Assam Judicial Services Prelims Mock Test - 5 - Judiciary Exams MCQ

Slander is to work on lines so as to defame the character and image of a person. Thus, defame is the nearest synonym to slander.   
Example- During elections, there is a fest of defamation between politicians.

Atheist' is a person who strongly disbelieves in the existence of God. Option 3 is thus the correct answer.
All other alternatives have no relation to the given phrase. Stubborn stands for a person who is adamant, bogus is something that is not to be taken seriously and devout is a person who believes in God strongly.

The correct answer is Option 4. The correct spelling is ‘embarrassment’. 

'To abstain' is to stay away from some habit or some decision. None of the other options depict the same meaning.
Thus the correct answer is option 3.
Example- The leaders abstained from voting on the particular topic.

The sentence has no error.

• The hardness of water is that characteristic that prevents the formation of sufficient leather or foam.
• It occurs due to the presence of carbonates, bicarbonates, sulphates, chlorides of calcium and magnesium(Ca and Mg).
• The hardness of water is due to the presence of dissolved minerals of Ca2+, Mg2+, Al3+, Iron and other heavy elements. Specifically due to Calcium Sulphate, Calcium Bicarbonate, Calcium chloride, Magnesium Sulphate, Magnesium Bicarbonate and Magnesium chloride.​

Given:

6% of √(3x) = 0.18

Concept:

Concept of percentage. It is calculated on the basis of 100

For example x% means x out of 100

Calculation:

According to the question,

⇒ 6% of √(3x) = 0.18

⇒ (6/100) × √(3x) = 18/100

⇒ √(3x) = 3

⇒ 3x = 3²

⇒ 3x = 9

⇒ x = 3

∴ Required value of x is 3.

Checking Statement I:

Using the above reference, we get the following arrangement:

Clearly, W is sitting second to the right of U.

Hence data in statement I is sufficient to answer the question.

Checking Statement II:

Using the above references, we get the following arrangement:

Clearly, W is sitting second to the right of U.

Hence data in statement II is sufficient to answer the question.

Here, the data in either Statement I or II alone is sufficient to answer the question.

Hence, Option C is correct.

Section 403 of the Indian Penal Code reads as:
Whoever dishonestly mis-appropriates or converts to his own use any movable property, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both. A finds a purse with money, not knowing to whom it belongs; he afterwards discovers that it belongs to B, and appropriates it to his own use. A is guilty of an offence under this section i.e. criminal misappropriation.

Brain Mapping test, Narco Analysis or the Truth Serum test are the main three tests that have recently been developed for extracting confessions. These psychoanalytical tests are also used to interpret the behaviour of the criminal (or the suspect) and corroborate the investigating officers' observations. It has been alleged that Narco Analysis is a blatant violation of the Article 20(3) of the Indian Constitution. However, in this age of ever increasing crime rate, such tests often render a lot of help to the investigation agencies and hence, it is high time to blend Article 20 (3) with the Narco Analysis.
Also, Sri D Prakash Reddy, learned Senior Counsel contended that by permitting the investigating agency to conduct Lie Detector test and Brain Mapping test on the accused will amount to violation of personal liberty guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution, and the permission granted is not in accordance with the procedure established under law. The Supreme Court in Selvi v. State of Karnataka held that compulsory Brain-Mapping and Polygraph tests and Narco Analysis were in violation of Articles 20 and 21 of the Constitution.

Time limitation for filing application to became legal representative due to death of defendant or respondent is Ninety days, from the death of defendant or respondent.

According to Section 74 of the Evidence Act, public documents are the documents forming the acts or records of the acts of the sovereign authority, official bodies and tribunals, and of public offices, legislative, judicial and executive of any part of India or of the commonwealth, or of a foreign country.

According to Section 64 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, the contents of documents may be proved either by primary or by secondary evidence.
Primary evidence means that the document itself is produced for the inspection of the Court. Where a document is executed in several parts, each part is primary evidence of the document. Where a document is executed in counterpart, each counterpart being executed by one or some of the parties only, each counterpart is primary evidence as against the parties executing it.
Secondary evidence includes-
(a) certified copies given under the provisions hereinafter contained
(b) copies made from the original by mechanical processes which in themselves ensure the accuracy of the copy and copies compared with such copies
(c) copies made from or compared with the original
(d) counterparts of documents as against the parties who did not execute them
(e) oral accounts of the contents of a document given by some person who has himself seen it

In criminal law, irresistible impulse is a defence by excuse, in this case some sort of insanity, in which the defendants argue that they should not be held criminally liable for their actions that broke the law, because they could not control those actions, even if they knew them to be wrong. Usually, when there is adequate capacity to distinguish between right and wrong, the mere presence of an irresistible impulse would not excuse liability. Irresistible impulse is not incorporated under insanity because it does not fall within the ambit of Section 84 of the Indian Penal Code.

The doctrine of colourable legislation refers to the question of competency of the legislature while enacting a provision of law. This maxim implies that "when anything is prohibited directly, it is also prohibited indirectly". So, the doctrine becomes applicable whenever a legislation seeks to do in an indirect manner what it cannot do directly. If the impugned legislation falls within the competence of legislature, the question of doing something indirectly, which cannot be done directly, does not arise.

Order 35 Rule 1 deals with plaint in interpleader suits in the code of civil procedure. It reads as:
In every suit of interpleader the plaint shall, in addition to the other statements necessary for plaints, state
(a) that the plaintiff claims no interest in the subject-matter in dispute other than for charges or costs;
(b) the claims made by the defendants severally; and
(c) that there is no collusion between the plaintiff and any of the defendants.

Whether evidence can be recorded by video conferencing was decided in the leading case of State of Maharashtra Vs. Prafull B. Desai. In a path breaking development, the Supreme Court held that a trial judge could record evidence of witnesses staying abroad through video conferencing. Interpreting Section 273 of the Criminal Procedure Code in the light of technological advancements, a bench comprising Justice S. N. Variava and Justice B. N. Agrawal said that recording of evidence through video conferencing would be perfectly legal.

The concept of 'privity of contract' was rejected in the case of Donoghue v. Stevenson. In this case, a friend of Mrs. Donoghue bought her a bottle of ginger beer, which contained the partially decomposed remains of a snail. Since the contract was between her friend and the shop owner, Mrs. Donoghue could not sue under the contract, but it was established that the manufacturer was in breach of a duty of care owed to her. Accordingly, she was awarded damages in the tort of negligence for having suffered gastroenteritis and "nervous shock".

Section 6 of Evidence Act states that facts which, though not in issue, are so connected with a fact in issue as to form part of the same transaction, are relevant, whether they occurred at the same time and place or at different times and places. The principal of law embodied in Section 6 is usually known as the doctrine of res gestae. Facts which may be proved, as part of res gestae, must be facts other than those in issue, but must be connected with it.

Vinay Chandra Mishra, in re; In this case, a senior advocate, on being asked a question in the court, started shouting at the judge and said that no question could have been put to him. He threatened to get the judge transferred or see that impeachment motion is brought against him in Parliament. He further said that he has turned up many Judges and created a good scene in the Court. He asked the judge to follow the practice of this Court. He wanted to convey that admission is as a course and no arguments are heard, at this stage.

The correct answer is On Foreign Contracts

Key Points

Section 11 of the Limitation Act addresses suits initiated in areas falling under the jurisdiction of this Act for contracts formed in the State of Jammu and Kashmir or a foreign nation. Such suits are bound by the limitation rules outlined in this Act.

Furthermore, no limitation rule in effect in the State of Jammu and Kashmir or a foreign country can serve as a defense in a lawsuit filed in the mentioned territories for a contract made in that State or in a foreign nation, except under specific conditions:

(a) The rule has led to the extinguishment of the contract.

 (b) The parties were residents of that State or the foreign country throughout the period stipulated by the aforementioned rule.

Section 119 in The Indian Evidence Act, 1872:
Dumb witnesses — A witness who is unable to speak may give his evidence in any other manner in which he can make it intelligible, as by writing or by signs; but such writing must be written and the signs made in open Court. Evidence so given shall be deemed oral evidence.