CLAT PG/LLM Mock Test 2022 (Free) by OurLegalWorld: I
AILET PG Mock Tests 2022 | NLUD LLM Mock: Click here
Read the following passage and answer the questions that follow:
Passage 1
It is a settled principle of criminal law that only the person who actually commits the offence can be held guilty and sentenced in accordance with law. However, Section 34 lays down a principle of joint liability in a criminal act, the essence of which is to be found in the existence of common intention, instigating the main accused to do the criminal act, in furtherance of such intention. Even when separate acts are done by two or more persons in furtherance of a common intention, each person is liable for the result of all the acts as if all the acts had been done by all of these persons.
Section 34 is only attracted when a specific criminal act is done by several persons in furtherance of the common intention of all, in which case all the offenders are liable for that criminal act in the same manner as the principal offender as if the act were done by all the offenders. This Section does not whittle down the liability of the principal offender committing the principal act but additionally makes all other offenders liable. The essence of liability under Section 34 is simultaneous consensus of the minds of persons participating in the criminal act to bring about a particular result, which consensus can even be developed at the spot as held in Lallan Rai & Ors. vs. State of Bihar reported in (2003) 1 SCC 268. There must be a common intention to commit the particular offence. To constitute common intention, it is absolutely necessary that the intention of each one of the accused should be known to the rest of the accused.
1. In which of the following cases, the Supreme Court held that non-recovery of the weapon of offences or the failure to produce a report by a ballistic expert would not discredit the case of the prosecution which has relied on the eyewitness?
A. Sukhwant Singh v. State of Punjab, 1995 AIR 1380 SCC Supl. (2) 262.
B. Gulab v. State of U.P., 2021 SCC OnLine SC 1211.
C. State of Punjab v. Jugraj Singh, (2002) 3 SCC 234
D. Mohd. Rojali v. State of Assam, (2019) 19 SCC 56
2. Which of the following statements is not true regarding constructive liability under IPC?
A. It renders every member of a group who shares such intention responsible for the criminal act committed by any of them.
B. Constructive liability is the one where the liability is determined by the existence of the fundamental elements of crime.
C. Constructive liability’s act shall be done in furtherance of a common intention.
D. Common intention under Section 34 IPC is a species of constructive liability.
3. Which of the following statements are not true about Section 34 of IPC?
A. Section 34 of IPC does not create a distinct offence, but is a principle of constructive liability.
B. No overt act is needed on the part of the accused if they share common intention.
C. The persons accused of an offence together under section 34 must have entered into a detailed agreement in order for section 34 to apply.
D. Under this section a person is liable for the criminal act in the same manner as if it were done by him alone.
4. Which of the following judgments is not related to Common Intention?
a. Manik Das & Ors. vs. State of Assam AIR 2007 SC 2274
b. Abdul Mannan vs. State of Assam (2010) 3 SCC 381
c. Lallan Rai & Ors. vs. State of Bihar (2003) 1 SCC 268
d. Prakash v. Phulavati, (2016) 2 SCC 36.
5. Jurisdiction to grant ‘anticipatory bail’ vests with
a Chief Judicial Magistrate
b The Court of Sessions only
c The High Court only
D Both (b) and (c)
6. Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860
a Creates a substantive offence
b is a rule of evidence
c both (a) and (b)
d None of the above
7. The phrase “in furtherance of the common intention of all used in Section 34 of Indian Penal Code, is
a in the original draft
b added by Amending Act of 1870
c not at all there
d added by Amending Act of 1986
8. Distinction between Section 34 and 149 of IPC has been authoritatively expounded by the Supreme Court in
a. State of Maharashtra v. M.H George
b. Guru Deo Singh v. State of Punjab
c. Ram Kumar v. State of Haryana
d. Nanak Chand v. State of Punjab
9. In which of the following cases the Privy Council made a distinction between ‘common intention’ and similar intention’?
A. Barendra Kumar Ghosh v. Emperor
B. Shrinivasmal Bbarolia v. Emperor
C. Mahboob Shah v. King Emperor
D. Bannu Mal v. Emperor
10. Assertion (A): X and Y had independently entertained the idea to kill Z. Accordingly each of them separately inflicted wounds on Z, who dies in consequence. X and Y are liable for murder with the aid of Section 34 IPC.
Reason (R): When a criminal act is done by several persons in furtherance of common intention of all, each of such persons is liable as if the whole act is done by him alone.
Of the above statements.
(a) Both A and R are true and R is the correct explanation of A
(b) Both A and R are true and R is NOT a correct explanation of A
(c) A is true but R is false
(d) A is false but R is true.
Ans.(d)
Passage 2
The Supreme Court held that the fling of charge-sheet was suffcient compliance with the provisions of Section 167(2)(a)(ii) of the Code. Whether cognizance is taken or not is not material as far as Section 167 Cr.P.C. was concerned. The right which may have accrued to the petitioner, had charge-sheet not been fled, was not attracted to the facts of the case. Merely because sanction had not been obtained to prosecute the accused and to proceed to the stage of Section 309 Cr.P.C., the Supreme held, it cannot be said that the accused was entitled to grant of statutory bail, as envisaged in Section 167 Cr.P.C.
If the provisions of section 22(1) of the NIA Act are read in conjunction with the provisions contained in section 10 of the NIA Act which empowers the State Government to investigate Scheduled Offences, the intent of the legislature to not only empower the State Government to investigate and prosecute any of the Scheduled Offence but also to constitute Special Courts for the trial of offences under any or all the enactments specifed in the Schedule, becomes explicitly clear. If we keep in view the legislative object as refected in the statement of objects and reasons namely, establishment of a National Investigation Agency in a concurrent jurisdictional framework, then the aforesaid proposition gains credence.
“On the touchstone of the guarantee of personal liberty under Article 21 of Constitution, to deprive Sudha Bharadwaj of the indefeasible right on the premise that the application preferred on 26th Nov 2018 was premature, would be taking a too technical & formalistic view”, the Bombay High Court added.
The pleas are filed under sections 439, 193, 482 and 167(2)(a)(i) of the Criminal Procedure Code read with section 43 (d)(2) of the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act.
11. How many judges sit on the full bench of the high court?
a. 2
b. 3
c. 5
d. 7
12. While deciding an application for grant of bail, the court has to
(A) Conduct a mini-trial to ascertain whether there is prima facie case against the
accused.
(B) Opine as to whether there is prima facie case against the accused.
(C) Examine all witnesses to understand the possibility of the accused obstructing the
course of justice.
(D) Conduct a preliminary inquiry without taking cognizance of the offence.
13. The section dealt with provision of default bail
a. Section 167(1)
b. Section 167(2)
c. Section 438
d. Section 439
14. UAPA was passed in the year
A. 1966
B. 1968
C. 1967
D. 1980
15. Which of the following statements is true regarding UAPA
i) It has death penalty and life imprisonment as highest punishments
ii) Under UAPA, both Indian and foreign nationals can be charged
A. Only i
B. Only ii
C. Both i and ii
D. None of the above
16. Section 43-D(2)(b) of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act provide Special Court to extend the time of investigation upto:
a. 90 days
b. 120 days
c. 180 days
d. NOTA
17. Under which section of Cr. P.C. a police officer can release an accused on bail in non-bailable case
a Section 336
Section 337
c Section 436
d Section 437
18. A Metropolitan Magistrate may release an accused on bail in a non-bailable offence except in the following case(s) if
a there are reasonable grounds for believing that he has been guilty of an offence punishable with death or imprisonment for life
b there are reasonable grounds for believing that he has been guilty of a cognizable offence and he has been previously convicted of an offence punishable with imprisonment for seven years
c. he had been previously convicted on two or more occasions of a cognizable offence punishable with imprisonment for three years
d All these
19. The Supreme Court in the case of State of Haryana v. Dinesh Kumar held that ‘arrest’ implies:
A. apprehension of the accused by the police officer
B. apprehension of the accused by the police officer or the submission of the accused to the custody by word or action including when he is in the judicial custody on surrender before the court and or submits to its direction
C. handcuffing of the accused by the police officer
d. handcuffing and putting the accused in police or judicial custody
20. “The Bail is the rule, jail is an exception” This rule is laid down by the Supreme Court in:
a. Joginder Singh v. State of UP
b. Pritam Singh v. State of Punjab
c. Moti Ram v. Sate of MP
d. Rajkumari v. State of UP
CLAT PG LLM ENTRANCE 2022 click here
PARA 3
Nariman, J, writing down the majority judgment for himself and Lalit, J noted that given the fact that Triple Talaq is instant and irrevocable, it is obvious that any attempt at reconciliation between the husband and wife by two arbiters from their families, which is essential to save the marital tie, cannot ever take place. It was held that this form of Talaq is manifestly arbitrary in the sense that the marital tie can be broken capriciously and whimsically by a Muslim man without any attempt at reconciliation so as to save it. This form of Talaq must, therefore, be held to be violative of the fundamental right contained under Article 14 of the Constitution of India. The Court, hence, held that the Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) Application Act, 1937, insofar as it seeks to recognize and enforce Triple Talaq, is within the meaning of the expression “laws in force” in Article 13(1) and must be struck down as being void to the extent that it recognizes and enforces Triple Talaq. After going through the Hanafi jurisprudence, the Court noticed that very jurisprudence castigates Triple Talaq as being sinful. The Court said that Triple Talaq is a form of Talaq which is itself considered to be something innovative, namely, that it is not in the Sunna, being an irregular or heretical form of Talaq, it was held that:
“the fundamental nature of the Islamic religion, as seen through an Indian Sunni Muslim’s eyes, will not change without this practice.”
It was, hence, held that Triple Talaq was not a part of Article 25(1) of the Constitution and hence, the Muslim Personal Board that the ball must be bounced back to the legislature does not hold good as Article 25(2)(b) would only apply if a particular religious practice is first covered under Article 25(1) of the Constitution.
Joseph, J, writing down a separate judgment but agreeing with the majority opinion, said,
“Merely because a practice has continued for long that by itself cannot make it valid if it has been expressly declared to be impermissible.”
21. The Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Marriage) Act 2019 was enacted by the Parliament to give effect to the ruling in
A) Rahna Jalal v. State of Kerala, 2020 SCC OnLine SC 1061
B) Shamim Ara vs. State of UP, 2002 (7) SCC 518
C) Common Cause vs. Union of India, (2018) 5 SCC 1
D) Shayara Bano vs. Union of India (2017) 9 SCC 1
22. In which of the following judgments was it held that is no bar on granting anticipatory bail for an offence committed under the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Marriage) Act 2019?
A) Rahna Jalal vs. State of Kerala,2020 SCC OnLine SC 1061
B) Shayara Bano vs. Union of India (2017) 9 SCC 1
C) Shamim Ara vs. State of UP, 2002 (7) SCC 518
D) Common Cause vs. Union of India, (2018) 5 SCC 1
23. “Customs” are also known as
A. Urf Or Taamul
B. Sunnat Ul Qual
C. Ahadis I Ahad
D. None of the above
24. Which section of the “Dissolution of Muslim Act, 1939” provides 9 grounds under which a Muslim wife can obtain a decree for the dissolution of her marriage?
A. Sec 2
B. Sec 3
C . Sec 5
D. Sec 6
25. Talaq – ul – sunnat is also known as?
A. Talaq – ul – raje
B. Talaq – ul – bain
C. Talq – e – tafweez
D. None of the above
26. “Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) was passed on,
A. 19 May 1986
B. 20 May 1986
C. 7 Oct 2000
D. 5 Sep 1990
27. Shia law does not recognise:
A. Sahih marriage
B. Batil marriage
C. Muta marriage
D. Fasid marriage
28. In which case it was held that it is the obligation of a muslim husband to pay maintenance to his divorced wife even beyond iddat period:
A. Danial Latifi v. Union of India
B. Shamim Ara v. State of U.P.
C. Khursheed Begum v. Abdul Rasheed
D. Sikandar Ara v. Hussain Ara
Ans. a
29. In which recent case it has been held by the Supreme Court that the husband must have reasonable cause for taking talaq and he must attempt reconciliation with wife before taking talaq
A. Shamim Ara v. State of U.P.
B. Ali Mohammad v. Hazara Bai
C. Zohra Khatoon v. Mohd. Jane Alam
D. Sikandar Ara v. Hussain Ara
30. How many Law School are there for the Sunni?
A. 4
B. 3
C. 2
D. 5
PARA 4
These writ petitions challenge the reservation for Other Backward Classes1 and Economically Weaker Section2 in the All India Quota3 seats in the National Eligibility cum Entrance Test (Post Graduate) examination. The criteria for the determination of the EWS for the ten percent reservation in pursuance of The Constitution (One Hundred and Third Amendment) Act 2019 has come under challenge. The permissibility of reservations in the AIQ seats has been addressed in the judgment dated 20 January 2022. This order will only deal with the challenge to the criteria for determination of the EWS category.
An information brochure was released on 23 February 2021 scheduling the NEET-PG 2021 examination on 18 April 2021. The registration process commenced on 23 February 2021 and the last date for registration was 15 April 2021. However, in view of the second wave of the COVID -19 pandemic, the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare5 issued a notice dated 15 April 2021 postponing the examination until further notice. By an official statement issued on 3 May 2021, the NEET-PG 2021 examination was postponed by another four months. The National Board of Examinations in Medical Sciences, New Delhi issued a notice on 13 April 2021 rescheduling the NEET-PG 2021 examination to 11 September 2021. The Directorate General of Health Services, MoHFW issued a notice on 29 July 2021 to implement 27 percent OBC reservation (non-creamy Layer) and 10 percent EWS reservation in the 15 percent undergraduate6 and 50 percent PG AIQ seats in the current academic session of 2021-2
31. Based on the given excerpt, which of the following judgments relates to NEET-PG EWS Reservation?
a. Ashok Kumar Thakur v. UOI
b. Neil Aurelio Nunes v. Union of India
c. Balaji v. State of Mysore
d. NOTA
32. On April 2008, Supreme Court in following case upheld the OBC quota in Central Educational Institutions clearing the way For reservation of 27% seats for Backward Classes –
(a) Ashok Kumar Thakur v. UOI
(b) T.M. Pai Institution v. Kerala
(c) Balaji v. State of Mysore
(d) UOl v. S. Krishnan
33. Clause (6) under Article 15 and clause (6) under Article 16 were inserted by:
a. 102nd Constitution Amendment
b. 104th Constitution Amendment
c. 103rd Constitution Amendment
d. 101st Constitution Amendment
34. Article 16(2) prohibits discrimination among citizens with respect to employment in state services only on the ground of:
(a) Religion, race, caste, sex, place of birth or any of them
(b) Religion, race, caste, sex, descent, place of birth, residence or any of them
(c) Religion, race, caste, skin colour, sex, descent, residence or any of them
(d) Religion, race, caste, place of birth, sex, descent or any of them
35. Main object of Constitution 104th Amendment Act 2019 is:
a. To extend the reservation of seats for SCs and STs in the Lok Sabha and state assemblies from 70 years to 80 years and to remove the reserve seats for the Anglo Indian community in the Lok Sabha and the state assemblies.
b. To provide constitutional status to National Commission for Backward Classes
c. To provide maximum of 10% reservation for economically weaker sections of citizens of classes other than the classes mention in clause 4 and 5 of article 15.
d. To extend the reservation of seats for SCs and STs and Anglo-Indian in the Lok Sabha and state assemblies from 60 years to 70 years
36. Kaka Kalelkar Commission is related to………
(a) The National Commission for Scheduled Castes
(b) The National Scheduled Tribes Commission
(c) The backward class commission
(d) The Anglo Indian community
37. Article 15 speaks about the
A. Socially backward class
B. Economically backward class
C. Educationally backward class
D. Both A and C
38. Article 16 4(A) was added in which Amendment?
A. 24th Amendment
B. 77th Amendment
C. 81st Amendment
D. 98th Amendment
39. In which recent case the Supreme Court held that the Transgender fall in the Category of SEBs?
a. NALSA v. UOI
b. Dasrath Singh Roop Singh Rathore v. State of Maharahtra
c. Arunesh Kumar v. State of Bihar
d. NOTA
40. In which of the following case the Supreme Court held that Article 16(4-A) providing for reservation in promotion is an enabling provision?
a. MR Balaji v. Ste of Mysore
b. Stae of Madras v. Champakam Dorairajan
c. M. Nagraj v. UOI
d. State of Kerala v. NM Thomas
PARA 5
The Supreme Court said that under Section 33(C)(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act (ID Act), 1947, it is not open for the Labour Court to entertain disputed questions and adjudicate upon the employer-employee relationship.
The Supreme Court rejected the contentions raised by the respondent. It observed that once there was a serious dispute that respondent had work as an employee in the establishment of the appellant, it was not open for the Labour Court to entertain disputed questions and adjudicate upon the employer-employee relationship between the appellant and respondent.
“As per the settled proposition of law, in an application under Section 33(C)(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, the Labour Court has no jurisdiction and cannot adjudicate dispute of entitlement or the basis of the claim of workmen. It can only interpret the award or settlement on which the claim is based,” the Bench observed.
The Court held that under Section 33(C)(2) of ID Act, the Labour Court’s jurisdiction is like that of an executing court and it can only interpret the award or settlement on which the claim is based.
41. In which recent case Supreme Court said Labour Court can’t entertain disputed questions and adjudicate upon the employer-employee relationship under Section 33(c) of ID Act?
a. M/s Bombay Chemical Industries v. Deputy Labour Commissioner and Another
b. Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. Ganesh Razak and Another
c. Bharat Kumar K. Palicha v. State of Kerala & Ors.
d. NOTA
42. Industrial dispute means any dispute between
I. employers and employers
II. employers and workmen
III. workmen and government
IV. workmen and workmen
Select the correct answer using the code given below:
(a) I and Il are correct
(b) II, IIl and IV are correct
(c) I, II and IV are correct
(d) II, I and IIl are correct.
43. Read Assertion (A) and Reason (R) and answer using the codes given below:
Assertion (A): The power to refer disputes to Industrial Tribunals and enforce their awards is an essential corollary to the obligation that lies on the Government to secure conclusive determination of the disputes with a view to redressing the legitimate grievances of the lock-out parties.
Reason (R): Such obligation arise from the imposition of restraints on the rights of strike and lock-out.
Codes:
(a) Both (A) and (R) are true and (R) is the correct explanation of (A)
(b) Both (A) and (R) are true, but (R) is not the correct explanation of (A).
(c) (A) is true, but (R) is false
d) A is false but R is true.
44. A settlement under the Industrial Disputes Act arrived at in the course of conciliation preceding, between the employer and recognised majority union will be binding
on:
(a) parties to the settlement
(b) all workmen of the establishment
(c) all workmen of a union recognised majority
(d) all workmen of a registered Trade Union
45. In which of the following cases it is well-established that, any settlement between the employer and with one or more concerned union in a conciliation proceeding would bind all other workmen unions who were not made parties to the settlement:
a) Ramnagar Cane and Sugar Co Ltd v. Jatin Chakravarthy
(b) Shanbhu Nath Goel v. Bank of Haroda
(c) Workers of Dimakucht Tea Estate v. Management of Dimakuchi
(d) Nene of the above.
46. The power of the Government to refer a Dispute under the Industrial Disputes Act is
(a) Mandatory
(b) Discretionary
(c) Recommendatory
(d) Either mandatory or discretionary.
PARA 6
A Division Bench of Justices Hemant Gupta and V Ramasubramanian observed the same while rejecting a bunch of transfer petitions moved by YES Bank seeking transfer of consumer complaints pending before certain District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (DCDRC) of Uttar Pradesh, Uttarakhand and Delhi to Bombay High Court.
“We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties at some length and find that the consumer complaints are filed under the Consumer Protection Act, therefore, such consumer complaints cannot be transferred to the High Court exercising the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Consequently, the request for transfer of the consumer complaints is declined,” the Court stated while dismissing the transfer plea.
The Bank had sought transfer of certain writ petitions pending before the High Courts of Allahabad, Delhi and Madras.
47. In which recent case Supreme Court said Consumer complaint cannot be transferred to High Court
A. Spring Meadows Hospital v. Harjol Ahluwalia
b. YES Bank Limited v. 63 Moons Technologies Limited and Others
C. K. Vishnu v. National Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission and others
d. Joshi v. Motor Industries Co.
48. Which section of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 deals with punishment for false or misleading advertisements?
A. Section 22 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019
B. Section 89 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019
C. Section 43 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019
D. Section 45 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019
49. How many rights of consumers are there in the Consumer Protection Act?
A.4
B.3
C.6
D.5
50. What is the maximum age of the member of the state Commission?
A.62
B.67
C.64
D.65
Answer Key available at: click here
