#MCQ@CurrentLegalGK

In which of the following recent cases, the Supreme Court brought officers under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances [NDPS] Act, 1985 within the ambit of 'Police Officers' under Section 25, of the Indian Evidence Act [Now, Section 23 of Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam]?

[a] Ram Singh vs. Central Bureau of Investigation

[b] Surjit Singh vs. Union of India

[c] Rajaram Jaiswal vs. State of Bihar

[d] Toofan[sic] Singh v. State of Tamilnadu

#MCQ@CurrentLegalGK

The principle of res gestae as a rule of evidence is embedded in:

[a] Section 6 of the Evidence Act and Section 5 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam

[b] Section 5 of the Evidence Act and Section 4 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam

[c] Section 4 of the Evidence Act and Section 6 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam

[d] Section 6 of the Evidence Act and Section 4 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam

#MCQ@CurrentLegalGK

The 'neighbour principle' establishing a duty of care, is most famously defined in which case?

[a] Palsgraf v. Long Island Railroad

[b] Donoghue v. Stevenson

[c] Rylands v. Fletcher

[d] Winterbottom v. Wright

🌟 Anticipatory Bail by Person residing outside India.

🌟 Provision:- 482 BNSS
New law has made a provision that a person accused of committing a gang rape to all woman who are under eighteen years of age can not seek the anticipatory bail.


🌟ANTICIPATORY BAIL LAW—
✓ Anticipatory bail application has to be supported by the affidavit of the person apprehending his arrest unlike in regular bail by Advocate's affidavit.

✓ Issue of filing Vakalatnama

🌟 Case Laws:-

📌 Souda Beevi vs Mr. V. Ajith, 2011 (foreign residing person)

The purpose of an anticipatory bail order is that a person should make himself available for investigation without the threat of arrest floating on his shoulders. But in this case, the order of anticipatory bail was kept in cold storage for months and was misused.

📌 Anu Mathew v. Kerala, 2020

🌟 Issues:-

1. Whether the court has jurisdiction to grant pre-arrest bail to the accused residing in a foreign country❓

2. If the court has jurisdiction, then how should such jurisdiction be exercised❓


🥇First Issue—
✓ Right to Travel Abroad is a fundamental right as per Personal Liberty (Article 21)

✓ Fundamental right to access courts for determination of his rights. (Article 14 & 21)

✓ Pre-arrest bail can be supported by the affidavit of parokar of the applicant.

🥈Second Issue—
Illustrations to be seen while exercising discretion to grant pre-arrest bail:

✓ Whether there is bonafide apprehension of arrest in a non-bailable offence in India,

✓ Whether the accused is not likely to cooperate in investigation/trial processes,

✓ Whether custodial interrogation is required,

✓ Whether the Accused bonafide went abroad as part of their job compulsions or he went abroad to flee away from the arm of law,

✓ Whether the accused was already abroad at the time of registration of the crime,

✓ Whether the accused had absconded from India after knowing about the registration of a Non-Bailable offence,

✓ Whether the accused intends to come back to India and cooperate with the investigation,

✓ Whether the attempt of the accused is to buy time and stultify the investigation and the trial.

✓ Conditions—
In Addition to conditions under 438 (2) (i) & (iii) Cr.P.C. Court can also add a condition that the accused person must within a reasonable and definite time come to India to cooperate and submit himself to investigation by police and in case he fails, the anticipatory bail would automatically vacate.

🌟 Although no provision under CrPC makes it mandatory for the accused person to be physically present in India before his pre-arrest bail application can be heard on merits, suitable conditions can be imposed by the court based on facts and circumstances of the case to ensure his presence.

The subject of bail belongs to the blurred area of the criminal justice system and largely hinges on the hunch of the bench, otherwise called judicial discretion.
~ Justice Krishna Iyer

#Question
Travel Abroad is F.R. was held in which case?

#BNSS@CurrentLegalGK

'बढ़ी हुई सज़ा का पूर्वव्यापी प्रभाव से लागू होना अनुच्छेद 20(1) का उल्लंघन': सुप्रीम कोर्ट ने POCSO Act मामले में सज़ा में संशोधन किया
https://hindi.livelaw.in/category/news-updates/retrospective-application-of-enhanced-punishment-violates-art-201-supreme-court-modifies-sentence-in-pocso-act-case-298905

#Hindi@CurrentLegalGK

Retrospective enforcement of increased or enhanced punishment is unconstitutional under Article 20(1)

Well from now onwards we will try to share daily 1 article in hindi, which will be open for all to read it.

If I forgot to share it in any day you can remind me.

You could have read any hindi article but the purpose is twofold firstly that is consistency when I will share you will be reminded by external force and secondly I will try to share the important and relevant article which will suit almost everyone.

I vould have shared gujarati, tamil, odia or any other language article but that is difficult to find but still we will try to find them as well.

Remember in courts regional language is the core and a good reading will give you edge over others in litigation practice.

@CurrentLegalGK

PMLA Accused Entitled To Receive List Of Materials Not Relied Upon By ED : Supreme Court
https://www.livelaw.in/top-stories/pmla-accused-entitled-to-receive-materials-not-relied-upon-by-ed-supreme-court-291471

RJS Prelims 2025

well RJS has a unique pattern of not repeating last year pattern 😁

@CurrentLegalGK

Have you guys calculated your rough marks according to google answers or any other reliable answer key?

should we start a poll?

waise kuch log to 200 marks ka cut off bhi bata rhe hai 🤫

@CurrentLegalGK

#MCQ@CurrentLegalGK

Sita and Gita purchased same necklaces from a jeweler shop. Sita committed theft of Gita's Necklace from her almirah and kept it in her almirah. Unaware of the missing of her necklace, one day, Gita opened the almirah of Sita with the intention of committing theft of her necklace and take away her own necklace assuming the same to be of Sita.

Which of the following statement is correct?

(1) Gita went there with intention to commit theft of Sita's necklace and took the same assuming it to be of Sita, hence, she has committed the offence of theft.

(2). She has committed no offence.

(3) Gita dishonestly removes the movable property, from the possession of Sita without her consent, hence, Gita has committed the offence of theft.

(4) However, Gita has committed the offence of theft but neither she nor Sita will be prosecuted for the offence of theft because their acts shall be treated as equalizer of each other's act.

Question 42 series B Answer is 2

Not objectionable: Explanation
Actus reus: https://t.me/LegalQuizzes/555696

See definitions of dishonestly wrong ful gain and wrongful loss.

🔔 Answer key RJS prelims 2025

Change your vote if there is any changes by retracting vote and voting again on correct marks range.
https://t.me/CurrentLegalGK/6441


The answer to above question is no offence as per answer key, I know that this will be a little bit difficult so though of sharing for discussion. {answer option B is correct}
https://t.me/CurrentLegalGK/6443

"Coaching institutes ki quality inhi question ke answers pe pata chal jaati hai"

#MCQ@CurrentLegalGK

Which of the following is best suited to fill in the blank? Consent is said to be free when it is not caused by

(1) Coercion or Undue Influence

(2) Fraud or Misrepresentation

(3) Misappropriation or Cheating

(4) All the above are correct

Section 14 ICA?

This looks contentious 🤔

Primarily answer lies in whether grounds in section 14 are exhaustive and even if exhaustive option 3 (cheating) is covered in 1 and 2 therefore 4 is correct.

Again then also they excluded option 1 and 2 and answer mentioned is 3.

Superlative Injunction:Most Secretive Form Of Legal Protection
https://www.livelaw.in/articles/superlative-injunction-secretive-form-legal-protection-298982

UTV Software Communication Ltd.
v.
1337X 2019

Delhi High Court held that “Though the

dynamic injunction

was issued by the Singapore High Court under the provisions of Section 193 DDA of the Singapore Copyright Act, and no similar procedure exists in India, yet in order to meet the ends of justice and to address the menace of piracy, this Court in exercise of its inherent power under Section 151 CPC permits the plaintiffs to implead the mirror/redirect/alphanumeric websites under Order I Rule 10 CPC as these websites merely provide access to the same websites which are the subject of the main injunction.”


Star India Pvt Ltd
v.
IPTV Smarter Pro  
2025
“

a superlative injunction"

In the new age of technology, today it has become increasingly easy and convenient for infringers to create alpha-numeric/ mirror/ redirect variants of infringing websites, and by the time impleadment and extension of relief(s) can take place, certain time-sensitive infringing activities like live streaming of sporting events have already commenced illegally and by the time the effected party like the plaintiff approaches this Court, it is too late. Even otherwise, the post blocking scenario is also a race against time since new alpha-numeric/ mirror/ redirect variants of infringing websites spawn in the spur of the moment in these rapid times. Under such circumstances, this Court has repeatedly held that real-time relief is warranted in order to not let the rights of plaintiff(s) like the plaintiff herein be rendered otiose in the virtual world 

This is, thus, a superlative
injunction, which, for ease of reference can easily be referred to as an extended version of the available dynamic+ injunction, as the said superlative injunction also opens up an additional route for the plaintiff(s) to avail the grant of real-time relief(s) against the infringing activities of ‘rogue’ defendant(s) irrespective of the mode(s) thereof.