. **Adjective Law** (also known as Procedural Law) provides the machinery or the method by which the substantive law is enforced. It governs the process of litigation, the rules of court, and the manner in which evidence is presented and admitted.
Since the Law of Evidence (such as the Indian Evidence Act) does not create new rights or crimes but instead prescribes the rules for proving facts and admitting evidence in a court of law to enforce substantive rights, it is classified as an **Adjective Law**. Therefore, option (b) is correct, and option (a) is incorrect.
Under the law of evidence, the relevant fact
A)
Must be legally relevant
B)
Must be logically relevant
C)
Must be legally and logically relevant
D)
Must be legally and logically relevant and admissible
In the law of evidence, there is a critical distinction between 'logical relevance' and 'legal relevance'.
1. **Logical Relevance**: A fact is logically relevant if it has any tendency to make the existence of a fact in issue more or less probable. This is a broad, common-sense definition of relevance.
2. **Legal Relevance**: A fact is legally relevant only if it is declared relevant by the law (e.g., under Sections 5 to 55 of the Indian Evidence Act). Legal relevance is a subset of logical relevance; while every legally relevant fact is logically relevant, not every logically relevant fact is legally relevant (for example, a confession made to a police officer may be logically relevant but is legally irrelevant/excluded).
3. **Admissibility**: Admissibility is a further filter. A fact may be legally relevant but still inadmissible due to specific exclusionary rules (e.g., privileged communications).
Therefore, for a fact to be considered a 'relevant fact' under the statutory framework of the Evidence Act, it must specifically be 'legally relevant'. Option (b) is too broad, and options (c) and (d) conflate relevance with admissibility, which are two distinct legal concepts.
Complaint as provided under section 2(d) of CrPC
A)
Can be in writing only
B)
Can be oral
C)
Either in writing or oral
D)
Can be by gestures
A complaint under the CrPC may be made orally or in writing.
Which of the following is relevant and may be received in evidence
A)
Tape recordings
B)
Dog tracking
C)
DNA test
D)
All of these
In the law of evidence, the court considers various types of evidence to reach a conclusion.
1. Tape Recordings: These are considered electronic evidence. Under the Indian Evidence Act (and similar common law jurisdictions), electronic records are admissible provided they satisfy the conditions of authenticity and certification (e.g., Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act).
2. Dog Tracking: This falls under 'expert opinion' or circumstantial evidence. While it is generally considered 'weak' evidence and not sufficient for conviction on its own, it is admissible to support other evidence or to lead the investigation to a discovery.
3. DNA Test: This is a form of scientific/expert evidence. It is highly reliable and widely accepted by courts for establishing identity or paternity, falling under the ambit of expert testimony.
Since all three categories of evidence can be received by the court depending on the circumstances and the satisfaction of legal prerequisites, the correct option is 'All of these'.
Who cannot claim maintenance under Section 125 CrPC?
A)
Wife
B)
Children
C)
Parents
D)
Brother
Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), 1973, provides a summary remedy for the maintenance of certain persons to prevent vagrancy. According to the statute, a person with sufficient means who neglects or refuses to maintain the following persons is liable to pay a monthly allowance:
1. His wife (who is unable to maintain herself),
2. His legitimate or illegitimate minor child (whether married or not), and
3. His father or mother.
Comparing this to the options provided:
- Option (a) Wife: Explicitly mentioned under Section 125.
- Option (b) Children: Explicitly mentioned under Section 125.
- Option (c) Parents: Explicitly mentioned under Section 125.
- Option (d) Brother: Not listed as a beneficiary under Section 125 CrPC. While a brother might claim maintenance under personal laws (such as the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act), he cannot do so under the summary procedure of Section 125 CrPC.
If a trial is held by a sessions judge/Additional Sessions Judge or by any other court in which a sentence of imprisonment of more than 7 years has been passed, an appeal would lie to
A)
The High Court
B)
The Supreme Court
C)
Both (a) & (b)
D)
No appeal lies
Under the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), specifically Section 374, the provisions for appeals from convictions are clearly defined. According to Section 374(2), any person convicted on a trial held by a Sessions Judge or an Additional Sessions Judge may appeal to the High Court. Furthermore, if a sentence of imprisonment for more than seven years is passed by any other court (such as a Magistrate), the appeal lies to the High Court if the sentence exceeds the jurisdiction of the lower appellate courts. In the specific context of a trial conducted by a Sessions Judge or Additional Sessions Judge, the statutory forum for appeal is the High Court. The Supreme Court is not the immediate court of appeal for these trials; it typically handles appeals via Special Leave Petitions (SLP) or specific constitutional mandates after the High Court has ruled. Therefore, option (a) is the legally correct answer.
The power to direct investigation under section 156(3) of CrPC can be exercised by
A)
A magistrate
B)
A Session judge
C)
Both (a) & (b)
D)
High Court
Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) specifically empowers a Magistrate to order an investigation. The section states that any Magistrate empowered under section 156(1) may, either upon application by any person or upon his own initiative, order such investigation as he thinks fit.
1. Why Option (a) is correct: The statutory language of Section 156(3) explicitly grants this power to the Magistrate (typically a Judicial Magistrate of the First Class) to direct the police to register an FIR and conduct an investigation.
2. Why Option (b) is incorrect: A Sessions Judge is a presiding officer of the court of session and does not exercise the specific powers of investigation direction provided under Section 156(3), which is a function of the magistracy.
3. Why Option (d) is incorrect: While the High Court has inherent powers under Section 482 of the CrPC to monitor investigations or give directions to ensure justice, the specific statutory power to 'direct investigation' under the mechanism of Section 156(3) is vested in the Magistrate.
A person aggrieved by a refusal to register an FIR by the police station may send the report to
A)
Station House Officer
B)
Superintendent of Police
C)
Inspector
D)
DGP
The procedure for filing a First Information Report (FIR) and the remedy available when a police officer refuses to register it is governed by Section 154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC).
1. According to Section 154(1), information relating to the commission of a cognizable offence should be given to the officer-in-charge of the police station (Station House Officer).
2. Section 154(3) specifically provides a remedy for a person who is aggrieved by a refusal on the part of an officer-in-charge of a police station to record the information. It states that such person may send the substance of the information, in writing and by post, to the Superintendent of Police (SP).
3. If the Superintendent of Police is satisfied that such information discloses the commission of a cognizable offence, he shall either investigate the case himself or forward it to another officer for investigation.
Analysis of options:
- Option (a) Station House Officer: This is the person who initially refused to register the FIR; sending it back to them does not provide a remedy.
- Option (b) Superintendent of Police: This is the legally mandated authority under Section 154(3) CrPC.
- Option (c) Inspector: An Inspector is generally a subordinate or peer to the SHO and does not have the statutory oversight authority provided under Section 154(3).
- Option (d) DGP: While the Director General of Police is the head of the state police, the specific statutory remedy provided in the CrPC for refusal to register an FIR is to approach the SP.
Which of these is incorrect about the first information report?
A)
It may not be oral
B)
Copy of FIR must be given for free
C)
Copy of FIR must be given to the informant
D)
The format of register for recording FIR should be as per directions of State Government.
The question asks for the INCORRECT statement regarding the First Information Report (FIR) under the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC).
1. Analysis of Option (a): Section 154 of the CrPC states that every piece of information relating to the commission of a cognizable offence, if given ORALLY to the officer in charge of a police station, it shall be reduced to writing. This means an FIR can absolutely be oral (which is then transcribed by the police). Therefore, the statement 'It may not be oral' is legally incorrect.
2. Analysis of Option (b) and (c): According to Section 154(2) of the CrPC, a copy of the information recorded under this section shall be given forthwith to the informant free of cost. Thus, both options (b) and (c) are correct statements of law.
3. Analysis of Option (d): The maintenance of the station diary and the registers for recording FIRs is governed by the Police Manuals and directions issued by the respective State Governments. Therefore, this is a correct statement.
Since option (a) contradicts the statutory provision that allows for oral information to be recorded as an FIR, it is the incorrect statement.
Leading question –
A)
May be asked in examination in chief
B)
May be asked in cross examination
C)
May be asked in re-examination
D)
Cannot be asked in any circumstances
Under the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (which governs the legal framework for these examinations), Section 141 defines a 'leading question' as any question which suggests the answer which the person putting it wishes or expects to receive. Section 142 explicitly states that leading questions must not, if objected to by the adverse party, be asked in an examination-in-chief, or in a re-examination, except with the permission of the Court. However, Section 143 provides a clear exception: 'Leading questions may be asked in cross-examination.'
Breakdown of options:
- Option (a) is incorrect because leading questions are generally prohibited in examination-in-chief unless permitted by the court.
- Option (b) is correct because the law expressly allows leading questions during cross-examination to test the veracity of the witness.
- Option (c) is incorrect because re-examination is treated similarly to examination-in-chief regarding leading questions.
- Option (d) is incorrect because they are legally permitted in cross-examination.
Which word does NOT belong with the others?
A)
tulip
B)
rose
C)
bud
D)
daisy
To solve this 'Odd One Out' question, we must identify the common category shared by the majority of the words.
1. Analyze the options:
- Tulip: A specific species/type of flower.
- Rose: A specific species/type of flower.
- Bud: A stage of development in a plant (an unopened flower or shoot).
- Daisy: A specific species/type of flower.
2. Identify the pattern: Tulip, Rose, and Daisy are all names of specific types of flowers. A 'bud', however, is a general botanical term for the early stage of any flower's growth, regardless of the species.
3. Conclusion: Since 'bud' describes a part or stage of a flower rather than a specific variety of flower, it does not belong with the others.
Where no sum is expressed to which a fine may extend , the amount of fine to which the offender is liable is
A)
More than one lakh
B)
Depending upon the judge
C)
Minimum amount
D)
Unlimited but not excessive
This question pertains to the legal principles governing the imposition of fines under criminal law (specifically Section 63 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, which is the foundational law for punishments in India and applicable to MPSC exams).
1. **Legal Provision**: Section 63 of the IPC states that where no sum is expressed to which a fine may extend, the amount of fine to which the offender is liable is 'unlimited, but shall not be excessive'.
2. **Reasoning**: The law allows the court flexibility to impose a fine based on the gravity of the offense and the financial status of the offender when a specific statutory limit is not mentioned. However, to prevent injustice and ensure the punishment is proportionate, the law adds the caveat that it must not be 'excessive'.
3. **Analysis of Options**:
- (a) 'More than one lakh' is incorrect as there is no fixed numerical threshold in the general provision.
- (b) 'Depending upon the judge' is partially true in practice, but it is not the legal phrasing or the standard defined by the statute.
- (c) 'Minimum amount' is incorrect as the provision discusses the upper limit/extent of the fine, not the minimum.
- (d) 'Unlimited but not excessive' is the exact legal terminology used in the statute.