Q.(a) Pradeep a Hindu youth is in love with Bina, a young Parsi girl. Bina conceives and was advanced in pregnancy upto seven months when they both went to the office of the Sub-Registrar and executed a marriage document. Bina bore three issues from Pradeep. Subsequently, Bina moves an application for maintenance alleging cruelty and neglect on the part of Pradeep. Pradeep contests the validity of the marriage and contends that no presumption could be drawn in regard to the paternity of the first child. Decide.

(b) Illegality vitiates trial whereas of the sentencing court to release a convicted person on probation of good conduct.  (D.J.S. 1989)


Q.(a) Every offence shall ordinarily be inquired into and tried by a court within the local limits of whose jurisdiction it was committed (section 177 Cr.P.C.). Are there any exceptions to the above rule? If so, please state them.

(b) Distinguish between (a) summons case and warrant case, (b) compoundable and non-compoundable offence, (c) discharge and acquittal.


Q.  The wife filed an application under section 125 Cr.P.C. against her husband claiming maintenance in a court at Delhi on 24.06.1988. Prior thereto, she had sent a notice also, to him, in April 1988. The husband filed a petition under section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 in a court at Varanasi in May, 1988, and obtained an ex-parte decree for restitution of conjugal rights against his wife. In the proceedings under section 125 of the Code, the husband pleads that the said ex-parte decree is binding upon the Criminal Court, which decree establishes that his wife had refused to live with him without sufficient cause, and as such, the wife is not entitled to the grant of any maintenance. Decide. (D.J.S. 1990)


Q. The wife filed an application under section 125, Cr.P.C. claiming maintenance for herself as also minor daughter alleging that at the time of her marriage with the respondent some time in 1981, the fact that the respondent was already married and his spouse was living was not known, and that after the discovery of the previous marriage of the respondent the relationship between the parties gradually became strained and ultimately the respondent started totally neglecting the applicant and the minor daughter and refused that the applicant was fully aware about his first marriage and the fact that his first wife was living at that time. Decide. (D.J.S. 1990)


Q. A Company lodged the FIR for offence under sections 408/420 I.P.C. against X, it's former Divisional Manager. After completing the investigation, a report under section 173  Cr.P.C. was sent to Magistrate stating that the case was of civil nature the company lodged a protest petition with Magistrate and sought permission to prove commission of offence by X. Magistrate after pursuing the investigation records, comes to conclusion that prima facie case under section 408/420 IPC was made out and consequently issued process against X under section 204 Cr.P.C. Legality of order was challenged on the ground that Magistrate had no power to issue process without first complying with provision of section 200 and 202 of Code. Decide. (D.J.S. 1990)

Q. An officer of Department of Revenue Intelligence filed a complaint against X for an offence under section 21 of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 before a Magistrate appended a list of 12 witnesses – in support thereof. The said offence is exclusively triable by court of session. The Magistrate examined the complainant and three more witnesses from the said list during enquiry under section 202 Cr.P.C. and issued the process against X under section 204 of Code. X challenges the legality of the said order on the ground that section 202 enjoins upon Magistrate to examine all the witnesses of the complainant in a case exclusively triable by Court of Session and non-compliance thereof would under the order of issue of process to be void. Decide. (D.J.S. 1990)


Q. During the investigation of a case, A's statement is recorded under section 161, Cr.P.C. At the trial, A is not examined as a prosecution witness but the accused examines him in his defence. In his cross-examination by the State, the Prosecutor wants to contradict A by reference to his said statement recorded under section 161, Cr.P.C. The defence object to it. Decide the objection. (D.J.S. 1990)


Q. The petitioner was arrested by the police on 15.10.1989 for an offence under section 307,IPC. He was remanded to judicial custody on 16.09.1989 till 30.10.1989 by the Magistrate. On 30.10.1989 the Magistrate was on leave and the remand was extending till 10.11.1989 under the signatures of the Reader of the court. Thereafter, the remand was extended from time to time by the Magistrate.  On 11.01.1990 the charge sheet was filed and cognizance taken. When the accused was produced before the Magistrate on 16.10.1990, a bail application under section 167 (2) Cr.P.C. was moved on the grounds (i) that the detection of the accused between 30.10.1989 to 10.11.1989 was illegal, and (iii) that the Magistrate could not take cognizance on 11.01.1990 in the absence of the accused and the cognizance can be said to have been taken on 16.01.1990 when the accused has been produced. Decide. (D.J.S. 1990)


Q. During the investigation of a case, A's statement is recorded under section 161, Cr.P.C. At the trial, A is not examined as a prosecution witness but the accused examines him in his defence. In his cross-examination by the State, the Prosecutor wants to contradict A by reference to his said statement recorded under Section 161, Cr.P.C. The defence object to it. Decide the objection. (D.J.S. 1990)


Q. 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 valuing 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 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 have been purchased is absconding, and investigation in the case could not be completed within the time frame. Decide. (D.J.S. 1990)


Q. 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 court room before the entered the witness-box. It is contended by the defence that the entire testimony of this witness be excluded from consideration. Decide this plea. (D.J.S. 1990)


Q. S and N forged a partnership deep in league with the officials of the Income-tax Department. S filed a civil suit, produced a copy of the said partnership deed, and obtained an ex parte interim injunction restraining R from interfering with the possession of certain property. R filed a complaint against S, N and other before a Magistrate for the offences under sections 120-B, 465, 468, 471 and 474 I.P.C. The Magistrate refuses to take cognizance of the complaint without a complaint in writing by the Civil Court. Decide the validity of the 
order. (D.J.S. 1990)


Q. The wife got a case registered against her husband B for an offence under section 406, I.P.C. on the ground that after their estrangement her gold ornaments were retained and misappropriated by B. The police arrested him. During interrogation B disclosed that he had handed over the ornaments of A, the wife, to one 'C'. In his statement recorded under section 161 of Criminal Procedure Code. 'C' stated that he had pledged those ornaments with a Bank. Ornaments were recovered from the Bank. B was, however, acquitted on a finding that evidence had not established his guilt. In proceedings regarding disposal of property after conclusion of trial, each of A, B and C lays claim to the ornaments. Write an order disposing of the respective claims. (D.J.S. 1990)


Q. Elaborate the powers of Metropolitan Magistrate to grant bail in cases of non-bailable offences. Also state he reason for which the bail already granted in such cases can be cancelled. (D.J.S. 1991)


Q. What is the scope and nature of "Case Diary" to be kept under section 172 of Code of Criminal Procedure 1973, and the limitation imposed on it's use, it any may be indicated. (D.J.S. 1991)


Q. 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 persons. After recording preliminary evidence, the Magistrate passed the impugned order of summoning the accused persons. Decide the legality of the order. (D .J.S. 1991)


Q. N lodged a report with the police against H, father of P a minor girl of 17 years, alleging that the house of H was visited by persons of bad repute and that P had immoral relations with them. H filed a complaint for defamation against N, but it was compounded on the accused tendering apology. Subsequently, P filed a complaint for defamation in respect of the same matter against N. It was contended on behalf of N that the previous acquittal was a bar. Decide. (D.J.S. 1991)


Q. After the prosecution evidence was over, the court said to the accused, "Having heard the evidence against you what have you to say about?" The accused replied, "I am innocent. I was at Nagpur at the crucial time when the occurrence in question took place at Agra. The prosecution story is false. I shall produce evidence." And he did. His conviction is being assailed on the ground that he had not been properly questioned after the prosecution evidence. How would you decide? (D.J.S. 1991)


Q. X was charged under Section 338, I.P.C. for causing grievous hurt to Y by doing an act so rashly and negligently as to endanger human life. After the evidence had been recorded, both X and Y moved the Court for permission to compound the said offence. The Magistrate refused permission on the ground that the compensation paid by X to Y was meager. Discuss the legality of the order. (D.J.S. 1991)


Q. Customs Officers intercepted a car being driven by 'A' and recovered some packets of brown colour powder suspected to be narcotic drug. 'A' was arrested and produced before the Metropolitan Magistrate who remanded him to judicial custody. After two days, the Custom Officers applied for custody of the accused for interrogation, with liberty to lodge  him with X police station. The application is opposed on the grounds : (1) that section 167 Cr.P.C. contemplates only two types of custody judicial and police and the Customs Officers are not Police Officers, and (2) that once the accused has been remanded to judicial custody, the Magistrate has no power under section 167 to the Code of remand him to any other custody. It is not disputed that the customs officers are not Police Officers within the scope of the Code. Decide. (D.J.S. 1991)


Q. 'A' wife, applies and gets maintenance fixed for herself and her new-born child. The husband denies paternity and applies to the court for blood group test of the mother and the child and his own. Write a reasoned order. (D.J.S. 1996)


Q. A case of criminal breach of trust was registered against 'X'. The police (i) arrests 'X',  (ii) searches the premises of 'X', (iii) freezes his bank account, (iv) seizes property found in his possession connected with crime. 'X' raises objection that he should have been given opportunity of being heard before these actions. Dispose of his objection. Also discuss the application of principle of audi alteram partem in criminal proceedings. (D.J.S. 1996)


Q. 'X' a petty hawker engaged in selling pens and sundry items at I.S.B.T. is produced before you by the police on 11.10.1999 on the allegations that he was arrested on the previous day i.e. 10.10.1999 in case F.I.R. 301/99 Police Station Kashmere Gate under section 379 I.P.C. relating to pick pocket of a passenger P, who arrived at I.S.B.T. on the night intervening 06.10.1999 and 07.10.1999; a cash amounting to Rs.300/-, ball-pens numbering about four dozen and several key rings were recovered from the personal search of 'X'. 'X' during course of interrogation confessed to have picked the pocket of a passenger on the night of 06.10.1999 and 07.10.1999 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 to enable them to effect 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 has 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 arrest of 'X' on 10.10.1999, his interrogation but their existed no confession of 'X'. Decide the prayer of police and the plea of 'X'. (D.J.S. 1999)


Q. X is produced before you on 11.10.1999 on the allegations that he was arrested on 10.10.1999 in case FIR 301/99, under section 25 Indian Arms Act for being found in possession of a prohibited knife; during interrogation he made confession in regard to and incident of robbery which he had committed alongwith 'Y' on the night of 29th September, 99 and offered to get recovered the robbed articles and get arrested 'Y' from Sonepat.

Police prayed for two days police remand to enable them to arrest 'Y' and recover the robbed articles.

On the other hand a plea for release of 'X' on bail was made on the ground that he is innocent and has been falsely implicated because he refused to take two police officials in his auto rickshaw and that he was in fact detained at the police station since 08.10.99 and was given beating and his signatures obtained on blank papers.

Case diaries showed the confessional statement of 'X'.

Decide the pleas of the police and X.

[Section  437, CrPC lays down when bail can be taken in case of non-bailable offences] (D.J.S. 1999)


Q. A and B have been arrested for the offence of murder of one C punishable under section 302 read with section 34 I.P.C. and were remanded to custody from time to time for a total period of 90 days, out of which 3 days were in police custody and 87 days in Court/judicial custody. As the investigation could not be completed within the stipulated period of 90 days, on the 91st day a plea for the release of A and B on bail made. The court issued notice to the State through Public Prosecutor and fixed the matter for consideration and hearing for the next day. On the next day police filed report under section 173 Cr.P.C. with a footnote that the reports of chemical examiner and serologist in regard to certain material exhibits are awaited and shall be field soon after their receipt. Public Prosecutor also opposed the pleas of A and B.

Decide the plea of A and B. Would it make any difference if there was no foot note in the report? (D.J.S. 1999)


Q. Consider the question of framing of charge and frame appropriate charge(s) in the following case, if necessary:

B a boy aged about 6 years and his sister G aged 5 years and their mother M are being prosecuted for offence of culpable homicide not amounting to murder punishable under section 304 read with section 34 I.P.C. on the allegations that on the evening of 01.09.99 at about 6 p.m., B and G were playing in the street with another girl child C daughter of a neighbour, aged about 4 years; C pushed G as a result G. fell down and started crying. B felt enraged, picked up a stone lying in the street and hit C on her head twice as a result C turned unconscious. B and G retired to their house and told M about what had happened to C. M reached the spot and believing that C had died, lifted her in her arms and took her to a nearby nallah and threw C in the nallah. After about two hours police reached the spot, recovered C from nallah and removed her to the hospital where she was declared to have been brought dead. The doctor conducting the postmortem examination on the body of C, opined the cause of death of C as asphyxia due to drowning.

A instigated B to set fire to a dwelling house. B, in consequence of the unsoundness of his mind, being incapable of knowing the nature of the act, or that he is doing what is wrong or contrary to law, had set fire to the house. A and B are sent for trial for the offence punishable under section 436 read with section 34 I.P.C. on the above allegations.(D.J.S. 1999)


Q. Additional chief Metropolitan Magistrate, New Delhi, vide his judgment dated 1st September, 1999, while acquitting X of the charge under section 25 Indian Arms Act, observed that the Sub Inspector of police who had investigated the said case had willfully and knowingly fabricated false evidence i.e. a search and recovery memo with the intention that such evidence would be used in the judicial proceedings against X. Additional chief Metropolitan magistrate decided to summarily try the Sub Inspector and issued him notice. In response to the notice Sub-Inspector appeared and filed his reply/objection stating that he was a public servant and therefore could not be tried for the offence of perjury etc. without the sanction of the Lt. Governor of Delhi.

Decide the objections of the police Sub-Inspector. (D.J.S. 1999)


Q. C filed a complaint in the court of Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Delhi alleging that on 23rd September, 1999 at about 4.00 p.m., a police party of four police official headed by sub inspector S, raided his house without any warrant of search and while carrying out the search, members of the raiding party abused and assaulted his wife and took away certain articles belonging to his and thus all of them committed offences punishable under sections 451, 452, 453, 456, 457, 458, 380, 334, 426 and section 120 B, I.P.C.

After preliminary examination of the complaint and witness the chief Metropolitan Magistrate summoned all the four police officials as accused. Police officials put in appearance and filed applications praying for the recall of the order of summoning on the grounds that they are public servants and had raided the house of C pursuant to the warrants of search issued by the Metropolitan Magistrate and they had prepared the inventory of the articles seized from the house of C. They however denied the allegations as to the abusing and assault on the wife of C. it was also pleaded that they could not be prosecuted without the sanction of the State Government under section 197, Cr. P.C.

Decide the applications of the police officials.

[section 197, Cr. P.C. provides that no court shall take cognizance of the offence committed by a Judge or public servant unless prosecution sanction is given by the Central or State Government and if the offence committed by the public servant is in the discharge of his official duty]. (D.J.S. 1996)


Q. After conclusion of evidence but before judgment, Prosecutor applied under section 311 Cr.P.C. for summoning (I) Senior Scientific Officer of C.F.S.L. to prove report (II) Director of Explosives to give reasons for his opinion that bullet 'P' could be fired from gun 'P2' only (III) Head constable to prove entries of Malkhana Register.

Accused also moved application for recalling the eye-witness already examined for further Cross-examination by new counsel appointed after death of previous counsel.

Decided both applications after mentioning the arguments and against each application. (D.J.S. 2000)


Q. 'X' a Director of Chit Fund is facing trial under section 420 IPC. The FIR was lodged by 'C'. As Pw1 'C' stated after a part examination in chief was recorded that X's wife was also involved. The Magistrate order, "Summon X's wife also under section 319 Cr.P.C. She is a co-accused in two other cases of cheating in which FIR was lodged by 'B' and 'C' against 'X'.

Argue in support and against the order. (D.J.S. 2000)


Q. Briefly discuss any five of the following:

(a) In what manner a police officer can seize, if at all, bank account of an accused during investigation.

(b) Can a statement under section 161 Cr.P.C. be confronted to the witness, when he deposes before the court, if other statement is signed by him?

(c) Apart from the investigating officer, can a Prosecutrix approach the magistrate directly8 for recording her statement under section 164 Cr.P.C. during the course of investigation?

(d) Whether charges under section 395 or 498-A IPC against more than one person can be framed without the aid of section 34 or 120-B IPC?

(e) Whether a detailed speaking order is required to be passed before framing charges by Court of Sessions?

(f) Can an accused invites section 91 Cr.P.C. to bring on record some documents before arguments on charge?

(g) Does a statement made to S.D.M. by a bride relating to the cause of her death, become a 'dying declaration' under section 32 Evidence Act though the bride firmly believed that she would recover, but dies after three days of making it?

(h) Is section 320 Cr.P.C. exhaustive of compoundable cases or bailable case punishable with imprisonment upto one year in I.P.C. or other laws be also compounded?

(i) Do you require Sanction under section 197 Cr.P.C. for an offence under section 406/409 or 379 IPC., if committed by an investigating police officer? (D.J.S. 2000)


Q. 'X' on hearing that his brother Y was being beaten up by an iron rod by Z reached the spot. He found the accused abusing and saying to the victim that he would not let him remain alive. On seeing 'X' and other coming he ran away. 'X' removed his injured brother to the hospital where Y died. 'X' reported the matter to the police naming Z as the sole accused of crime. During interrogation two witnesses claimed to have seen and heard before hand A, brother of Z, to have exhorted the accused to kill the deceased whereafter the actual assailant is aid to have assaulted the deceased. Police filed challan against Z on the basis that A was not involved in the crime. X moved application before the Magistrate to summon A also so as to send him to stand for trial alongside Z before the Court of Sessions. Decide X's application. (D.J.S. 1996)


Watch useful videos for Judicial Coaching

Download Vidhi Judicial Academy APP for Judiciary Coaching


Also check:


Other Links: 


About Us: