Last Updated on by Admin LB
Legal Bites brings to you CRPC Mains Questions Series Part IV. The questions enlisted here are arranged section-wise and will aid the students preparing for Judiciary, APO or University Exams. The list question curated by Legal Bites will help candidates identify the important and frequently asked questions and give them good practice for their aptitude and knowledge.
CRPC Mains Questions Series Part IV of XI
We know answer writing is a continuous exercise that is an inalienable part of the preparation process for any Examination. A well-written answer not only reflects the knowledge of an aspirant but also his/her ability to tailor the content in a manner suited to meet the expectations of the question.
Rigorous preparation for this exam is mandatory in order to crack it. In the last few months prior to the exams, it is sufficient for candidates to simply keep practicing these questions in order to gain mastery over the subjects studied. Not only the candidate’s confidence level but also their scores will show good improvement upon following it.
CRPC Mains Questions Series | Part – IV of XI
During his cross-examination by the defence, a prosecution witness admits (i) that he had signed his statement recorded under Section 161 Cr. P.C., and; (ii) that his said statement was read over to him by the Police Officer outside the courtroom before he entered the witness-box. It is contended by the defence that the entire testimony of this witness is excluded from consideration. Decide this plea. [D.J.S. 1990]
A commits an offence in Agra but makes a confession before the Judicial Magistrate, Jaipur, who has no power to try the case. Is the confession valid, if it is recorded by the Magistrate after following the procedure, laid down in Section 164, Cr.P.C? [UPCJ 1984, UPHJS 1982, BIHAR J 1979, MPJ 2009]
A, an accused makes a confession before the Metropolitan Magistrate, Delhi during an investigation under Section 164 Cr. P.C. but he does not sign the confessional statement recorded by the Magistrate. Is the confession recorded under Section 164, Cr. P.C. valid?
‘X’ a petty hawker engaged in selling pens and sundry items at I.S.B.T. is produced before you by the police on 11.10.99 on the allegations that he was arrested on the previous day i.e. 10.10.99 in case F.I.R. 301/99 Police Station Kashmere Gate under section 379 I.P.C. relating to pickpocket of a passenger P, who arrived at I.S.B.T. on the night intervening 06.10.99 and 07.10.99; cash amounting to Rs.300/- ball-pens numbering about four dozen and several key rings were recovered from the personal search of ‘X’ during the course of interrogation confessed to have picked the pocket of a passenger on the night of 06.10.99 and 07.10.99 and could get recovered the stolen purse.
Identity Card of the passenger and a part of the cash from the house of his sister in Mangolpuri. Police prayed that ‘X’ be given in police custody for two days enable them to affect the recovery of the stolen articles and complete the investigation. On the other hand, a plea for the release of ‘X’ on bail was made on the ground that he is innocent and police have falsely implicated him in the theft case and he never made any confession about the incident of theft. Case diaries produced before you showed the factum of the arrest of ‘X’ on 10.10.99 his interrogation but there existed no confession of ‘X’ Decide the prayer of police and the plea of ‘X’. [DJS, 1999]
A, an accused is being tried by a Magistrate in a summons case. The investigation is not concluded within six months from the date on which the accused was arrested. The concerned Magistrate passes an order under Section 167(5), Cr. P.C. to stop the further investigation and discharges the accused while the officer conducting the investigation satisfies the Magistrate that for special reasons and for the ends of justice, the investigation requires to be continued beyond the period of six months.
Can the Sessions Judge of the same sessions division vacate the order of the concerned Magistrate passing the order of stopping further investigation? If so, under which provision of law can the Sessions Judge do so?
A, an accused is aggrieved by the order passed under Section 167(5), not to stop further investigation even when the investigation was not concluded within six months from the date on which he was arrested. Being aggrieved by the order of the magistrate, he (A) does not file any application before the Magistrate and directly files an application before the Sessions Judge to vacate the order of the magistrate. Can the Sessions Judge entertain the petition filed by A?
On 23.03.1988 the accused was arrested by the police for an offence under Section 21 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, having been found to be in possession of One Kg. of heroin valued at rupees one crore in the International Market. The charge sheet having not been filed within the prescribed period of 90 days, the Magistrate enlarged the accused on bail on 22.07.1988.
On 29.07.1988 the State moved an application for cancellation of bail on the grounds that the charge sheet has since then been filed, that the offence alleged is of serious nature punishable with a minimum sentence of 10 years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rupees One Lakh, and that one accused from whom the recovered heroin has been confessed to having been purchased is absconding and investigation in the case could not be completed within the time frame. Decide. [D.J.S. 1990]
A lodged a report with the police for the offences under sections 323, 342 read with section 34 I.P.C. After investigation, the police forwarded the final report which was accepted by the Metropolitan Magistrate and the first information report was cancelled. A then filed a complaint on the same facts against the same person. After recording preliminary evidence, the Magistrate passed the impugned order of summoning the accused persons. Decide the legality of the order.
Every offence shall ordinarily be inquired into and tried by a court within whose local jurisdiction it was committed. Discuss. Are there any exceptions to this rule? If so, what? [U.P.C.J. 1997, JJS, 2001, MPHJS. 2017, BIHAR J 1987, UPAPO. 1997, UPCJ. 2018, UPHJS 2007]
A commits the murder of B at Bangalore. B is a resident of Chennai. A is arrested at Madurai. At what place or places the trial may take place? Can the offender A be tried at Chennai, of which the B was a resident, or at Madurai, where A was arrested?
A, the District Judge of Pune is alleged to have committed the offence of causing hurt to B at Pune. B, the complainant apprehends that a fair trial cannot be held at Pune by the Magistrate of Pune, as the accused A is District Judge of the same place? Can B have any option regarding the change of venue of trial or the trial of A can be held only in Pune in view of the provision made in Section 177?
A, a resident of Lucknow stabs B at Jaipur B is taken to Delhi for better treatment. B died in Delhi during treatment. At what place or places, the trial of A may take place. Can A be tried at Lucknow also?
A, an accused stabs B at Jaipur with intention to murder him. B is seriously injured and brought to AIIMS (All India Institute of Medical Sciences), Delhi for further treatment, where he dies. Subsequently, A is found at Hyderabad and arrested there. Can A be tried for the murder of B at Jaipur or Delhi or Hyderabad (where he is found)? Give reasons for your answer.
At what place the offence of an accused would be tried, who after committing dacoity with murder at Calcutta absconds, and a few days later is arrested at Krishna Nagar within the district of Nadia? [WBJS 2000]
A was travelling from Varanasi to Delhi by train. In the course of his journey, he committed theft between Varanasi and Kanpur. At Kanpur A suddenly changed his mind, broke his journey, and stayed at Kanpur. Can A be tried at Delhi? Can he be tried at Varanasi or at Kanpur or at any intermediary station? [Bihar A.P.P. Exam 1997]
A and B were performing a journey from Mumbai to Kolkata. Somewhere between Mumbai and Allahabad, an altercation took place between A and B regarding reservation of berth and A caused grievous hurt to B. Both A and B broke their journey at Allahabad and reached Kolkata by different trains. Can Kolkata court try the offence of causing grievous hurt by A to B? Give reasons in support of your answer.
A is on a train journey from Delhi to Chennai. During the journey A’s luggage, having some valuable ornaments was stolen by a hawker, namely B, who was not performing journey. It is not certain in which place the offence was committed. A lodges an F.I.R. at Chennai, where he came to know about such theft. B was prosecuted in Chennai’s Court. B challenges the jurisdiction of Chennai’s Court on the ground that as he was not a passenger in that train in which the theft was committed, he is not liable to be prosecuted in the court at Chennai. Is the plea of B sustainable at law? Give reasons in support of your answer.
A is alleged to have committed the offence of murder of B in an F I.R lodged by the father of B. After investigation, the investigating officer (I.0.) submits the police report (charge sheet) against A to the Chief Judicial Magistrate. The C.J.M. takes cognizance. Can the cognizance be taken by the Sessions Judge/Additional Sessions Judge also, in this case? If so, at what stage?