#MCQ@CurrentLegalGK

This Question was being discussed day before yesterday.
@LegalQuizzes

Recording Of Search And Seizure Through Audio-Video Electronic Means Under Section 105 Of The BNSS
https://www.livelaw.in/articles/recording-of-search-and-seizure-electronic-mode-section-105-bnss-281366

kuch khaas nahi likha hai bus ek baar section ache se padhlo.

New criminal laws pe hardly koi development hua h after july jahan tak mujhe lgta h commentaries buy krne se acha hai khud CrPC ke landmark judgments pdhkar analyse kro comparitively, ye sub articles books time waste hain discussion on bare act provisions is must.

@CurrentLegalGK

Shocked To See Many Non-Meat Products Having Halal Certification : Solicitor General Tells Supreme Court
https://www.livelaw.in/top-stories/supreme-court-fixes-for-hearing-pleas-challenging-up-govt-ban-on-halal-certified-products-told-halal-certification-costly-281423

halal cement halal sariye (iron rods)

Corruption by certification agencies 🙃

Police Arresting Accused After Filing Chargesheet & Court's Cognizance Makes No Sense : Supreme Court
https://www.livelaw.in/top-stories/police-arresting-accused-after-filing-chargesheet-courts-cognizance-makes-no-sense-supreme-court-281420

#Question@CurrentLegalGK

Can police arrest after the court has taken cognizance of the case❓

Two accused individuals met at the scene of the incident and inflicted injuries on the victim. One, armed with a knife, caused more severe injuries than the other, who carried a chopper and inflicted less serious harm. The High Court reduced the conviction of the latter from Section 326 IPC to Section 324 IPC, citing no prior common intention. Determine the appropriateness of this decision.

a. The High Court erred in modifying the conviction because the degree of harm inflicted on the victim cannot be the basis for reducing the sentence when both accused acted with a common intention.
b. The degree of injury inflicted on the victim can serve as a basis for sentence reduction, irrespective of whether both accused acted with a common intention.
c. The High Court did not commit an error, as there was no prior meeting of minds to establish that both accused acted with a common intention.
d. Both (b) and (c)

Answer: Option (a)
Case Title:
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA v. BATTEGOWDA

#MCQ@CurrentLegalGK

#MCQ@CurrentLegalGK

Can a suit seeking only an injunction be dismissed solely because it does not seek a declaratory relief under Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 when the defendant does not dispute the plaintiff's title?

😉 No Options are being provided.

#MCQ@CurrentLegalGK

In 1994, Mr. A was adopted by a widow, Ms. B, after the death of her husband, Mr. C. Prior to the adoption, Ms. B had acquired property through a sale deed in 1985, which was her absolute property. In 2007, Ms. B executed another sale deed for the same property in favor of two other parties, Mr. D and Mr. E, without consulting or obtaining consent from Mr. A, the adopted son. Mr. A claims that his right to the property should relate to the date of his adoptive father's (Mr. C) death in 1982, and therefore, the sale deed executed after his adoption should be invalid as it was done without his consent. In light of the facts mentioned and the applicable legal provisions, which of the following is the correct legal outcome?

Sale valid or invalid and why?

Case Title: Sri Mahesh Versus Sangram & Ors.
Explanation: According to the Supreme Court ruling, the property acquired by a female Hindu prior to the adoption remains her absolute property, and the adopted child's rights do not divest the adoptive mother of her rights over such property. The sale deed executed by Ms. B in 2007 is valid, as the rights she had acquired before the adoption remain intact.

#MCQ@CurrentLegalGK

A violent altercation resulted in a death. The police filed an FIR charging five individuals but dropped two with a closure report. During the trial, a witness implicated the dropped individuals, leading the court to summon them as additional accused under Section 319 CrPC. The individuals argued they couldn't be summoned due to the closure report.
Which of the following is the most accurate statement regarding the trial court's power to summon additional accused under Section 319 of the CrPC, based on the facts provided?

a. The trial court can summon any person as an additional accused only if they were initially named in the FIR and included in the chargesheet.
b. The trial court can summon an individual as an additional accused, even if they were exonerated by the police, provided that new evidence surfaced during the trial.
c. The trial court is bound to follow the police's closure report and cannot summon any additional accused after it has been filed.
d. The trial court can only summon an individual as an additional accused if the prosecution has submitted a protest petition requesting it

✨ OMI @ OMKAR RATHORE
v.
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH, 2025
Explanation: The Supreme Court observed that Section 319 of the CrPC gives the trial court the discretion to summon any person as an additional accused if, during the trial, evidence is adduced that implicates them, even if they were exonerated by the police or were not included in the charge sheet. The trial court is not bound by the police investigation or closure report and can exercise its discretion to summon additional accused based on trial evidence, the Court said.

Alleged liquor scam in Chhattisgarh: what the investigation has found 🔗
#express_explained

RG KAR RAPE CASE SENTENCE

See the Sections application, default of fine, compensation, how judge orders for compensation and will it run concurrently or consequetively

@CurrentLegalGK

Now those who are saying justice is not done death penalty must be the only option, we I don't know whether death penalty should have been imposed on him or not however what I know is that this case was tried expeditiously and was given priority and if you see other similar cases with no limelight are still pending.

SC took suo motu, Authority ke dar se sub kuch possible hai.

Justice delayed is justice denied is not just because of infrastrucutre but also because of the will of pillars of the criminal justice system, if they have that zeal they can provide justice fairly and speedily as much they can.

Read the Order it is based on new criminal laws.

P.S. I have no sympathy with convict but with victim and society at large.

Rape & Murder - Speedy Justice: Challenges Before Judiciary & Society
https://www.livelaw.in/columns/rape-murder--speedy-justice-challenges-before-judiciary-society-150542

In Shambhunath Singh (2001 (4) SCC 667), the Supreme Court of India has noted with great amount of dissatisfaction that the mandate of section 309 CrPC has been ignored by the trial courts and this has been a common practice in regular occurrence that the trial courts flout the said command with impunity. The Supreme Court of India held that the presiding officers of the each court need to chalk out methods to comply with legislative mandate of Section 309 of Cr.P.C

Pros- Read Above article it has good amount of rich content.

Cons- Old law based, must refer new sections and changes (if any)

#Essay@CurrentLegalGK

BNSS Gives Wider Protection To Accused Of Unsound Mind Or Intellectual Disability, Will Apply Retrospectively: Kerala High Court
https://www.livelaw.in/high-court/kerala-high-court/kerala-high-court-protection-alzheimers-dementia-bnss-apply-retrospectively-persons-intellectual-disability-unsound-mind-268803

“As I discussed above, Chapter XXVII of the Sanhita has given wider protection to a person of unsound mind or a person suffering from intellectual disability. where  two persons suffering from a mental disability or intellectual disability are dealt with differently, one under the Code, and the other under the Sanhita, it amounts to a violation of Article 14 of the Constitution. Among equals, the law should be equal and equally administered and should be treated alike. The guarantee of 'equal protection' under Article 14 is a guarantee of equal treatment of persons in 'equal circumstances'. To preserve the fundamental right of an individual, the provisions of the Sanhita can be extended retrospectively to any proceedings initiated prior to 1.7.2024.

Credits: Shelja S

Case: V.I. Thankappan v State of Kerala, 2024, Kerala HC