Bissoy.com
Doctors Medicines MCQs Q&A

If two lower courts of Madhya Pradesh have taken cognizance of the same offence, and a question is as to which of them ought to inquire into or try that offence, the question shall be decided by:

If two lower courts of Madhya Pradesh have taken cognizance of the same offence, and a question is as to which of them ought to inquire into or try that offence, the question shall be decided by: Correct Answer The High Court of Madhya Pradesh

Related Questions

Where two or more courts have taken cognizance of the same offence and a question arises as to which of them ought to inquire into or try the offence, the question shall be decided
1. If the courts are subordinate to the same High Court, by that High Court
2. By the High Court within the local limits of whose appellate criminal jurisdiction the accused resides, carries on business or is engaged in a gainful employment
3. If the courts are subordinate to the same High Court, by that High Court in consultation with the State Government concerned
4. If the courts are not subordinate to the same High Court, by that court within the local limits of whose appellate criminal jurisdiction the proceedings were first commenced
Which of the above are correct?
Under Criminal Procedure Code where two or more courts have taken cognizance of the same offence and question arises as to which of them ought to try that offence, the question shall be decided
1. By the Supreme Court
2. If the Court are subordinate to the same High Court by that High Court
3. If the Courts are not subordinate to the same High Court, by the High Court within the local limits of whose appellate criminal jurisdiction the proceedings were first commenced
Choose the correct answer:
Where two Courts, subordinate to two different High Courts, have taken the cognizance of the same offence, a question related to which of the subordinate Court can inquire or try into the offence shall be directed by:
Where two courts subordinate to the same High Court have taken cognizance of the same offence and a question arises as to which of them shall try that offence
To constitute a matter of res judicata which of the following conditions must concur?
1. The matter directly and substantially in issue in the subsequent suit or issue must be the same matter which was directly and substantially in issue either actually (section 11, explanation III) or constructively (section 11, explanation IV) in the former suit
2. The former suit must have been a suit between the same parties under whom they or any of them claim. Explanation VI of Section 11 must be read with this condition
3. The parties as aforesaid must have litigated under the same title in the former suit
4. The court which decided the former suit must have been a court competent to try the subsequent suit of the suit in which such issue has been subsequently raised. Explanation II of section 11 is to be read with condition
5. The matter directly and substantially in issue in the subsequent suit must have been heard and finally decided by the court in the first suit. Explanation V of section 11 is to be read with this condition
In a survey of university students, 64 had taken Drama course, 94 had taken Dance course, 58 had taken a Singing course, 28 had taken Drama and singing course, 26 had taken Drama and dance course, 22 had taken Dance and singing course, and 14 had taken all the three courses. Find how many have taken only one course?
Four passenger in a train find that they from an interesting group .Two of them are lawyers and the other two are doctor .Two of them speak Bengoli and the other two speak Hindi and no two of the same profession speak the same language . They also find two of them are Christions and two are muslims and non two of the same religion speak the same language. The Hindi speaking doctor is a Christian . Then which of the following statement logically follows ?
. . . . . . . . may empower any magistrate of the second class to take cognizance under section 190(1) of the code of criminal procedure 1973, of such offences as are within his competence to inquire into or try.
When there is dispute between two courts relating to exercise of jurisdiction in a criminal matter and said courts are under subordination of different High Courts, the matter shall be decided under section 186 of Criminal Procedure Code by the
Article 74(2) the question whether any, and if so what, advice was tendered by Ministers to the President shall not be inquired into in any court.
In the light of article 74(2) and decided cases, test the correctness of the following statements:
Statement 1. The Courts are justified in probing as to whether there was any material on the basis of which the advice was given, and whether it was relevant for such advice and the President could have acted on it.
Statement 2. When the Courts undertake an enquiry into the existence of such material, the prohibition contained in article 74(2) does not negate their right to know about the factual existence of any such material.