Bissoy.com
Doctors Medicines MCQs Q&A

Related Questions

Consider the following statements:
1. Section 34 of Indian Penal Code requires two persons whereas Section 149 of Indian Penal Code require five persons.
2. Section 34 of Indian Penal Code requires common intention, whereas Section 149 of Indian Penal Code requires common object
3. Section 34 of Indian Penal Code and Section 149 of Indian Penal Code both require presence of a prior consent
4. Section 34 of Indian Penal Code and section 149 of Indian Penal Code. Both create specific offence
Which of the above statements are correct?
Carefully read following statements:
1. According to Section 34 of Indian Penal Code, requirement is of two persons, whereas under Section 149 of Indian Penal Code, requirement is of five persons.
2. According to Section 34 of Indian Penal Code, common intention is required whereas under Section 149 Indian Penal Code, common object is required
3. Previous consent is required under Section 34 & 149 of Indian Penal Code
4. Section 34 of Indian Penal Code and Section 149 of Indian Penal Code constitutes a specific offence
Which of the above statements is true:
A five-judge bench of the Supreme Court passes judgment in a matter. In a later case before a high court, a party presents the Supreme Court judgment as a binding authority. The opposing party claims that the high court is not bound by the Supreme Court's judgment because relevant provisions of law were not brought to the notice of the Supreme Court in that case. Which of the following is most correct in this case?
Principle: Article 141 of the Constitution provides that the law declared by the Supreme Court is binding on all courts within the territory of India.
Consider the following statements:
1. In the case of Mithu v. State of Punjab, the constitutional validity of Section 303 of the Indian Penal Code was examined by the Supreme Court of India and held that this Section violates Article 14 and Article 21 of the Constitution,
2. Counsel for appellants/petitioners in the above case contended that Section 303 of the Indian Penal Code is arbitrary, because it authorizes deprivation of life by an unjust and unfair procedure.
3. Section 303 of the Indian Penal Code provides punishment for culpable homicide by causing death of person other that the person whose death was intended.
Which of the statements given above is/are correct?
Which of the following combinations are correctly matched?
1. Harbour ⇔ Section 51A, Indian Penal Code
2. Wrongful Loss ⇔ Section 23, Indian Penal Code
3. Gang rape on woman under twelve years of age ⇔ Section 376DB, Indian Penal Code
4. Gang rape ⇔ Section 376D, Indian Penal Code
Select the correct answer:
In P. Rathinam v. Union of India (1994) 3 SCC 394 the Supreme Court held Section 309 Indian Penal Code as unconstitutional. Was this judgment overruled and if so in which case?
In which one of the following cases, the Supreme Court had declared that Section 309 of the Indian Penal Code is not unconstitutional and is not violative of Article 21 and Article 14 of the Constitution?
The constitution of India has made which of the following provisions to safeguard and ensure the independence and impartial functioning of the Supreme court? 1. The salaries, allowances, privileges, leave and pension of the judges of the Supreme Court cannot be changed to their disadvantage after their appointment even during a financial emergency. 2. The retired judges of the Supreme Court are prohibited from pleading or acting in any Court or before any authority within the territory of India. 3. The Parliament is not authorised to curtail the jurisdiction and powers of the Supreme Court. 4. The judges of the Supreme Court are provided with the Security of Tenure. Select the correct answer using the correct code given below:
Which of the following statements are correct? Answer by using the code given below:
1. Persons in Govt/Judicial service need not resign to participate in District judge selection process held in "Vijay Kumar Misra and another v. High Court of Judicature at Patna" by the Supreme Court of India
2. The Supreme Court of India held in S. Kazi v. Muslim Education Society that " All Tribunals are not necessary parties to the proceedings where legality of its orders challenged"
3. The Supreme Court of India observed in Cardanumom Marketing Corporation and others v. State of Kerala and others that Social Security to the legal profession becomes an essential part of legal system
4. The Supreme Court of India held in 'Union of India v. Rajasthan High Court and others that High Court judges are exempted from Airport frisking.
On Comparing Indian and American Supreme Courts which one of the following statements is NOT true? Indian Supreme Courts original jurisdiction is confined to federal cases. Indian Supreme Court appellate jurisdiction is confined to constitutional cases only. American Supreme Court has a very wide discretion to grant special leave to appeal in any matter against the judgement of any court or tribunal (except military). American Supreme Court has no advisory jurisdiction.