SYMBIOSIS INTERNATIONAL (DEEMED UNIVERSITY) (Established under Section 3 of the UGC Act, 1956 ) Re-accredited by NAC with’A’ Grade (3.58/4) Awarded Category I by UGC feat N (0102)SYMBIOSIS LAW SCHOOL, NOIDA (010223) BACHELOR OF ARTS AND BACHELOR OF LAWS. (010224) BACHELOR OF BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION AND BACHELOR OF LAWS. 2013-18,2014-19,2015-20,2016-21,2017-22 v Law of Crimes Paper Il: Criminal Procedure Cod 0102230501,0102240501 Date: 18/41/2019 Maximum Marks: 60 Da Monday ‘Time: 10:00 am - 12:30 pm. Part-I (Objective Type Questions) Instructions: 1) All questions are compulsory. 2) Each question carries two Marks (Total 20 Marks) 3) Here Code is to be referred as Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 Q.1. Read the following statements and choose the correct option, (2Marks) (CO 6) Assertion: Power to take cognizance of commission of offence at judicial level is given to Magistrate only, except in exceptional sivspipn whon Court Sesions enn take copnizance. Conclusion I: It is trial court judge whéjtakes cognizance against accused. Conclusion I: Cognizance of commission of offence is deemed to be cognizance against accused. 4. Conclusion I is incorrect; Conclusion Il is correct. But, Conclusion 11 is not correct conclusion of Assertion. b. Conclusion I is correct; Conclusion II is correct. But, neither of two Conclusions is correct conclusion of Assertion. © Conclusion 1 is correct: Conclusion I is correct. And. both the Conchisions are carect conclusion of Assertion 4. Conclusion I is correct; Conclusion II is incorrect. But, Conclusion I is not correct . conelusion of Assertion, Q2. Refer to provisions laid down in r/o ‘investigation’ under the Code. Read the following statements. (Marks) (CO 8) ice officer can initiate ‘investigation’ sou-motie, without any complaint brought before 11, Police officer can initiate ‘investigation’, only iff he receives information / complaint Til, Its discretion of police officer to initiate ‘investigation’ or not. IV. It is must that police officer has taken cognizance of commission of offence before he initiates ‘investigation’. What shail be the order of above statement? a. TV must precede {1f, IIT must precede [ & II b.” LIT must precede IV, IV must precede I or II ©. IV must precede I, I, & Il d, IV must precede II, 111 must precede I or IIQ3. 0, IV. Q4. Qs. Mr. A was arrested at 12 noon on 01.01.19. He was produced before the Magistrate at 6 pra on 01.01.19. Mr. A is given on police custédy for next 48 hrs. On 02.01.19, Mr. A has filed bail application w/s 439 of the Code. Which of the following statements is / are correct? (Marks) (CO 9) ‘The Court, w/s 439 of the Code, can order the police to produce the accused even diiring police custody in given case. Once produced, as per order of the Court, the Court wili hear the application on merit and may exercise its discretion which may go either way, i., cancellation of bail application or allowing bail application. ‘The Court can’t order the police to produce the accused for reason that the Magistrate has already exercised his power u/s 167 of the Code. ‘The Court, ws 439 is not superior authority, its order on bail can’t over-rule order of the’ ‘Magistrate passed ws 167 of the Code, Hence, it can’t take up bail application u/s 439 of the Code. Choose the correct option. a Dal * b. Mé&iv . 1V d. 18 In v/o appointment of Special Public Prosecutor under the Code, which of the following statements is/are correct? (2Marks) (CO 5) a. It is discretion of Directorate of Prosecution at each state to appoint any advocate as Special Public Prosecutor. b. Itis discretion of the court, to appoint any advocate as Special Public Prosecutor, ¢. Special Public Prosecutor is a regular appointment that is made through cadre selection process conducted by High Court of each state. 4. Special Public Prosecutor is a regular appointment that is made through cadre selection process conducted by state government. Which of the following case law may be termed as precursor to major amendments in arrest- related laws in the Code? (2Marks) (CO 4) Neelabati Bahera y. State of Orissa (AIR 1993 SC 1960 0 Joginder Kumar v. State of Uttar Pradesh (decided by the S.C. on 25" April, 1994) State of Haryana y, Dinesh Kumar (2008 (3) SCC 574) D.K. Basu & Ashok Johri v. State of West Bengal & State of Uttar Pradesh (decided by ‘Supreme Court on 18" December, 1996) peg In any matter related to commission of an offence, which of the following is / are correct orderis? (2Marks) (CO 2) I. See, 173, Sec. 190, Sec. 207, See. 204, Sec. 209 Il. Sec. 173, See. 190, See. 204, Sec. 207, Sec. 192 Ill. Sec. 173, Sec. 156 (3), Sec. 173 (8), Sec. 190 IV. Sec. 173, Sec. 190, Sec, 200, Sec. 202, Sec. 204 Choose the correct option. 1&0 1,1,& 10 LILelv 11, Wi, & IV aegeQ.7. In which of the following case/s, “first information’, rather “first information report”, had become the main contention between prosecution and the accused? (2Marks) (CO 1) 1. Sidharth Vashisth @ Manu Sharma v. State of N.C.T, of Delhi (2010) 6 SCC 1 I, State, through C.B.L v. Tapan Kumar Singh (AIR 2003 SC 4140) IM. State of Haryana y. Dinesh Kumar (2008 (3) SCC $74) TV. Dhariwal Industries v. Kishore Wadhwani & Ors. (AIR 2016 SC 4369) Choose the correct option. a 1&ll ’. LIL, &l c Hem @. 01,10, &1V Q8. Match the following: (2Marks) (CO 2) 1 See. 161 Sec. 91 TH Sec. 91 IV See.76 Magisterial Summon ‘Examination by police Production of arrested person Police notice vpom> Choose the correction option: a 18B,M& A, M&D,IV&C b. 18A,M& BM &D,IV&C ce. 1&BM&D, M&A IVEC d, 1&B,W& AM &C,IVED Q.9. What is hierarchy of punitive powers of judges at Court of Sessions? (2Marks) (CO 8) L. Sessions Judge can pass any sentencing order IL Additional Sessions Judge can’t pass sentencing order that Sessions Judge can pass. IIL. Additional Sessions Judge can pass sentencing order that Sessions Judge can pass. IV. Assistant Sessions Judge can pass sentencing order that Sessions Judge / Additional Sessions Judge can pass, V. Assistant Sessions Judge can’t pass sentencing order that Sessions Judge can pais, but © he can pass sentencing order that Additional Sessions Judge can pass. Which of the above statements are correct? : a ev b, Tél ce LML&V d 0&V Q.10. An FLR. ws 274 of Indian Penal Code (non-bailable & cognizable offence punishable with life imprisonment) was registered on 01.01.19; accused was arrested on 01,02.19 and was produced before the Magistrate on same date, Police has submitted ‘police report” ws 173 of the Code on 01.06.19. In r/o bail opportunity available to the person arrested, which of the following statement/s is / ate correct? (2Marks) (CO 1) I. Bail w/s 438 of the Code till 31.01.19 IL Bail w/s 436 of the Code from 01.02.19 onwards till final judgement II. Bail ws 437 of the Code from 01.02.19 onwards till final judgement IV, _ Bail w/s 167 (2) of the Code from 11.05.19 onwards till 31.05.19Part-II (Subjective Type Questions) Instructions: All questions are compulsory. Q.1. Read the following hypothetical facts, and answer the questions that follow. (1OMarks) (CO 1) Take notice of chronology of events in a matter before the Magistrate who is empowered to , fake cognizance. F.LR. was registered on 01.01.19; accused was arrested on 01.02.19; judicial custody order against the accused was passed on 02.02.19 after he was produced at 10 ‘am, Investigating agency had submitted its ‘police report” on 02.04.19; magisterial cognizance ws 190 was taken on 02.05.19. Meanwhile, accused had filed bail application ws 167 (2) of the Code as soon as 90 days had expired, but this application was disposed on 12.04.19. As per said order, bail u/s 167 (2) of the Code was taken. Further, magisterial order ws 156 (3) of the Code was passed on 02.05.19; non-bailable warrant u/s 204 of the Code was issued on 02.06.19 with order to thé accused to be produced on 02.07.19. In compliance of said non-bailable warrant, police had arrested the accused on (04.06.19 and had produced before the Magistrate on the same date. In light of above facts & circumstances, answer the following questions 1. During what duration, in above ease, accused can file bail application ws 167 (2) of the Code? Why the accused, in above case, be allowed to file bail application w/s 167 as well as ws 437 of the Code at one & the same time? re IL Why bail order, passed ws 167 (2), in above case is illegal? TM, Can Magistrate issue process w/s 204 of the Code even after passing order ws 156 (3) of the Code? If'yes, under what & circumstances, such process can be initiated?” IV. Can we say that police arrest of the accused on 02.06.19 is valid arrest? V. Can Magistrate, on 04.06.19, pass judicial custody order ws 167 or ws 309 of the Code? OR Q.1. Read the following facts and answer the questions that follow. (10Marks) (CO 1) ‘An F.LR. was filed against Mr. A on 01.01.19. This F.LR. was in r/o ‘dowry harassment complaint’ filed against family of Mr. A. Thete was no name of Mr. B, brother of Mr. A, in the said complaint. Neither his name was there in the F.LR. Also, Mr. B was out of the country when F:LR. was filed. As soon as he got to know of the F.IR., he had filed application ws 438 of the Code. This application was filed before the High Court. Interim relief for 15 days was granted to him with the condition that he would be back to India with 15 days. It was further ordered that, in case of failure of his returning back to India, interim relief shall stand cancelled automatically. ‘A soon as Mr. A landed in India, he was arrested by the police. He was kept in custody for investigation for next 10 hs., and then was released on bail. Now, Mr. A has challenged order of the High Court on following grounds: ‘The High Court, u/s 438 could not have put the condition asking him to retum to India within period of ‘interim order of anticipatory bail’. Through such condition, the investigation ageney would easily arrest him as he could be located whenever he would land. This condition violates his ‘right to evade arrest by hiding’ which is otherwise inherent idea u/s 438 of the Code, In light of above arguments, the Supreme Court has framed following questions. 1. Can Court, ws 438 of the Code, pass order to the applicant to disclose his location during duration of interim order irrespective of the fact that police is looking out for the applicant or not?Q2. IL Ifanswer to above question is ‘yes’, will it not violate the very idea of protection given, to the applicant through Sec. 438 of the Code?, or, no such idea is inhierent in the said Section? ‘ TH. Does criminal justice system provide, even covertly, to any person to evade arrest through judicial order? TV. Does criminal justice system provide, even covertly, to any person to evade arrest? . Why interim order u/s 438 can't be allowed t0 be passed if application under consideration seeks protection from ‘magisterial arrest"? Read the following statutory provision and answer the above questions. Sec. 438. Direction for grant of ball to person apprehending arrest. 1. When any person has reason to believe that he may be arrested on an accusation of suing commited a non- bailable offence, he may apply fo the High Court or the Court of ‘Session for a direction under this section; and that Court may, ifit thinks fit, direct that fy the event of such arrest, he shall be released on bail, 2. When the High Court or the Court of Session makes a direction wider sub-section, it ima) include such conditions in such directions in the light of the facts of the particulay case, as it may think fit, ineluding- £ @ contition that the person shall make himself available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required; ihe @ condition that the person shall not, directly or indirectly, make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade kim from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer: M4 condition that the person shall not leave India withou the previous permission of the Court; iy such other condition as may be imposed under sub- section (3) of section 437, as if ‘the bail were granted under that section, such person is thereafter arrested without warrant by an officer in charge of a police sition on such accusation, and is prepared either at the time of arrest or ai ary time walle in the eusiody of such officer to give bail, be shall be released on bail: and if Magistrate taking cognizance of such offence decides that a warrant should issue in the first instance gains! that person, he shall issue a bailable warrant in conformity with the direction of the Court under sub-section (1), Read the following statutory provision and answer the questions that follow. (lOMarks) (CO 2) Seq S1I-A of the Code: Power of Magistrate to order person to give specimen signature on handwriting. ta Magistrate of the first class is satisfied that, for the purpose of any investigation or Proceeding under this Code, it is expedient to direct any person, including an accused person, fo give specimen signatures or handwriting, he may make an order to that effect and in thar ease the person to whom the order relates shall be produced or shall attend at the time and lace specified in such order and shall give his specimen signatures or handwriting. . Provided that no order shall be made under this Section unless the person has at some time been arrested in connection with such investigation or proceeding The Supreme Court in Nandini Saypathy v. P.L. Dani (AIR 1978 SC 1025) had declared considering accused and potential accused as one & the same, and had given protection vo path the persons. While, above provision has created distinction between the two persons In light of both the law, legislative law and Supreme Court made law, answer the following questions. : 1 oes the present law violate Art. 14, i.c., equal protection of law, of either of the two Persons? Why does Sec. 311-A is Ind down in t/o accused persons only’? TL Can Sec. 311-A order be passed by Magistrate of the First Class during trial?Q2. Q3. TI. Presuming answer to above question is ‘no’, what remedy is available with the investigating agency if it requires ‘hand writing sample? for purpose of further investigation? : TV, Under what facts & circumstances, See. 311-A order can be passed by Magistrate empowered to take cognizance during post-cognizanee, but pre-trial, stage as well? oR Read the following statutory provisions and answer the questions that follow See. 161 of the Code: Examination of witnesses by police, (lOMarks) (CO 2) (D Any police officer making an investigation under this Chapter, or any police officer not below such rank as the State Government may, by general ar specal order, prescribe in this behalf; acting on the requisition of such officer, may examine orally any person Supposed to be acquainted with the facts and circumstances of the case @) Such person shalt be bound to answer truly all questions relating to such case put to him by such officer, other than questions the answers to which would have a tendency to expose him to a criminal charge or to a penalty or forfeiture. () The police officer may reduce into writing any statement made to him in the course of an examination under this Section; and if he does so, he shall make a separate and true record of the statement of each such person whose statement he records. Article 20 (3) of the Constitution says ‘No person accused of any offence shall be compelled to be a witness against himself, 1. Ifa person is likely to commit an offence, e.g., he is following another person with a kee in his hand shouting “I will kill you’, ean he be given protection under Art, 20 (3) of the Constitution, ifhe is asked question on his motive / intent behind such threat? T. What if in above situation, accused is forced to answer question pertaining to “potential offence’, and he has complied with such instruction. Can he be forced to answer to question that has potential of making him an accused of any other offence? UH, Does the constitutional shield of silence swing, into action only in Court, or can it barricade the accused against incriminating interrogation at stages of police investigation too? TV. Does ‘any person’ in Sec. 161 of the Code include an accused person or only a “witmess"? Refer to Achpal @ Ramswaroop & Aur. v, State of RaJasthan, decided by the Supreme Court on 24.09.18. Inthe said ease, Supreme Court had framed following questions: (i) can it be Said that investigation was complete forthe purpose of Sec. 167 (2) of the Code so as to deny the benefit to the accused in terms of said provision’; (ii) whether the High Court could have extended the statutory limit laid down ws 167 of the Code? Presuming that the Supreme Court has not yet delivered the said judgement; and the Tere ont sate has come up with following arguments: (2) the ‘police report’ submitted by prosecution will rely, (e) as per Uday’ Mohan Lal Acharya judgement, once See. 173 (2) spolice report’ is submitted, cognizance of the offence is deemed to have been taken, (d) a2 pet Dawood Ibrahim Kaskar & Dinesh Dalmia judgements, once cognizance of offence is teken, it is deemed that cognizance against accused named in Sec. 173 (2) “police report” is also taken, in light of above argument, revisit the judgement delivered by the Supreme Court and re- decide the matter in r/o following questions, 1. Was investigation against the accused complete on the day when the MM. had . Tetumned the ‘police report’ on technical grounds? eQ3. Q4. Qa. I What should be considered the final police report, report submitted u/s 173 (2) or e report submitted w/s 173 (8)? And, for the purpose of See. 167 (2) bail application, which of the two reports should be considered as “final police report’? : IIL, Is the accused, Mr. Achpal, entitled to seek remedy w/s 167 (2) of the Code? TV. Wiiat does the ‘investigation’ mean in various orders of the Supreme Court through which statutory limit of 60 / 90 days is imposed on the investigation agency to complete the investigation? Is it investigation of the offence’ or it ‘investigation of the accused"? V. If cognizance u/s 190 is taken, and then Sec. 173 (8) report is submitted by the investigating officer that contains ‘fresh offence’ against the accused Mr, Achpal, can the Metropolitan Magistrate be allowed to proceed with in r/o new offence ws 167? 1 (1OMarks) (CO 3) | oR Refer to Selvi v. State of Karnataka (SCC 2010 (7) 263}. Presume the following facts in r/o said case. As per judgement of the said case, Ms. Selvi, was given relief by the Magistrate and was not enforced to under-go narco-analysis test. But, she had to under-go D.N.A. test ws 53 of the ‘Code. Report of the said test went in favour of the accused. At request of the prosecution, the same evidence was re-examined at Federal Forensic Laboratory, Washington, US.A. This report Went against the accused, A writ petition is filed by Ms. Selvi challenging her D.N.A. test conducted u/s 53 of the Code on the grounds of same apprehensions that the Supreme Court had while deciding the said - matter. Now, the Supreme Court has decided to revisit its judgement; the Supreme Court has admitted the question on constitutional validity of Sec, 53 of the Code. Decide the matter under two headings: 1. Review of ratio behind Selvi v. State of Karnataka; i I, Constitutional validity of Sec. 53 in light of given facts & circumstances. } (OMarks) (CO 3) 1 Power of the police in criminal justice system in India is so wide yet so controlled and regulated by the law itself laid under the Code. Here, reference to ‘law’ is delimited to the extent of ‘self-control & self-regulation’ that the Code has envisaged in 1/0 power / discretion of the investigating officer. Discuss this statemtent in light of ‘police power to keep custody of the accused’ to the extent, that even the Supreme Court can’t intervene. (loMarks)(CO4) oR The judiciary in India has always come forward to fill the vacuum at various stages in a criminal matter, like, at the stage of investigation, cognizance, post-cognizance & pre-trial, The judiciary has such vacuum at various occasions and has empowered the sub-ordinate magistracy to exercise its powers that are otherwise not envisaged under the criminal justice « system in India. In light of case laws decided by the Supreme Court, discuss. : (lOMarks) (CO 4)