SHORT QUESTIONS – 2.

5 MARKS
I. ‘Constitutional mechanism of separation of power’ and ‘constitution of criminal
courts’
II. Mr. Kachori Lal has shared informed information with police station at Mithai Chowk
that he was travelling from Barfi Chowk to Mithai Chowk by train and his wallet was
found lost when he deboarded the train. Police refused to acknowledge his
information on the ground that Barfi Chowk does not fall in their territorial
jurisdiction. Justify the police action. And, suggest remedy for Mr. Kachori Lal.
III. ‘Police power to take presumption as to guilt’ and ‘rights of the accused’
IV. In an investigation, there were multiple accused. Mr. Sangyan was neither named
in the FIR, nor he was treated & examined as accused by the police. He was served
notice u/s 160 of the CrPC, and was subsequently examined by the Investigation
Officer, but only as a witness. In police report, he was named as accused. Now,
Mr. Sangyan has challenged the police-report before the High Court on the ground
that he can’t be named as accused unless investigation was not conducted against
him. The High Court has quashed petition of Mr. Sangyan. Justify.
V. Reason, Purpose, & Object of Trial
VI. Mr. Sahayak Satra, Assistant Session Judge, was conducting a trial on an offfence
which was punishable up-to 10 yrs. During trial, charges were altered to an offence
which was punishable up-to 14 yrs. In revision against the new charge order, the
High Court has dismissed the same. Justify.
VII. Procedural law on ‘reference’: Restriction on unbridled powers of the trial court
VIII. Ms. Janpad Aadhish, JMSC, at Terror Vihar sub-division in state of Puttar Pradesh,
has convicted Ms. Mayoos Kumari for committing theft at the property of Ms.
Ameeri. The property of theft was never recovered and Ms. Ameeri, a poor peasant,
suffers loss of big amount. Mr. Mayoos Kumari is recorded to have huge bank
balance. How you will deliver justice (here, limited to the extent of question of
compensation) in favour of prosecution as well as victim, both?

LONG QUESTIONS – 10 MARKS

1. Justify the constitutional validity of police power to arrest in case of preventive
detention.
OR
The law-makers have established the criminal justice mechanism in a way that, for the
purpose of delivery of absolute & complete justice, it adapts to the situation as & when
it demands; though, sometimes it goes all opposite to what it is. This shifting from
adversarial mechanism to inquisitorial mechanism while ensuring that very
 fundamentals of criminal law remain intact is beauty of the criminal justice mechanism
in India. Elaborate the statement.

2. Read the following hypothetical facts, and answer the questions that follow:
Mr. Gatimaan Phone was arrested for committing online criminal misappropriation of
funds from bank accounts of no. of persons. All transactions were done from his laptop
that was kept secure with eye-retina impression of Mr. Gatimaan. Further, his laptop
was always kept within a wooden almirah that was password protected. At being asked,
he refused to share the password of the almirah on the ground of ‘right against self-
incrimination.’
During bail proceedings, Mr. Gatimaan had filed bail application u/s 439 of the Code, it
was observed by Ms. Danditaa Adhikaari (Judge, High Court), that nothing much has
been done in the investigation. Hence, it was ordered by the judge asking the
investigation agency that ‘why an order of taking password and retina from the accused
should not be passed by the High Court’? It was further observed by the ASJ that,
though life-threat was given by some unknown persons to Mr. Gatimaan, still no
investigation was conducted in r/o the given fact.
Considering the above facts, Mr. Danditaa had passed following orders: (i) retina of the
accused be used to open the laptop, (ii) use reasonable force to get password of the
almirah from the accused, (iii) investigation on life-threat allegedly given to the accused
be initiated.
I. Stating ‘nature of above judicial order’, answer legal validity of above three
orders.
Delimit your answer to the point of procedural law on investigation, excluding
‘right to remain silent of the accused.
II. Power of the High Court, u/s 482, to pass order stating how to conduct
investigation

OR
Mr. Deewan Shayar was madly & deeply in awe for Mr. Panch Pyaara, a kind of same-
sex platonic relation. Mr. Pyaara, under family pressure, was getting married to a girl,
Ms. Heroine. After getting abandoned by Mr. Pyaara, Mr. Deewan started feeling alone.
He spoke to Ms. Heroine about his relation with Mr. Pyaara. Ms. Heroine broke up with
intended marriage with Mr. Pyaara. She shared her story on a social media platform,
and committed suicide.
On reading story of Ms. Heroine, Mr. Aadha Adhura, JMFC, took cognizance of the matter
and summoned Mr. Deewan Shayar to depose before him as complainant, considering
Mr. Pyaara to be accused as abettor in suicide of Ms. Heroine. When Mr. Deewan did not
 turn up, NBW was issued by the JMFC. When Mr. Deewan appeared before the JMFC,
he refused to depose exercising ‘right to remain silent’. It is so recorded by Mr. Aadha
Adhura that Mr. Pyaara has refused to depose. Further, issue of process of summoning
the accused was initiated by Mr. Aadha Adhura though Mr. Pyaara was not residing in
his territorial jurisdiction.
I. In light of the above facts & circumstances, answer the following questions:
II. Power of the Magistrate to take suo-motu cognizance and initiating magisterial
inquiry
III. Power of the Magistrate to issue NBW in lieu of Summon ordering Mr. Pyaara to
appear before him
IV. Right to remain silent of a person during Magisterial Inquiry
V. Validity of summoning process initiated against Mr. Pyaara

3. Like many other exceptions, trial before high court is an exception laid down under
Cr.P..C. Justify that (i) how this exception is fair between & among trial procedural laws,
(ii) reasonable for the accused in light of the fact that appeal / revision opportunities
get curtailed when trial is conducted by the High Court.
OR
It is reported to the police that Mr. Sarkaari Babu, Secretary to the state government
of Baharkhand, has taken bribe of Rs. 1 cr. from Mr. Imaan Imandaar. It is alleged that
this bribe is taken for ensuring appointment of Mr. Imaan as sweeper in the O/o Ministry
of Cleanliness & Anti-Corruption. It is further alleged that out of Rs. 1 cr., Rs. 10 lakh
was given for ensuring that Mr. Sarkaari Babu will convince his brother to sell his
property to a local builder & developer. It is further reported that Mr. Sarkaari Babu
refuses to return Rs. 10 lakh to Mr. Imaan Imaandaar. Information is recorded in
general diary at Lapataganj Police Station. When no further action was taken by the
police, the informant got his complaint registered before the Metropolitan Magistrate,
Lapataganj. Investigation was completed by the local police, and police report was
submitted accordingly. All necessary procedural compliances were ensured by all
competent authorities at different stages of the matter. Finally, Mr. Imaan Imaandaar
was convicted by the trial court.
In light of the above facts & circumstances, do the following as instructed:
I. Procedural compliances on investigation
II. Procedural compliance on cognizance
III. Procedural compliance on warrant case trial

4. Victim compensation scheme, as laid down under Cr.P.C., is recognition of the fact that
the state has failed to ensure protection of rights of its citizens. Further, it has ensured
that balance is made between ‘duty of the perpetrator’ and ‘duty of the state’ towards
the victim. Elaborate.
OR
Mr. Bhola Apraadhi was convicted by the JMFC for committing an offence punishable
with imprisonment between 03 yrs. – 07 yrs. The matter was listed for ‘hearing
arguments on sentencing’; prior to that, Mr. Bhola Apraadhi has challenged his
conviction through revision petition before the CoS. Mr. Kroor Nyayadhipati, the Addl.
Sessions Judge hearing the revision, has admitted the revision. Further, Mr. Kroor has
sent the matter to the High Court under law related to reference. Following question of
law is framed under reference:
I. Can a Magistrate try a matter in which he can give barely minimum punishment
which is none other than putting restriction on his discretion on the issue of
sentencing?
II. Can the court of revision take up revision against conviction though the right to
appeal will accrue in future?
III. Can the court of revision exercise judicial power of reference as prescribed u/s
395 of the Code?
IV. Besides above questions, answer the following question:
Can the court of reference frame question for seeking answer on its own powers
as laid down u/s 395 of the Code?