Practice question set with answers. Use deep links to save questions.
5010 questions loaded. Showing page 9 of 63 for fast crawlable revision and deep linking.
641. Under BNSS, a private person may arrest or cause to be arrested any person who in their presence commits a non-bailable and cognizable offence, or is a proclaimed offender, and must without unnecessary delay make over such person to:
- A. The District Magistrate personally, in all cases
- B. A police officer, or in the absence of one, take the person to the nearest police station
- C. No one; the private person must personally detain forever
- D. The local Panchayat for judgment
Answer: A police officer, or in the absence of one, take the person to the nearest police station
Explanation: BNSS Section 40 (like CrPC 43) allows private persons to arrest in specific situations and requires handing over to police without delay.
642. Under BNSS, for offences punishable with imprisonment less than 3 years where the person is infirm or above 60 years of age, arrest requires:
- A. Permission of the State Human Rights Commission
- B. Prior permission of an officer not below the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police
- C. No permission is needed under any circumstance
- D. Permission of the local Municipal Commissioner
Answer: Prior permission of an officer not below the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police
Explanation: BNSS Section 35(7) introduces a new safeguard requiring DSP-level permission before arresting infirm or elderly (60+) persons for offences under 3 years, absent from CrPC.
643. Under BNSS Section 35, before arresting a person for a cognizable offence punishable with imprisonment of up to seven years, a police officer must, besides recording reasons, be satisfied that arrest is necessary to prevent further offence, for proper investigation, or to prevent the person from:
- A. Traveling abroad for business purposes only
- B. Voting in elections
- C. Attending religious ceremonies
- D. Tampering with evidence or influencing witnesses, or making inducement/threat to any person acquainted with the facts
Answer: Tampering with evidence or influencing witnesses, or making inducement/threat to any person acquainted with the facts
Explanation: BNSS Section 35 (continuing CrPC Section 41/41A after the Arnesh Kumar guidelines) requires police to record the necessity of arrest on such grounds for offences punishable with imprisonment up to seven years.
644. Under BNSS, anticipatory bail (bail in the event of arrest) is dealt with under which section, and which court(s) can grant it?
- A. Section 528 BNSS; only the Supreme Court
- B. Section 173 BNSS; only the police station in charge
- C. Section 41 BNSS; only the trial Magistrate
- D. Section 482 BNSS; the Court of Session or the High Court
Answer: Section 482 BNSS; the Court of Session or the High Court
Explanation: BNSS Section 482 (equivalent to CrPC Section 438) empowers the Court of Session or the High Court to grant anticipatory bail.
645. Under BNSS, in cases where the police officer investigating believes the accused should not be released on bail (in a bailable offence), which of the following is CORRECT?
- A. Only the Home Minister can override the police officer's refusal
- B. Police officer's opinion is final and binding in all bailable cases
- C. In a bailable offence, bail is a matter of right and must be granted on furnishing bail/bond; police discretion cannot override this
- D. Bail can be refused permanently regardless of offence type
Answer: In a bailable offence, bail is a matter of right and must be granted on furnishing bail/bond; police discretion cannot override this
Explanation: BNSS Section 478 (like CrPC 436) makes bail a matter of right in bailable offences; the police/court must release on bail or bond, with no discretion to refuse.
646. Under BNSS, which offences are explicitly excluded from the benefit of the one-third/one-half undertrial release provision (Section 479)?
- A. All bailable offences
- B. All offences under local and special laws without exception
- C. Offences punishable with death or life imprisonment, and cases involving multiple offences or proceedings against the same person
- D. All offences investigated by the Railway Protection Force
Answer: Offences punishable with death or life imprisonment, and cases involving multiple offences or proceedings against the same person
Explanation: BNSS Section 479 provisos exclude offences punishable with death/life imprisonment and persons facing multiple proceedings from the automatic release benefit.
647. A key BNSS addition regarding first-time offenders is that a person who has never been convicted of any offence before, if accused of an offence punishable with imprisonment up to 7 years, is entitled to apply for:
- A. Bail only after serving the full sentence
- B. Bail only with a High Court order
- C. No relief; must undergo full trial in custody
- D. Bail after having undergone detention for one-third of the maximum period of imprisonment specified for that offence
Answer: Bail after having undergone detention for one-third of the maximum period of imprisonment specified for that offence
Explanation: BNSS Section 479 provides that first-time offenders be released on bail after undergoing one-third of the maximum sentence (as opposed to one-half for other undertrials), a new provision.
648. Under BNSS, if the investigation is not completed within 60/90 days and no chargesheet is filed, an accused person in custody is entitled to be released on:
- A. Anticipatory bail only
- B. Parole granted by the Home Ministry
- C. No form of bail; must remain in custody indefinitely
- D. Default/statutory bail
Answer: Default/statutory bail
Explanation: BNSS Section 187(3) retains the default/statutory bail right (as in CrPC Section 167(2)) when investigation exceeds the prescribed period without a chargesheet.
649. Under BNSS, before making a search, a police officer must call upon two or more independent and respectable inhabitants of the locality to attend and witness the search. This requirement is contained in:
- A. Section 528 BNSS relating to savings
- B. Section 43 BNSS relating to arrest only
- C. Section 103 BNSS (search of place, persons therein - equivalent to old Section 100 CrPC)
- D. Section 173 BNSS relating to FIR registration
Answer: Section 103 BNSS (search of place, persons therein - equivalent to old Section 100 CrPC)
Explanation: BNSS Section 103 continues the requirement for two independent witnesses during search of a place, carried over from CrPC Section 100, now also requiring audio-video documentation.
650. Under BNSS, when a police officer conducts a search without a warrant under urgent circumstances (Section 185, similar to old Section 165 CrPC), the officer must record in writing the grounds of belief before conducting the search, if practicable, and must send a copy of the record to:
- A. The nearest Magistrate empowered to take cognizance of the offence
- B. The National Human Rights Commission
- C. The Chief Minister's office
- D. The local Municipal Corporation
Answer: The nearest Magistrate empowered to take cognizance of the offence
Explanation: BNSS Section 185 continues the requirement to forthwith send a copy of the recorded grounds and search particulars to the nearest Magistrate empowered to take cognizance.
651. BNSS introduced a new provision allowing trial in absentia (in the accused's absence) for proclaimed offenders in respect of offences punishable with:
- A. 10 years or more, life imprisonment, or death
- B. Any offence, irrespective of punishment
- C. Only offences under special economic laws
- D. Only offences punishable with fine
Answer: 10 years or more, life imprisonment, or death
Explanation: BNSS Section 356 allows trial and judgment in absentia of a proclaimed offender for offences punishable with 10 years or more, life imprisonment or death, a significant new provision absent from CrPC.
652. Under BNSS, electronic communication of summons is recognized as valid service when the summons is transmitted by:
- A. Means such as email, SMS, or other electronic communication as recognized by rules
- B. Only hand delivery by a constable
- C. Only registered post
- D. Only newspaper publication
Answer: Means such as email, SMS, or other electronic communication as recognized by rules
Explanation: BNSS explicitly recognizes electronic modes (email, SMS, etc.) as valid summons service, a modernization not present in the original CrPC text.
653. Which of the following is NOT one of the modes of compelling appearance recognized under BNSS?
- A. Warrant of arrest
- B. Proclamation and attachment of property
- C. Summons
- D. Public auction of property
Answer: Public auction of property
Explanation: BNSS Chapter VI lists summons, warrant of arrest, proclamation, and attachment as processes to compel appearance; auction of property is a later stage after attachment, not itself a mode of compelling appearance.
654. Under BNSS, no woman shall be arrested after sunset and before sunrise except:
- A. With permission of any two adult male relatives
- B. In exceptional circumstances, with the prior permission of the Judicial Magistrate of the first class within whose jurisdiction the offence is committed or the arrest is to be made
- C. Under no circumstances whatsoever, even with permission
- D. With permission of the local Sarpanch only
Answer: In exceptional circumstances, with the prior permission of the Judicial Magistrate of the first class within whose jurisdiction the offence is committed or the arrest is to be made
Explanation: BNSS Section 43(5) continues the CrPC safeguard restricting night-time arrest of women, permitting exceptions only via prior Judicial Magistrate First Class permission.
655. Under BNSS, a person arrested without a warrant must be produced before the nearest Magistrate within:
- A. 72 hours in all cases
- B. 48 hours, including travel time
- C. 7 days if the offence is cognizable
- D. 24 hours, excluding the time necessary for the journey from the place of arrest to the Magistrate's court
Answer: 24 hours, excluding the time necessary for the journey from the place of arrest to the Magistrate's court
Explanation: BNSS Section 58 retains the 24-hour production rule (Article 22 constitutional safeguard), excluding necessary travel time, same as the earlier CrPC Section 57.
656. Under BNSS, the statement of a rape victim under Section 183 (equivalent to old Section 164 CrPC) should preferably be recorded by a Magistrate:
- A. Only in open court in the presence of the accused
- B. Through audio-video means, preferably mobile phone, at the residence of the victim or a place of her choice
- C. Only in writing without any recording
- D. Only by a male Magistrate
Answer: Through audio-video means, preferably mobile phone, at the residence of the victim or a place of her choice
Explanation: BNSS Section 183 emphasizes audio-video recording (preferably mobile phone) of such statements, ideally at the victim's residence or place of her choice, continuing victim-protection safeguards from CrPC with added tech mandate.
657. Under BNSS, if information about a cognizable offence is given by a woman regarding an offence of sexual nature, it shall be recorded by:
- A. Only a Magistrate, never a police officer
- B. Only the Station House Officer regardless of gender
- C. Any male officer available at the station
- D. A woman police officer, or in her absence any woman officer
Answer: A woman police officer, or in her absence any woman officer
Explanation: This safeguard, carried over from CrPC into BNSS Section 173, requires recording by a woman police officer for sexual-offence complaints made by women.
658. Which of the following statements about recording of FIRs under BNSS is CORRECT?
- A. Electronic FIRs are not recognized under BNSS
- B. FIR must always be signed at the moment it is first reported
- C. FIR can only be given orally at the police station in person
- D. Information relating to a cognizable offence may be given electronically and shall be signed within 3 days after being taken on record
Answer: Information relating to a cognizable offence may be given electronically and shall be signed within 3 days after being taken on record
Explanation: BNSS Section 173(1) allows information to be given electronically, with the informant required to sign it within 3 days of it being taken on record, a new digital-era safeguard.
659. Under BNSS Section 173, for offences punishable with 3 to 7 years imprisonment, before registering an FIR a police officer, with the prior permission of an officer not below the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police, may conduct:
- A. A search of the accused's premises without warrant, mandatorily
- B. An arrest without any inquiry
- C. A full trial before registration
- D. A preliminary inquiry to ascertain whether a prima facie case exists, within 14 days
Answer: A preliminary inquiry to ascertain whether a prima facie case exists, within 14 days
Explanation: BNSS Section 173(3) introduces a preliminary inquiry (up to 14 days) for offences punishable with 3-7 years, to be conducted with the permission of an officer not below DSP rank before mandatory FIR registration.
660. Under BNSS, an FIR for a cognizable offence can now be registered even outside the jurisdiction of the police station under the concept known as:
- A. E-FIR provisional registration
- B. Cross FIR
- C. Zero FIR
- D. Suo motu FIR
Answer: Zero FIR
Explanation: BNSS codifies the Zero FIR mechanism (Section 173), allowing registration at any police station irrespective of jurisdiction, with mandatory transfer to the appropriate station.
661. Under BNSS, forensic investigation involving expert visit to the crime scene and collection of forensic evidence is mandatory for offences punishable with imprisonment of:
- A. Only for offences punishable with death
- B. 7 years or more
- C. Any imprisonment term, without exception
- D. Less than 3 years only
Answer: 7 years or more
Explanation: BNSS Section 176(3) makes it mandatory for a forensic expert to visit the crime scene and collect forensic evidence for offences punishable with 7 years or more imprisonment, a new provision not in CrPC.
662. Under BNSS, the maximum period for which police custody of an accused person can be authorized during the initial investigation period (within the 60/90-day window) is:
- A. 60 days continuously
- B. 15 days, strictly only in the first 15 days as before
- C. 24 hours only
- D. 15 days, which may now be authorized in parts spread across the 40/60-day period rather than only in the first 15 days
Answer: 15 days, which may now be authorized in parts spread across the 40/60-day period rather than only in the first 15 days
Explanation: BNSS Section 187 allows the 15-day police custody period to be authorized in parts during the first 40 or 60 days of the 60/90-day detention window, overruling the earlier restrictive CrPC interpretation.
663. Under BNSS, in what circumstances can handcuffing of an arrested accused be permitted by the police while producing them before court?
- A. In every arrest without exception
- B. Never under any circumstances
- C. Where the person is a habitual/repeat offender who escaped from custody, or is accused of organized crime, terrorist act, drug-related offence, or offences against the State, among specified categories
- D. Only for women accused
Answer: Where the person is a habitual/repeat offender who escaped from custody, or is accused of organized crime, terrorist act, drug-related offence, or offences against the State, among specified categories
Explanation: BNSS Section 43(3) permits handcuffs in specified serious-offence categories such as organized crime, habitual escape from custody, terrorism, and similar grave offences, a new provision absent from CrPC.
664. Under BNSS, when a person is arrested, the police officer must give information about the arrest to a person of the arrestee's choice and also:
- A. Send it directly to the High Court
- B. Inform only the nearest Member of Parliament
- C. Display it on a notice board designated for this purpose at the police station and maintained by a designated police officer
- D. Publish it in a local newspaper
Answer: Display it on a notice board designated for this purpose at the police station and maintained by a designated police officer
Explanation: BNSS requires the police to maintain a designated notice board at the police station displaying particulars of arrested persons, continuing the D.K. Basu safeguards codified into law.
665. BNSS introduced a new requirement that, wherever practicable, the search and seizure process during investigation must be:
- A. Audio-video recorded, preferably on a mobile phone
- B. Conducted only between sunrise and sunset
- C. Conducted only in the presence of a Magistrate
- D. Recorded in triplicate on paper only
Answer: Audio-video recorded, preferably on a mobile phone
Explanation: BNSS mandates audio-video recording (preferably by mobile phone) of the search and seizure process, a new safeguard not present in the CrPC.
666. Under BNSS, an offence for which a police officer may arrest without a warrant and without the Magistrate's permission is classified as:
- A. Non-cognizable offence
- B. Compoundable offence
- C. Cognizable offence
- D. Non-compoundable offence
Answer: Cognizable offence
Explanation: A cognizable offence allows arrest without warrant, as listed in the First Schedule of BNSS.
667. With effect from which date did the BNSS, 2023 come into force across India?
- A. 15 August 2023
- B. 1 April 2024
- C. 26 January 2024
- D. 1 July 2024
Answer: 1 July 2024
Explanation: The BNSS, along with the BNS and BSA, came into force on 1 July 2024.
668. The Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) replaced which earlier criminal procedure law of India?
- A. The Police Act, 1861
- B. The Indian Penal Code, 1860
- C. The Indian Evidence Act, 1872
- D. The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
Answer: The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
Explanation: BNSS, 2023 (Act No. 46 of 2023) replaced the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, and came into force from 1 July 2024.
669. An RPF member detains a suspect arrested under the RP(UP) Act well beyond twenty-four hours without producing him before a Magistrate. Following Rudul Sah v. State of Bihar (1983), what relief can the High Court or Supreme Court grant?
- A. A fine on the arrested person
- B. Release together with monetary compensation under writ jurisdiction for violation of Articles 21 and 22(2), without prejudice to civil or criminal remedies
- C. Only a departmental warning to the officer
- D. Only a direction to release him; compensation can never be awarded
Answer: Release together with monetary compensation under writ jurisdiction for violation of Articles 21 and 22(2), without prejudice to civil or criminal remedies
Explanation: Rudul Sah established that constitutional courts can award compensation in writ proceedings for unlawful detention, as a public-law remedy, not a bar to civil suit or prosecution of the officers. Article 22(2) requires production before a Magistrate within 24 hours excluding journey time; BNSS s.58 echoes it.
670. Can the prosecution rely on BSA Section 109 (old Evidence Act s.106, facts especially within the knowledge of the accused) to avoid proving the foundational facts of a Section 3 case? See Shambhu Nath Mehra v. State of Ajmer (1956).
- A. No; the section applies only in civil cases
- B. Yes, the section lifts the entire burden of proof from the prosecution
- C. Yes, but only for offences under special Acts
- D. No; the section does not relieve the prosecution of its primary burden, and applies only to facts especially within the accused's knowledge that the prosecution cannot readily prove
Answer: No; the section does not relieve the prosecution of its primary burden, and applies only to facts especially within the accused's knowledge that the prosecution cannot readily prove
Explanation: Shambhu Nath Mehra held that the section is an exception applying to facts 'especially' within the accused's knowledge, not a means of relieving the prosecution of its burden. In a Section 3 case the prosecution must still prove possession and the reasonable suspicion; the statutory 'unless he proves' then operates.
671. The RPF produces a video of the recovery recorded on a mobile phone and its copy on a pen drive. Under Arjun Panditrao Khotkar (2020) and BSA Section 63 (old Evidence Act s.65B), when is the certificate not required?
- A. When the pen drive is sealed by the investigating officer
- B. When the original device itself is produced in court and proved by its owner or operator as primary evidence
- C. Never; the certificate is always optional
- D. When the video is under one minute
Answer: When the original device itself is produced in court and proved by its owner or operator as primary evidence
Explanation: Khotkar held that the certificate is mandatory for secondary electronic evidence (copies, printouts, pen-drive clones) but not when the original device is produced and proved as primary evidence. BSA s.63 retains the certificate requirement for copies.
672. A court refuses to take cognizance of a chargesheet in a railway theft case because the accused, who cooperated throughout, was never arrested. Following Siddharth v. State of U.P. (2021), is this correct?
- A. No, because a chargesheet is never filed against an unarrested person
- B. Yes; arrest is a precondition to filing a chargesheet
- C. Yes, but only for offences above seven years
- D. No; arrest is not a mandatory precondition to filing a chargesheet or taking cognizance, and requiring it is wrong
Answer: No; arrest is not a mandatory precondition to filing a chargesheet or taking cognizance, and requiring it is wrong
Explanation: Siddharth held that the investigating officer need not arrest each accused at the time of filing the chargesheet; old CrPC s.170 (BNSS counterpart) does not require custody. Arrest is a power to be exercised on necessity, in line with Joginder Kumar and Arnesh Kumar.
673. A Magistrate of the First Class trying a Section 3 case concludes that a repeat offender deserves four years' imprisonment. What does the BNSS scheme permit?
- A. He must acquit the accused
- B. He can pass any sentence up to the statutory maximum of five years
- C. His own sentencing power is limited to three years, so he may forward the case to the Chief Judicial Magistrate, who can pass the higher sentence
- D. The case must go to the High Court
Answer: His own sentencing power is limited to three years, so he may forward the case to the Chief Judicial Magistrate, who can pass the higher sentence
Explanation: A Magistrate of the First Class can award imprisonment up to three years, while a CJM can award up to seven. When a First Class Magistrate thinks a more severe sentence is called for, BNSS provides for forwarding the accused to the CJM after recording findings, instead of passing an inadequate sentence.
674. Information discloses criminal breach of trust (BNS Section 316(2), punishable up to five years) by a contractor entrusted with railway cement. Under BNSS Section 173(3), what option does the officer in charge have?
- A. With prior permission of an officer not below Deputy Superintendent rank, hold a preliminary enquiry within fourteen days to see if a prima facie case exists, or proceed with the investigation
- B. He may hold an enquiry of up to ninety days at his own discretion
- C. He must wait for a Magistrate's order in every case
- D. He may never hold a preliminary enquiry
Answer: With prior permission of an officer not below Deputy Superintendent rank, hold a preliminary enquiry within fourteen days to see if a prima facie case exists, or proceed with the investigation
Explanation: For a cognizable offence punishable with three years or more but less than seven, BNSS s.173(3) allows a preliminary enquiry, with the permission of a DSP-rank officer, within fourteen days, or else the officer may proceed to investigate. This is separate from Lalita Kumari's categories of cases.
675. Under BNSS Section 176(3), the visit of a forensic expert to the scene is mandatory for offences punishable with seven years or more. Which of these offences would trigger it?
- A. Dishonestly receiving stolen property under BNS Section 317(2)
- B. Simple theft under BNS Section 303(2)
- C. Section 3 of the RP(UP) Act
- D. Robbery of the railway cash van
Answer: Robbery of the railway cash van
Explanation: Robbery is punishable with rigorous imprisonment up to ten years and so meets the seven-year threshold. Section 3 RP(UP) (five years and non-cognizable), simple theft (three years) and receiving stolen property (three years) fall below it.
676. An organised syndicate of touts sells railway tickets unauthorisedly. Which BNS provision applies to a member, and what is its imprisonment range?
- A. Section 303(2), imprisonment of up to one month
- B. Section 111, death penalty in every case
- C. Section 3 of the RP(UP) Act, imprisonment of up to six months
- D. Section 112 (petty organised crime), imprisonment of not less than one year which may extend to seven years, with fine
Answer: Section 112 (petty organised crime), imprisonment of not less than one year which may extend to seven years, with fine
Explanation: BNS s.112 covers petty organised crime by a member of an organised crime syndicate, expressly including unauthorised selling of tickets, with imprisonment of not less than one year up to seven years and fine. Section 3 RP(UP) is about possession of railway property, not ticket sales; ticket touting by individuals is otherwise handled under the Railways Act.
677. A gang repeatedly steals railway signalling cable. Under BNS Section 111 (organised crime), which element is needed to show 'continuing unlawful activity' by the syndicate?
- A. More than one chargesheet in the preceding ten years for cognizable offences punishable with three years or more, on which a competent court has taken cognizance
- B. Membership of at least ten persons
- C. A conviction in the preceding five years for a non-cognizable offence
- D. Any one earlier FIR, even without cognizance
Answer: More than one chargesheet in the preceding ten years for cognizable offences punishable with three years or more, on which a competent court has taken cognizance
Explanation: BNS s.111 defines continuing unlawful activity as a cognizable offence punishable with three years or more, in respect of which more than one chargesheet has been filed within the preceding ten years and cognizance taken. Without it the syndicate cannot be charged under s.111, though lesser provisions may apply.
678. A scrap dealer sells stolen railway fittings and buys a truck with the money. BNSS Section 107 is a new provision on proceeds of crime. How may the truck be attached?
- A. The investigating officer may attach it on his own authority at the spot
- B. Attachment is impossible until the conviction is final
- C. Only by an order of the Court or Magistrate on the application of the investigating police officer, who must show reason to believe the property is proceeds of crime
- D. Only by the Railway Board under the RPF Act
Answer: Only by an order of the Court or Magistrate on the application of the investigating police officer, who must show reason to believe the property is proceeds of crime
Explanation: BNSS s.107 lets a Court or Magistrate, on the application of the police officer investigating, attach or order forfeiture of property that is proceeds of crime. The police officer cannot attach unilaterally, and attachment is not deferred until final conviction.
679. The only evidence linking an accused to the theft of railway cable is the statement of an approver. On the law laid down in Bhiva Doulu Patil v. State of Maharashtra (1963), what is the position?
- A. A conviction is legally permissible, but as a rule of prudence the court requires corroboration in material particulars connecting the accused with the crime, not merely proving the crime
- B. A conviction on an approver's uncorroborated evidence is legally barred
- C. Corroboration of the occurrence of the crime alone is always sufficient
- D. Corroboration is needed only where the approver is a woman
Answer: A conviction is legally permissible, but as a rule of prudence the court requires corroboration in material particulars connecting the accused with the crime, not merely proving the crime
Explanation: Under old Evidence Act s.133 (BSA counterpart), conviction on an accomplice's testimony is not illegal; yet Illustration (b) to old s.114 makes it a rule of prudence to seek corroboration. Bhiva Doulu Patil requires it in material particulars as to the accused's own participation, not just the occurrence of the crime.
680. A scrap dealer wants to turn approver in a railway-property theft case. Under BNSS Section 343 (old CrPC 306), who can tender a pardon at the stage of investigation?
- A. The Chief Judicial Magistrate, on the condition of full and true disclosure
- B. The Superintendent of Police alone
- C. Any police officer above the rank of Inspector
- D. The Station Master of the affected station
Answer: The Chief Judicial Magistrate, on the condition of full and true disclosure
Explanation: At the investigation stage only a CJM can tender a pardon; during inquiry or trial a Magistrate of the First Class may also do so. It is conditional on making a full and true disclosure of the circumstances, and breach exposes the approver to trial.
681. In P. Ramachandra Rao v. State of Karnataka (2002), a seven-judge bench revisited the earlier Common Cause and Raj Deo Sharma directions on speedy trial. What did it hold?
- A. Criminal proceedings must be automatically terminated after a fixed outer limit of time
- B. Every case must be tried within six months of cognizance
- C. Delay is irrelevant to Article 21
- D. The Supreme Court and High Courts cannot fix bar-of-limitation periods for criminal trials; the earlier directions were not to be treated as mandatory, and delay is assessed case by case
Answer: The Supreme Court and High Courts cannot fix bar-of-limitation periods for criminal trials; the earlier directions were not to be treated as mandatory, and delay is assessed case by case
Explanation: Ramachandra Rao held that courts cannot prescribe periods of limitation after which criminal proceedings stand terminated; that would amount to legislation. The earlier directions were treated as guidelines, with delay weighed under Article 21 on the facts, consistent with Antulay.
682. A.R. Antulay v. R.S. Nayak (1992), a seven-judge bench, dealt with speedy trial under Article 21. Which of its propositions is correct?
- A. The right extends to all stages (investigation, inquiry, trial, appeal, revision, retrial), there is no fixed outer time-limit, and each case turns on factors like length and reasons of delay, assertion of the right and prejudice
- B. The right begins only after the framing of charge
- C. Every trial must end within a fixed one year from the date of arrest
- D. The right applies only to accused in custody
Answer: The right extends to all stages (investigation, inquiry, trial, appeal, revision, retrial), there is no fixed outer time-limit, and each case turns on factors like length and reasons of delay, assertion of the right and prejudice
Explanation: Antulay held that the right to speedy trial flows from Article 21 and covers every stage, but declined to fix a time-limit. The court balances the length and reason for delay, the accused's assertion of the right and prejudice, and the nature of the offence; the remedy may include quashing in a fit case.
683. The defence argues that a recovery of railway property is unreliable because the RPF team did not join any independent public witness. In line with Appabhai v. State of Gujarat (1988) and Karamjit Singh v. State (Delhi Admin) (2003), what is the correct approach?
- A. Police testimony must always be corroborated by at least two private persons
- B. The recovery is void in every case without an independent witness
- C. Police testimony is inadmissible in law
- D. Absence of independent witnesses is not fatal where the public is reluctant to join; testimony of the officials is not discarded merely because they are officials and, if credible, can sustain conviction after careful scrutiny
Answer: Absence of independent witnesses is not fatal where the public is reluctant to join; testimony of the officials is not discarded merely because they are officials and, if credible, can sustain conviction after careful scrutiny
Explanation: The Court has held that public reluctance to become witnesses is a known reality, so the absence of independent panchas does not by itself destroy a recovery, and there is no rule of law that official witnesses need corroboration. Their evidence is weighed like that of any witness; where it is credible and consistent, conviction may rest on it, though the court should be cautious where doubts arise.
684. A scrap dealer wants to make a confession before a Magistrate under BNSS Section 183 (old CrPC 164). What must the Magistrate do first?
- A. Explain that he is not bound to confess and that it may be used as evidence against him, and record it only after being satisfied that it is voluntary
- B. Hand him over to the police for a further day of custody to confirm the statement
- C. Administer an oath and treat the statement as sworn testimony
- D. Record it at once, since a confession before a Magistrate needs no safeguards
Answer: Explain that he is not bound to confess and that it may be used as evidence against him, and record it only after being satisfied that it is voluntary
Explanation: BNSS s.183 requires the Magistrate to explain that the person is not bound to make a confession and that it may be used against him, and to be satisfied of voluntariness before recording. If the person is unwilling to confess, no police custody may be authorised on that account. A confession to a police officer remains inadmissible under BSA s.23(1).
685. In cross-examination, the defence points out that a witness did not mention a key fact in his statement recorded by the investigator, though he states it in court. Under the Explanation to BNSS Section 181 (old CrPC 162) and Tahsildar Singh v. State of U.P. (1959), when does an omission amount to a contradiction?
- A. Every omission, however trivial, is a contradiction
- B. Only when the omitted fact appears significant and relevant in the context in which the omission occurred
- C. Only when the witness signed the earlier statement
- D. An omission is never a contradiction
Answer: Only when the omitted fact appears significant and relevant in the context in which the omission occurred
Explanation: The statement may be used only to contradict (and not signed by the witness). The Explanation, which follows Tahsildar Singh, says an omission may amount to contradiction if it appears significant and otherwise relevant having regard to the context; a trivial or natural omission does not count.
686. While investigating a related BNS theft of railway stores, a police officer wants to summon a witness under BNSS Section 179 (old CrPC 160). Which persons cannot be required to attend any place other than where they reside?
- A. Any male under fifteen or above sixty years, any woman, and any mentally or physically disabled person
- B. Only persons above sixty-five years
- C. Only women
- D. Any male under eighteen or above seventy years
Answer: Any male under fifteen or above sixty years, any woman, and any mentally or physically disabled person
Explanation: BNSS s.179 protects males under 15 or above 60, women and mentally or physically disabled persons, who may be questioned at their residence. BNSS lowered the upper age from 65 to 60 and added disabled persons relative to old CrPC s.160.
687. A court convicts an offender under Section 3 of the RP(UP) Act (maximum five years) and imposes a fine, directing imprisonment in default of payment. What is the maximum default term the court can fix under BNS Section 8 (old IPC 65)?
- A. Six months
- B. Fifteen months, being one-fourth of the maximum term of imprisonment fixed for the offence
- C. Two and a half years, being half of the maximum term
- D. Five years, equal to the maximum term
Answer: Fifteen months, being one-fourth of the maximum term of imprisonment fixed for the offence
Explanation: Where an offence is punishable with imprisonment as well as fine, the default imprisonment cannot exceed one-fourth of the maximum imprisonment fixed for the offence, whatever sentence is actually awarded. One-fourth of five years is 15 months.
688. A man arrested under Section 6 of the RP(UP) Act spends five months in custody during the inquiry and trial and is then sentenced to one year's imprisonment in the same case. What is the effect of BNSS Section 468 (old CrPC 428)?
- A. The five months of detention during investigation, inquiry or trial of that case are set off against the sentence, leaving about seven months
- B. The set-off applies only if the fine is also paid
- C. Nothing; the full one year must still be served
- D. The set-off applies only to detention in a different, earlier case
Answer: The five months of detention during investigation, inquiry or trial of that case are set off against the sentence, leaving about seven months
Explanation: BNSS s.468 requires the period of detention undergone during investigation, inquiry or trial of the same case, before conviction, to be set off against a sentence of imprisonment. It is statutory and automatic, though it does not apply to detention in an unrelated case and does not by itself reduce the sentence below any permitted minimum.
689. M/s Rail Scrap Traders Pvt. Ltd., a company, is prosecuted under Section 3 of the RP(UP) Act, which prescribes imprisonment and fine. Following Standard Chartered Bank v. Directorate of Enforcement (2005), which position is correct?
- A. The company can be prosecuted only through a civil suit for damages
- B. Only the directors can ever be tried; the company is wholly immune
- C. The company cannot be prosecuted because imprisonment cannot be imposed on a juristic person
- D. The company can be prosecuted, and where the punishment includes imprisonment the court may impose the fine on the company, since the company cannot be imprisoned
Answer: The company can be prosecuted, and where the punishment includes imprisonment the court may impose the fine on the company, since the company cannot be imprisoned
Explanation: The Constitution Bench held that a company is a 'person' and cannot escape criminal prosecution merely because the statute prescribes imprisonment with fine; the court imposes the fine on the company and, where the statute so provides, proceeds against responsible individuals. The earlier Velliappa Textiles view was overruled.
690. Which proposition correctly reflects the Constitution Bench ruling in Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia v. State of Punjab (1980) on anticipatory bail, as applied to a person fearing arrest for railway property offences?
- A. The power is wide and discretionary; courts must not read in rigid, inflexible conditions, and each application is decided on its own facts
- B. Anticipatory bail is available only after an FIR and chargesheet have been filed
- C. Anticipatory bail may be granted only in exceptional cases of imminent political victimisation
- D. Anticipatory bail is barred for every offence carrying imprisonment of more than three years
Answer: The power is wide and discretionary; courts must not read in rigid, inflexible conditions, and each application is decided on its own facts
Explanation: Sibbia refused to confine the power to exceptional cases or to bind it with inflexible rules, stressing Article 21 and the presumption of innocence. The court weighs the nature and gravity of the accusation, the applicant's antecedents, the possibility of flight or tampering and the risk of arrest for humiliation, and may impose suitable conditions.
691. A scrap dealer apprehending arrest under Section 3 of the RP(UP) Act is granted anticipatory bail under BNSS Section 482 (old CrPC 438). Per the Constitution Bench in Sushila Aggarwal v. State (NCT of Delhi) (2020), must the protection expire at a fixed stage such as the filing of the chargesheet?
- A. Yes, it lapses after ninety days in every case
- B. No; but it lapses automatically on the first day of trial
- C. Yes, it automatically lapses when the chargesheet is filed
- D. No; there is no fixed time limit, and protection can ordinarily continue till the end of the trial unless the court for special reasons limits it
Answer: No; there is no fixed time limit, and protection can ordinarily continue till the end of the trial unless the court for special reasons limits it
Explanation: Sushila Aggarwal held that anticipatory bail is not time-limited by default and need not end when the accused is summoned or charged; a court may impose a limit only where the facts justify it. This overruled the contrary view of shorter, fixed-term protection.
692. In Lalita Kumari v. Government of U.P. (2013) a Constitution Bench held that registration of an FIR is mandatory on information disclosing a cognizable offence. Why does that ruling not by itself oblige an RPF officer to register an FIR on information of an offence only under Section 3 of the RP(UP) Act?
- A. Because Section 3 offences are bailable and bailable offences need no record
- B. Because the ruling applies only to offences against women and children
- C. Because the ruling concerns cognizable offences, whereas Section 5 makes offences under the Act non-cognizable, so the scheme of arrest, inquiry and forwarding under Sections 6 to 8 applies instead
- D. Because the RPF is exempt from all rulings of the Supreme Court
Answer: Because the ruling concerns cognizable offences, whereas Section 5 makes offences under the Act non-cognizable, so the scheme of arrest, inquiry and forwarding under Sections 6 to 8 applies instead
Explanation: Lalita Kumari is confined to cognizable offences. Section 5 of the RP(UP) Act deems its offences non-cognizable, while Section 6 separately authorises arrest without warrant. The Act therefore channels matters through arrest, the Section 8 inquiry and forwarding to the Magistrate, not through the mandatory-FIR route.
693. An RPF member arrests a suspect under Section 6 of the RP(UP) Act but does not communicate the grounds of arrest to him. Following Pankaj Bansal (2023) and Vihaan Kumar v. State of Haryana (2025), what is the legal consequence?
- A. The entire prosecution is quashed and the person can never be arrested again
- B. Only a departmental penalty on the arresting officer follows; the custody remains valid
- C. Nothing; Article 22(1) is satisfied if the arrest memo is signed
- D. The arrest and consequent custody are vitiated under Article 22(1) and the person is entitled to be released, though the trial is not automatically quashed
Answer: The arrest and consequent custody are vitiated under Article 22(1) and the person is entitled to be released, though the trial is not automatically quashed
Explanation: Article 22(1) and BNSS s.47 require the grounds to be communicated effectively, in a language the arrestee understands. The Supreme Court has held that failure vitiates the arrest and entitles the person to release; it does not by itself wipe out the case, and a lawful fresh arrest may follow in accordance with law.
694. In Satender Kumar Antil v. CBI (2022) the Supreme Court grouped offences into bail categories. Where does an offence under Section 3 of the RP(UP) Act (maximum five years) fall, and what is the guidance for such a category?
- A. Category C (special Acts with twin conditions): bail only if the court records that the accused is not guilty
- B. Category D (economic offences): bail only after deposit of the value of the property
- C. Category B (death or life imprisonment): bail only after trial begins
- D. Category A (up to seven years and not in B or D): where the accused cooperated and was not arrested in investigation, summons should issue on the chargesheet and a bail application need not be insisted on
Answer: Category A (up to seven years and not in B or D): where the accused cooperated and was not arrested in investigation, summons should issue on the chargesheet and a bail application need not be insisted on
Explanation: Category A covers offences punishable with seven years or less that do not fall in B or D. Section 3 (up to five years, no twin bail conditions) sits there. The Court directed that if the accused cooperated during investigation and was not arrested, the court should issue summons on the chargesheet and ordinarily should not insist on a bail application.
695. In Earabhadrappa v. State of Karnataka (1983) the Supreme Court explained the presumption from possession of recently stolen property (Illustration (a) to BSA s.119, old Evidence Act s.114). How is the word 'recent' to be understood?
- A. It has no fixed period; it depends on the nature of the article and the circumstances, and the presumption weakens as time passes, especially for articles that readily change hands
- B. It means a fixed period of thirty days from the theft
- C. It means recovery within twenty-four hours of the theft
- D. It applies only if the property is found on the accused's person and not in his premises
Answer: It has no fixed period; it depends on the nature of the article and the circumstances, and the presumption weakens as time passes, especially for articles that readily change hands
Explanation: The Court held that 'soon after the theft' is a question of fact with no rigid yardstick. The more readily an article passes from hand to hand, the shorter the span within which the presumption (that the possessor is thief or receiver, unless he accounts for it) remains safe. The presumption is permissive ('may'), unlike the statutory 'unless he proves' reverse onus in Section 3 RP(UP) Act.
696. Which rule governs a court's approach when circumstantial evidence is used to prove that an accused knew railway property was stolen?
- A. The five golden principles (Sharad Birdhichand Sarda): circumstances fully established and forming a complete chain pointing only to guilt
- B. Circumstantial evidence is inadmissible
- C. Any single suspicious circumstance suffices
- D. The accused must prove each circumstance
Answer: The five golden principles (Sharad Birdhichand Sarda): circumstances fully established and forming a complete chain pointing only to guilt
Explanation: Sharad Birdhichand Sarda (1984) requires that circumstances be conclusively established, consistent only with guilt, and exclude every other hypothesis. Where Section 3 applies, however, the presumption reduces the need for such chain-building on knowledge.
697. An RPF officer inquiring under Section 8 releases an arrested person for insufficient evidence. Does this release bar subsequent prosecution if fresh evidence emerges?
- A. Yes; release is a final bar
- B. No; release is not an acquittal and prosecution can follow on fresh evidence
- C. Yes, for 10 years
- D. Yes, unless the Magistrate permits
Answer: No; release is not an acquittal and prosecution can follow on fresh evidence
Explanation: A release at the inquiry stage is an administrative decision, not a verdict by a competent court, so Article 20(2) and BNSS s.337 (which need a trial and verdict) do not bar later prosecution.
698. When two interpretations of a penal provision are reasonably possible, which principle favours the accused?
- A. The doctrine of necessity
- B. Rule of strict construction (lenity) of penal statutes
- C. Rule of liberal construction against the accused
- D. Res judicata
Answer: Rule of strict construction (lenity) of penal statutes
Explanation: Penal provisions are construed strictly, and a reasonable doubt about their scope is resolved in favour of the accused, balanced with the mischief rule when the object of the legislation is evident.
699. Under BNSS Section 438 (old CrPC 397), the revisional power of the High Court or Sessions Judge extends to
- A. Granting divorce
- B. Re-appreciating the entire evidence like a first appeal
- C. Deciding service matters of RPF personnel
- D. Examining the correctness, legality or propriety of any finding, sentence or order of an inferior criminal court
Answer: Examining the correctness, legality or propriety of any finding, sentence or order of an inferior criminal court
Explanation: Revision is a supervisory jurisdiction to check correctness, legality or propriety, not a rehearing of facts. It is where an illegally lowered sentence under Section 3 could be challenged.
700. A railway store-keeper is found in possession of a bundle of new gaskets, and the stock register shows no matching issue. How should this absence of an entry be treated?
- A. As proof that the gaskets are not railway property
- B. As irrelevant for Section 3
- C. As a ground for immediate acquittal
- D. As strong circumstantial evidence supporting the foundational suspicion and shifting the burden to him to explain
Answer: As strong circumstantial evidence supporting the foundational suspicion and shifting the burden to him to explain
Explanation: Absence of any corresponding issue entry supports the reasonable suspicion that property was unlawfully obtained, so the storekeeper must prove lawful possession. This may also support BNS s.316(5).
701. Under the court's presumption provision (BSA Section 119, old s.114, illustration (e)), what may a court presume about official acts?
- A. That every official act is invalid
- B. That official acts are fraudulent
- C. That official acts need written orders
- D. That judicial and official acts have been regularly performed
Answer: That judicial and official acts have been regularly performed
Explanation: The court may presume regularity of official acts, e.g. that a seizure was made properly, but the presumption is rebuttable. A glaring breach of procedure by the officer will rebut it.
702. An accused argues that the prosecution failed to prove that the seized cable belongs to the Railways, as no stores witness was examined. How is this ingredient usually established?
- A. By the accused's confession alone
- B. By the seizing officer's belief alone
- C. By railway stores witnesses and records such as markings, indents and stock registers
- D. By the arrest memo
Answer: By railway stores witnesses and records such as markings, indents and stock registers
Explanation: That the thing is railway property is a foundational fact and must be proved with evidence. Stores officials identify markings, serial numbers and records, and the failure to examine any stores witness weakens the prosecution.
703. Which BNSS section corresponds to the old CrPC Section 173 and deals with the police report (charge-sheet) on completion of investigation?
- A. Section 193
- B. Section 176
- C. Section 173
- D. Section 180
Answer: Section 193
Explanation: BNSS s.193 is the successor of CrPC s.173 (final report). Note that BNSS s.173 is now the FIR provision, formerly s.154. It also introduces a 90-day timeline for informing the victim of progress.
704. A Magistrate can take cognizance of an offence under BNSS Section 210 (old CrPC 190) on which of the following bases?
- A. Only a direction from the High Court
- B. Only a police report
- C. A complaint, a police report, information from any person other than police, or his own knowledge
- D. Only a complaint by a private person
Answer: A complaint, a police report, information from any person other than police, or his own knowledge
Explanation: BNSS s.210 empowers a Magistrate to take cognizance on a complaint of facts, on a police report, on information from a person other than a police officer, or on his own knowledge or suspicion.
705. Which landmark case laid down seven illustrative categories in which a High Court may quash an FIR or criminal proceedings?
- A. Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978)
- B. State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal (1992)
- C. Selvi v. State of Karnataka (2010)
- D. D.K. Basu v. State of W.B. (1997)
Answer: State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal (1992)
Explanation: Bhajan Lal listed categories such as allegations that even if taken at face value disclose no offence, absurdly improbable allegations, and proceedings with an express legal bar or manifest mala fides.
706. Which BNSS section corresponds to the High Court's inherent power (old CrPC 482) to quash proceedings to prevent abuse of the process of any court?
- A. Section 438
- B. Section 482
- C. Section 528
- D. Section 415
Answer: Section 528
Explanation: BNSS s.528 saves the inherent powers of the High Court. Note the trap: old CrPC 482 (inherent powers) and BNSS 482 (anticipatory bail) share the number but not the subject.
707. A Magistrate of the First Class convicts a person under Section 3 of the RP(UP) Act. To which court does the first appeal ordinarily lie under BNSS Section 415?
- A. Executive Magistrate
- B. High Court directly
- C. Court of Session
- D. Supreme Court
Answer: Court of Session
Explanation: Under BNSS s.415 (old 374), appeals against convictions by a Magistrate lie to the Court of Session (with exceptions for petty cases where no appeal lies); High Court hears appeals from Sessions Court convictions.
708. Under BNSS Section 395 (old CrPC 357), a court imposing a fine may order the fine, when recovered, to be applied for what purpose?
- A. Funding the RPF Welfare Fund
- B. Return to the convict
- C. Rewarding the arresting officer
- D. Payment of compensation to a person who has suffered loss caused by the offence
Answer: Payment of compensation to a person who has suffered loss caused by the offence
Explanation: Section 395 permits the court to direct that fine be applied towards compensation for loss or injury caused by the offence. In RP(UP) cases this can reimburse the railway administration whose property was unlawfully taken.
709. A convict is sentenced in the same trial for offences under Section 3 RP(UP) Act and BNS Section 303(2). Under BNSS Section 25 (old CrPC 31), how do the sentences run unless the court directs otherwise?
- A. Concurrently by default
- B. Only the lighter is executed
- C. Only the heavier is executed
- D. Consecutively, one after the other
Answer: Consecutively, one after the other
Explanation: The general rule in BNSS s.25 is consecutive sentences in order determined by the court, unless the court directs that they run concurrently. Aggregate punishment is capped at twice the court's maximum for a single offence.
710. Which rule of interpretation, laid down in Heydon's Case, best explains reading the RP(UP) Act in a way that suppresses the mischief of railway property theft and advances the remedy?
- A. Ejusdem generis
- B. The golden rule
- C. The literal rule
- D. The mischief rule
Answer: The mischief rule
Explanation: Heydon's Case directs the court to consider the law before the Act, the mischief it did not remedy, the remedy provided, and its true reason. The RP(UP) Act's mischief was the difficulty of proving theft or receiving.
711. In Nathulal v. State of Madhya Pradesh (1966), the Supreme Court restated which interpretive principle relevant to special penal statutes like the RP(UP) Act?
- A. Penal statutes apply retrospectively
- B. Special Acts apply only to government employees
- C. Mens rea is an essential ingredient unless excluded expressly or by necessary implication
- D. Mens rea is never needed in special Acts
Answer: Mens rea is an essential ingredient unless excluded expressly or by necessary implication
Explanation: Nathulal affirmed the presumption that mens rea is required in statutory offences. Section 3 RP(UP) Act partly displaces it by its scheme: the burden is on the possessor to show lawful acquisition, rather than on the prosecution to prove guilty knowledge.
712. Is a member of the Railway Protection Force a 'public servant' under the BNS?
- A. No; only gazetted officers qualify
- B. No; only IPS officers are public servants
- C. Yes; he is in the service and pay of the Government and discharges public duty
- D. No; the Force is a private security agency
Answer: Yes; he is in the service and pay of the Government and discharges public duty
Explanation: An RPF member is an officer of an armed force of the Union in Government pay, hence a public servant. Assaulting or obstructing him attracts the BNS provisions meant for public servants, and he enjoys the protection of BNSS s.218 sanction.
713. Under the BNS, 'dishonestly' means doing a thing with the intention of
- A. Escaping arrest
- B. Causing hurt to a person
- C. Merely deceiving a public servant
- D. Causing wrongful gain to one person or wrongful loss to another
Answer: Causing wrongful gain to one person or wrongful loss to another
Explanation: 'Dishonestly' requires an intention to cause wrongful gain or wrongful loss. This intention must be proved for theft and receiving stolen property, but it is not an element of the Section 3 RP(UP) Act offence.
714. Under the BNS, a person is said to have 'reason to believe' a thing if
- A. He has been told so by a stranger
- B. He wishes the thing to be true
- C. He has sufficient cause to believe that thing, but not otherwise
- D. He merely suspects the thing
Answer: He has sufficient cause to believe that thing, but not otherwise
Explanation: 'Reason to believe' is a stronger, objective standard than suspicion: it requires sufficient cause. Section 3 of the RP(UP) Act deliberately uses the lower threshold of reasonable suspicion for the foundational fact.
715. A person arrested under Section 6 of the RP(UP) Act is found to be seriously ill at the time of production. How should the Magistrate proceed?
- A. Direct medical treatment and consider bail or appropriate custody orders with recorded reasons
- B. Refuse to take cognizance
- C. Order immediate unconditional acquittal
- D. Hand him to the RPF for treatment at their discretion
Answer: Direct medical treatment and consider bail or appropriate custody orders with recorded reasons
Explanation: The Magistrate has a duty to safeguard the life and health of an accused in custody (Article 21). Medical care is ordered and the illness is a factor in bail and custody decisions.
716. Who is the head of the Railway Protection Force?
- A. General Manager of the Zonal Railway
- B. Director General, RPF
- C. Home Secretary
- D. Chairman, Railway Board
Answer: Director General, RPF
Explanation: The Force is headed by the Director General, RPF (an IPS officer), working under the Central Government's superintendence through the Ministry of Railways; zonal and divisional security commissioners handle field command.
717. Which is the immediate next rank above Head Constable in the Railway Protection Force's non-gazetted hierarchy?
- A. Inspector
- B. Assistant Sub-Inspector
- C. Naib Subedar
- D. Sub-Inspector
Answer: Assistant Sub-Inspector
Explanation: In the RPF the order is Constable, Head Constable, Assistant Sub-Inspector, Sub-Inspector, Inspector. The departmental promotion examination for Head Constable is aimed at reaching the ASI rank.
718. An accused remains totally silent about how he came to hold railway fittings found in his shop. What is the consequence at trial?
- A. The presumption stays unrebutted and the court may convict, though silence cannot be compelled
- B. The case is stayed until he speaks
- C. He is automatically acquitted
- D. The court must draw an inference of theft
Answer: The presumption stays unrebutted and the court may convict, though silence cannot be compelled
Explanation: Article 20(3) protects against compulsion, but silence leaves nothing to rebut the Section 3 presumption. The accused cannot be forced to speak, yet the court may convict on the prosecution's established foundational facts.
719. An accused offers an explanation for possession of railway property that the court finds probable though not conclusively proved. What is the effect?
- A. It converts the case into theft
- B. It fails since he must prove beyond reasonable doubt
- C. It is ignored completely
- D. It may discharge his burden, as he need only show lawful acquisition to a preponderance of probability
Answer: It may discharge his burden, as he need only show lawful acquisition to a preponderance of probability
Explanation: An accused discharges a statutory burden by establishing a probable version, like a civil litigant. The court must weigh the explanation, including inconsistencies, and decide whether it is reasonably probable.
720. To what standard must the prosecution prove the foundational facts (possession of railway property and the reasonable suspicion) before the Section 3 presumption operates?
- A. Beyond reasonable doubt
- B. Prima facie only
- C. Mere preponderance of probabilities
- D. No proof needed, they are presumed
Answer: Beyond reasonable doubt
Explanation: The criminal standard governs the prosecution's case on the foundational facts. The shifted burden on the accused to prove lawful acquisition is lighter, requiring only preponderance of probabilities.