Legal Reasoning Mock Questions for CLAT 2020

Legal Reasoning Mock Questions for CLAT 2020

 

Read the passage given below and answer the questions that follow-  ​​ ​​ ​​ ​​ ​​​​ 

Passage I

Justice Vibhu Bakhru of the High Court of Delhi,​​ in a May 22 Judgment,​​ ruled that persons convicted of committing the offence of criminal​​ misconduct under Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act wouldn't be absolved of their offences or the liability as the legislative intent of repealing this section was not to exclude the said offence from the scope of Act with retrospective effect.

The High Court gave its decision on an appeal by Ex-Jharkhand CM​​ Bhupinder Hooda​​ convicted of criminal misconduct under Section 13 in the coal scam who argued that he was liable to be acquitted in view of the enactment of the Prevention of Corruption (Amendment) Act, 2018. Since the misconduct as contemplated under Section 13(1)(d) is no longer an offence punishable under the Act due to the​​ amendment, the benefit of the same ought to be extended to him, the appellant contended.

The CBI Court hearing charges against Hooda & others in the Manesar land release case had stopped short of framing charges after the accused filed discharge applications disputing CBI’s move to​​ bring into play Section 13(1)(d) of Act which was repealed in 2018 when the law was amended by the Parliament. The court has not been able to frame charges against the accused & commence trial despite the fact that arguments on the charges got concluded in Feb.​​ 

While the Apex Court is yet to adjudicate the contentious issue of legitimacy of the repealed Section 13, the High Court ruling is significant, legal experts say.​​ The Judge said that this Court is unable to accept that if it is established beyond a reasonable doubt that the appellant had abused his position for securing a pecuniary advantage to Vini Iron & Steel Udyog Limited, the benefit of any beneficial construction of the Prevention of​​ Corruption​​ (Amendment) Act, 2018 could be extended to him.​​ ​​ 

In 2015, the Central Bureau of Investigation​​ (CBI)​​ registered a case under Prevention of Corruption Act & Indian Penal Code against unknown persons.​​ In​​ 2018,​​ Central Bureau of Investigation filed charge-sheet in court, accusing​​ Hooda, three former IAS officers, besides others of dropping acquisition proceedings to help real estate builders. 

Extracted with edits from:​​ https://www.latestlaws.com/latest-news/hc-verdict-on-repealed-pc-act-provision-may-affect-trial-of-this-ex-cm/​​  by​​ Latest Laws.com,​​ May 2020​​ ​​  ​​​​  ​​​​ 

1.​​ A court hearing an appeal is said to exercise its appellate jurisdiction while a court hearing a case filed before it as a court of first instance is said to exercise original jurisdiction.​​ The Delhi High Court is one of the few High Courts of India which has both original and appellate jurisdiction.​​ While​​ adjudicating​​ the appeal​​ filed by Bhupinder Hooda, the Delhi High Court was exercising-​​ ​​ 

(a)​​ original jurisdiction​​ ​​ ​​ 

(b)​​ appellate jurisdiction​​ ​​ 

(c)​​ both (a) and (b)​​ 

(d) None of the above​​ 

 

2.​​ Assume that the​​ Prevention of Corruption (Amendment) Act, 2018 received Presidential assent on July 1, 2018 but came into force with effect from August 1, 2018.​​ Mr. X is charged of​​ committing criminal misconduct on July 21, 2018.​​ Whether Mr. X is entitled to​​ be acquitted by​​ getting​​ the benefit of the said​​ amendment repealing section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act?​​ ​​ ​​ ​​ 

(a)​​ Yes​​ ​​ ​​ ​​ 

(b)​​ No​​ ​​ ​​ ​​ ​​ ​​ 

(c)​​ Can’t say​​ 

(d)​​ Depends​​ on the discretion of the trial court​​ ​​ ​​ 

 

3.​​ The​​ given passage indicates that cases of corruption are punishable under-​​ ​​  ​​ ​​ ​​ ​​​​ 

(a)​​ only Prevention of Corruption Act​​ ​​ ​​ ​​ 

(b)​​ only Indian Penal Code​​ ​​ 

(c)​​ both Prevention of Corruption Act and Indian Penal Code​​ 

(d) None​​ of the above

 

4.​​ Based on the given passage, it can be inferred that​​ a criminal case can be registered-​​ ​​ ​​ 

(a)​​ only against known persons/accused​​ 

(b)​​ even against unknown persons/accused​​ ​​ ​​ ​​ ​​ 

(c)​​ Can’t say

(d)​​ None of the above​​ ​​ 

 

5.​​ The​​ given passage indicates that-​​ ​​ 

(a)​​ A provision of law​​ also​​ remains effective​​ during the period​​ for which​​ its constitutionality remains under challenge​​  ​​​​ ​​ ​​ 

(b)​​ A provision of law remains effective only till its constitutionality has not been challenged​​ ​​ ​​ ​​ 

(c)​​ A provision of law​​ remains effective till the first hearing of the plea challenging its constitutionality​​ 

(d) None of the above​​ ​​ 

 

Passage II​​  

There is no definition of bail under Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) apart from definition of bailable and non-bailable offences. Section 436 of the CrPC deals with bail in bailable offences. It casts a mandatory duty on the police official as well as on the court to release the accused on bail “as a matter of absolute and indefeasible right” even where he does not make an application for bail. It is mandated upon them to inform the accused of his right to be released on bail irrespective of the availability of surety and on his personal recognisance.

Section 436-A of CrPC​​ states that subject to certain conditions, a person who has undergone detention for a period extending half the maximum period of imprisonment imposed for a particular offence shall be so released. However,​​ Section 436(2) places a strict condition on the bail so granted by specifically stating that if a person failed to comply with the conditions of the bail-bond as regards the time and place of attendance, the court may cancel his bail.

The provisions of section​​ 437​​ of CrPC​​ empower two authorities namely a court and an officer-in-charge of the police station to grant bail to person who has been accused of commission of a non-bailable offence. Since the power to grant bail is permissive/discretionary and not obligatory, it has to be exercised judiciously.​​ Section 437(3) of CrPC forms the backdrop of the application for cancellation of bail preferred by the investigating officer/complainant/any other person who is threatened with the liberty so granted to the accused to the extent that it so interferes with the administration of justice, process of fair investigation.​​ 

According to Section 439(1) of the CrPC, a High Court or Court of Session may direct that any person accused of non-bailable offence and in custody be released on bail. It also empowers that a High Court or Court of Session may modify or set aside any condition imposed by a Magistrate when granting bail. Presently, it is mandatory by the High Court or Court of Session to give notice of​​ such​​ application to the complainant in cases involving child-related offences or sexual offences related to women.​​ 

The power of cancellation of bail can be resorted to in the following two situations:​​ (i) On merits of a case mainly on the ground of the order granting bail being perverse, passed without due application of mind or in violation of any substantive or procedural law and (ii) On the ground of misuse of liberty after the grant of bail or other supervening circumstances. Bail in the first type of cases can be cancelled by superior courts only​​ whereas in the second category of cases bail can be cancelled by the very court which may have granted bail.

 

Cancellation of bail and rejection of bail are two different circumstances and hence the approach of the court should also be different. At the time of hearing bail application, the court looks at the possibilities of the violation of bail conditions and it has to be more open and flexible whereas while hearing the cancellation application, the court has to be more rigid and it has to examine not only the possibility of violations but whether the actual violation has taken place or not. It is thus stated that the underlying factor behind​​ the concept of bail is the balancing of conflicting interests of sanctity of individual liberty and the interest of the society.

 

Extracted with edits from:​​ https://thedailyguardian.com/law-relating-to-grant-rejection-and-cancellation-of-bail/​​  by​​ The Daily Guardian,​​ May​​ 2020​​ ​​  ​​​​  ​​​​ 

1.​​ Mr. X was charged with a crime punishable with maximum imprisonment of 7 years. The trial of Mr. X is pending since the last 4 years and Mr. X has been in jail​​ since 4 months prior to the beginning of his trial.​​ Mr. X is entitled to bail under-​​ 

(a)​​ section 436 of CrPC

(b) section 436-A of CrPC​​ 

(c)​​ section​​ 437 of CrPC​​ 

(d)​​ section 439 of CrPC​​ ​​ 

 

 

2.​​ Mr.​​ C, a poor man, was arrested on charges of murder. While granting bail​​ to Mr. C, the magistrate court directed​​ him​​ to furnish bail bond of Rs. 10,000​​ which Mr. C is unable to​​ procure​​ on account of financial crunch.​​ What is the remedy available to Mr. C in such case?​​ ​​ ​​  ​​ ​​ ​​ ​​ ​​ ​​ ​​​​ 

(a)​​ apply to concerned High Court for modification of the order granting bail​​ ​​ 

(b)​​ apply to concerned magistrate court for modification of the order granting bail​​ 

(c)​​ Mr. C has no remedy in such case​​ ​​ ​​ ​​  ​​​​ ​​ 

(d)​​ either (a) or (b) depending on the choice of Mr. C​​ 

 

3.​​ Ramesh, who was arrested on charges of murder,​​ was granted bail by the concerned court. After being released on bail, Ramesh threatens Suresh, who is a witness in the case, to falsely testify before court that Ramesh is innocent otherwise Ramesh would get him killed.​​ Being terrified by such threat,​​ Suresh applies for cancellation of bail granted to Ramesh but the court rejects his application stating that Suresh has no right to apply for​​ cancellation of bail. Whether the order rejecting​​ the bail application is valid?​​ ​​ 

(a)​​ Yes, because cancellation of bail can be sought only by​​ relatives of the person who was murdered​​ ​​ 

(b)​​ Yes, because cancellation of bail can be sought only by either the investigating officer of hte case or relatives of the person who was murdered​​ ​​ ​​ 

(c)​​ No, because cancellation of bail can be sought by any person threatened with the grant of bail to the accused​​ 

(d)​​ Can’t say​​ ​​ 

 

4.​​ The trial court at​​ Lucknow, which is subordinate to the High Court of Allahabad,​​ granted bail to Mr. Z without considering the applicable provisions of law.​​ The bail can later be cancelled by-​​ 

(a)​​ only the trial court at Lucknow​​ ​​ ​​ 

(b)​​ only the High Court at Allahabad ​​ ​​ ​​ 

(c)​​ either (a) or (b)​​ ​​ 

(d) Can’t say​​ 

 

5.​​ Before passing order on an application seeking modification of an order granting bail,​​ notice must be given to the complainant in cases of-​​ ​​ 

(a)​​ sexual offences​​ 

(b) all kinds of offences​​ ​​ ​​ 

(c) offences committed by a public servant

(d) None of the above​​ 

 

Answer key with explanations  ​​ ​​ ​​ ​​ ​​ ​​​​ 

Passage I

Question 1 - Option (b) is the correct answer.

Explanation​​ ​​ The​​ given passage indicates that​​ the High Court was hearing an appeal filed against order of conviction so it was exercising appellate jurisdiction.​​ 

 

Question 2 - Option (b) is the correct answer.​​ 

Explanation​​ ​​ The amendment shall not be effective​​ merely on its enactment on July 1, 2018 but shall come into force on August 1, 2018. Therefore, criminal misconduct continues to be an offence as on July 21, 2018​​ due to which benefit of the amendment cannot be given to the accused.​​ ​​ ​​ ​​ 

 

Question 3 - Option​​ (c) is the correct answer.​​ 

Explanation​​ ​​ The last paragraph of the given passage​​ states that in the given scenario, CBI had registered a case under provisions of both Indian Penal Code and Prevention of Corruption Act hence​​ option (c) is correct. ​​ 

 

Question 4 – Option (b) is the correct answer.​​ 

Explanation​​ ​​ The​​ line “Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) registered a case under Prevention of Corruption Act & Indian Penal Code against unknown persons​​ indicates that option (b) is correct.​​ 

 

Question 5​​ ​​ Option (a) is the correct answer.​​ 

Explanation –​​ The line “While the Apex Court is yet to adjudicate the contentious issue of legitimacy....” indicates that option (a) is correct.​​  ​​​​ ​​ ​​ 

 

Passage II

Question 1 - Option (b) is the correct answer.

Explanation​​ ​​ The​​ explanation of section 436-A of CrPC given in second paragraph of the passage indicates that option (b) is correct.​​ ​​ 

 

Question 2 - Option​​ (a) is the correct answer.​​ 

Explanation​​ ​​ The​​ passage states that the power to modify any condition imposed while granting bail lies only with the High Court or Court of Session hence option (a) is correct.​​ ​​ 

 

Question 3 - Option (c) is the correct answer.​​ 

Explanation​​ ​​ The​​ discussion on section 437(3) of CrPC​​ in the passage indicates that cancellation of bail can by sought by any person threatened with the grant of bail to an accused.​​ 

 

Question 4 – Option (b) is the correct answer.​​ 

Explanation –​​ The​​ given passage​​ states that cancellation of bail on merits can be done only by a superior court hence option (b) is correct.​​ 

 

Question 5​​ ​​ Option (a) is the correct answer.​​ 

Explanation -​​ The​​ line “Presently, it is mandatory by the High Court or Court of Session to give notice of such application to the complainant in cases.....”​​ in fourth paragraph of the passage indicates that option (a) is correct.​​ ​​ 

 

Take our test on offences against property under ipc here.

Read our post on the Landmark Judgements of 2019-2020.

Read our post on Elements of Crime.

Read CLATapult’s post on offer and acceptance here. Also, try their mocks for more legal reasoning practice questions

Got doubts about CLAT 2020? Find all your answers and much more here.

Get CLATalogue' Posts in Your Inbox