Practice paper — BNSS Chapter XV — Conditions Requisite For Initiation Of Proceedings

1.Which of the following is NOT a mode by which a Magistrate may take cognizance under Section 210(1) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023?

• (A) Upon receiving a complaint of facts (including complaints under a special law)
• (B) Upon a police report (submitted in any mode including electronic mode)
• (C) Upon information received from any person other than a police officer, or upon his own knowledge
• (D) Upon direction of the High Court

2.Who may empower a Magistrate of the second class to take cognizance under Section 210(2)?

• (A) The Chief Judicial Magistrate
• (B) The District Magistrate
• (C) The High Court
• (D) The State Government

3.Can a Magistrate of the second class take cognizance under Section 210(1) of any offence without being specially empowered under subsection (2)?

• (A) Yes — if the offence is minor and within local limits
• (B) No — only if he is specially empowered under sub‑section (2)
• (C) Yes — he has the same automatic power as a Magistrate of the first class
• (D) Only if a police report has been filed

4.Does Section 210(1)(b) permit a Magistrate to take cognizance on a police report submitted in electronic mode?

• (A) Yes — the police report may be submitted in any mode including electronic mode
• (B) Yes — but only if a printed copy is filed in court later
• (C) No — electronic reports are excluded
• (D) Only if the accused is present when the electronic report is submitted

5.According to Section 211, when must the accused be informed that he is entitled to have the case inquired into or tried by another Magistrate?

• (A) At the time of taking cognizance
• (B) Before any evidence is taken
• (C) At the conclusion of the trial
• (D) When the Chief Judicial Magistrate gives the direction

6.Who is empowered under Section 211 to specify the other Magistrate to whom the case shall be transferred if the accused objects?

• (A) The Chief Judicial Magistrate
• (B) The Magistrate taking cognizance
• (C) The Sessions Judge
• (D) The High Court

7.If there are multiple accused and only one of them objects to further proceedings before the Magistrate taking cognizance, what does Section 211 mandate?

• (A) Transfer occurs only if all accused object
• (B) Transfer occurs only if a majority of accused object
• (C) Transfer occurs if any of the accused objects
• (D) Transfer occurs only if the objecting accused is the first accused

8.Does Section 211 create an automatic transfer of the case simply because the accused is informed of the entitlement to have the case tried by another Magistrate?

• (A) Yes — informing alone causes automatic transfer
• (B) No — transfer follows only if the accused (or any accused) objects to further proceedings before the Magistrate taking cognizance
• (C) No — transfer requires the accused to apply in writing to the High Court
• (D) Yes — but only if the Chief Judicial Magistrate concurs after informing

9.Under Section 212(1) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, who may make over a case for inquiry or trial after taking cognizance of an offence?

• (A) The Chief Judicial Magistrate
• (B) Any Magistrate
• (C) The Sessions Judge
• (D) The District Collector

10.Which of the following best describes a Magistrate who may make over a case under Section 212(2)?

• (A) Any Magistrate subordinate to the Chief Judicial Magistrate
• (B) A Magistrate of the first class empowered in this behalf by the Chief Judicial Magistrate
• (C) Only the Chief Judicial Magistrate
• (D) Any Metropolitan Magistrate without restriction

11.If a Magistrate of the first class, empowered by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, makes over a case under Section 212(2), may the Magistrate to whom the case is made over hold the inquiry or trial?

• (A) No, only the empowering Magistrate may hold the trial
• (B) Only with further permission from the Chief Judicial Magistrate
• (C) Only for inquiry but not trial
• (D) Yes; thereupon such Magistrate may hold the inquiry or trial

12.Which limitation applies to the power under Section 212(2) when a Magistrate of the first class makes over a case?

• (A) They may make over the case only to those other competent Magistrates specified by the Chief Judicial Magistrate by general or special order
• (B) They may make over the case to any competent Magistrate of their choice
• (C) They may only make over cases involving bailable offences
• (D) They may only make over to a Magistrate superior to them

13.According to Section 213 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, what is required for a Court of Session to take cognizance of an offence as a Court of original jurisdiction?

• (A) The case must be committed to it by a Magistrate under this Sanhita.
• (B) A police report (FIR) must be filed directly in the Court of Session.
• (C) A written order from the High Court authorising original cognizance.
• (D) A private complaint filed by the victim in the Court of Session.

14.Does Section 213 permit a Court of Session to take original cognizance of an offence without committal by a Magistrate if another law expressly allows it?

• (A) Yes, if the other law expressly provides otherwise, the Court of Session may take original cognizance.
• (B) No, the Court of Session can never take original cognizance without committal by a Magistrate.
• (C) Yes, but only if the High Court gives prior permission.
• (D) Only if the committal is later ratified by a Magistrate under this Sanhita.

15.If a Magistrate acting under this Sanhita commits a case to the Court of Session, may the Court of Session take cognizance of that offence as a Court of original jurisdiction?

• (A) Yes, after committal by a Magistrate under this Sanhita the Court of Session may take original cognizance.
• (B) No, the Court of Session still cannot take original cognizance even after committal.
• (C) Yes, but only if the accused waives the right to be tried by Magistrate.
• (D) Only if the Public Prosecutor files a separate petition in the Court of Session.

16.The Sanhita itself contains an express provision allowing the Court of Session to take original cognizance in certain offences without committal by a Magistrate. Does Section 213 prohibit that express provision in the Sanhita?

• (A) Yes; Section 213 flatly prohibits original cognizance except by Magistrate committal.
• (B) No; Section 213 expressly permits the Sanhita to provide otherwise, so such a provision would be valid.
• (C) Yes; only "any other law" can create exceptions, not the Sanhita itself.
• (D) No; but only if the High Court approves the Sanhita's provision.

17.Under Section 214, who may make over cases to an Additional Sessions Judge for trial?

• (A) The Sessions Judge of the division, by general or special order
• (B) The High Court, by general order
• (C) The District Magistrate, by special order
• (D) The Sessions Judge of any other division

18.Which types of orders can the Sessions Judge of the division use to make over cases to an Additional Sessions Judge?

• (A) Only special order
• (B) Either general or special order
• (C) Only general order
• (D) Only by direction of the High Court

19.According to the provision, which cases is an Additional Sessions Judge required to try?

• (A) Any case arising in the division
• (B) Only cases assigned by the District Magistrate
• (C) Only civil cases as directed by the High Court
• (D) Such cases as the Sessions Judge of the division makes over to him or as the High Court directs by special order

20.What does the phrase 'shall try such cases' indicate about the Additional Sessions Judge's obligation under Section 214?

• (A) It is permissive; the Additional Sessions Judge may choose whether to try those cases
• (B) It imposes a duty on the Additional Sessions Judge to try the cases made over or directed to him
• (C) It permanently transfers jurisdiction in those matters away from the Sessions Judge
• (D) It requires prior approval from the High Court before trial

21.When an offence listed in Section 215(1)(b)(i) (e.g. sections 229–233, 236, 237, 242–248, 267) is alleged to have been committed in relation to any proceeding in any Court, who may file the written complaint for cognizance according to the provision?

• (A) The public servant concerned or his authorised subordinate.
• (B) That Court, an officer of that Court authorised in writing, or some other Court to which that Court is subordinate.
• (C) Any prosecutor representing the State in the proceeding.
• (D) Any judge of any Court irrespective of subordination.

22.For offences under Section 215(1)(a)(ii)–(iii) (abelment of, attempt to commit, or criminal conspiracy to commit offences in sections 206–223 excluding 209), when may a Court take cognizance?

• (A) Whenever the victim files a complaint in writing.
• (B) Only when a police officer files a report under investigation.
• (C) Only on a complaint in writing of the public servant concerned, or of a public servant to whom he is administratively subordinate, or of a public servant authorised by the concerned public servant.
• (D) On a complaint by any public servant in the same department.

23.Which of the following best describes the offences referred to in Section 215(1)(b)(ii)?

• (A) Any offence under sections 229–233 when committed during court proceedings.
• (B) Offences under sections 206–223 when committed outside Court proceedings.
• (C) Offences punishable under sub-section (2) of section 340 only.
• (D) An offence described in sub-section (1) of section 336, or punishable under sub-section (2) of section 340 or section 342, when alleged to have been committed in respect of a document produced or given in evidence in a proceeding in any Court.

24.In Section 215(1)(a), the phrase "some other public servant to whom he is administratively subordinate" most nearly means which of the following?

• (A) A public servant who is subordinate in rank to the public servant concerned.
• (B) A public servant who is the administrative superior (i.e., to whom the concerned public servant is subordinate).
• (C) Any public servant working in the same office irrespective of hierarchy.
• (D) A public servant authorised by a minister to act in the matter.

25.A complaint under Section 216 must relate to an offence under which provision?

• (A) Section 232 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023
• (B) Section 216 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023
• (C) Any offence under the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023
• (D) Any offence under any Act

26.Can a non-witness third party file a complaint under Section 216 in relation to an offence under section 232 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita?

• (A) No — only witnesses may file
• (B) Only if they are the victim
• (C) Yes — any other person may file
• (D) Only with prior court permission

27.Does Section 216 permit filing complaints for offences other than those under section 232 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita?

• (A) Yes — it extends to any section of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita
• (B) Yes — it covers any offence under any Act
• (C) Only with leave of court
• (D) No — it is limited to offences under section 232 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita

28.Under Section 217(1) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, a court may take cognizance of an offence punishable under Chapter VII or specified sections of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita only with which of the following?

• (A) Previous sanction of the Central Government or of the State Government
• (B) Previous sanction of the District Magistrate
• (C) No previous sanction is required
• (D) Sanction of the High Court

29.According to Section 217(3), when is the written consent of the State Government or the District Magistrate required before courts can take cognizance of a criminal conspiracy punishable under sub‑section (2) of section 61?

• (A) Written consent is required only for conspiracies to commit offences punishable with death, imprisonment for life or rigorous imprisonment for two years or upwards
• (B) Written consent is required for conspiracies other than those to commit offences punishable with death, imprisonment for life or rigorous imprisonment for two years or upwards
• (C) Written consent is never required for any criminal conspiracy under sub‑section (2) of section 61
• (D) Written consent is required only if the Central Government so directs

30.Under Section 217(2), whose previous sanction is required for courts to take cognizance of offences punishable under section 197 or sub‑sections (2) or (3) of section 353?

• (A) Central Government or State Government only
• (B) District Magistrate only
• (C) Central Government, State Government or District Magistrate
• (D) Chief Judicial Magistrate

31.What is the effect of the proviso to Section 217(3)?

• (A) It requires the consent of the Central Government in addition to the State Government or District Magistrate
• (B) It mandates a preliminary investigation before consent can be given
• (C) It states that where the criminal conspiracy is one to which the provisions of section 215 apply, no such consent is necessary
• (D) It limits the exception only to conspiracies punishable with death, imprisonment for life or rigorous imprisonment for two years or upwards

32.Under Section 218(1) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, when can a Court take cognizance of an offence allegedly committed by a Judge, Magistrate or a public servant not removable except with the sanction of the Government?

• (A) Only with the previous sanction of the appropriate Government (subject to Lokpal/Lokayukta exceptions)
• (B) Without any sanction if departmental inquiry is pending
• (C) Only after the Lok Sabha or State Legislature gives permission
• (D) Only after conviction in a criminal trial in a lower court

33.If the Government receives a request for sanction under Section 218(1), within what period must it take a decision before sanction is deemed to have been accorded?

• (A) 60 days
• (B) 90 days
• (C) 120 days
• (D) 180 days

34.During a period when a Proclamation under clause (1) of Article 356 is in force in a State, an offence is alleged against a person who was employed in connection with the affairs of that State at the time of the offence. Who must grant prior sanction for prosecution under Section 218(1)?

• (A) The State Government
• (B) The Central Government
• (C) The Chief Justice of the High Court
• (D) The Lokayukta of the State

35.A State has issued a notification under Section 218(3) so that the State Government would normally grant sanction for members of forces charged with maintenance of public order. If the alleged offence by such a member occurred while a Proclamation under Article 356 was in force in the State, who must grant prior sanction for prosecution?

• (A) The State Government (as per the notification under subsection (3))
• (B) The Central Government
• (C) The State Lokayukta
• (D) The President of India

36.Under Section 219(1) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, when can a Court take cognizance of an offence punishable under sections 81 to 84 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023?

• (A) Whenever a police report is filed by an investigating officer.
• (B) Only upon a complaint made by some person aggrieved by the offence.
• (C) Suo motu by the Court even without any complaint.
• (D) Only on a complaint filed by a public prosecutor.

37.Section 219(6) sets a time limit for cognizance of an offence under section 64 where it consists of sexual intercourse by a man with his own wife who is under eighteen years of age. What is that limitation?

• (A) The Court shall not take cognizance if more than six months have elapsed since the offence.
• (B) The Court may take cognizance at any time; there is no time limit.
• (C) The Court shall not take cognizance if more than one year has elapsed from the date of the commission of the offence.
• (D) The Court shall not take cognizance if more than two years have elapsed since the offence.

38.Which of the following is required by Section 219(4) for an authorisation allowing another person to make a complaint on behalf of a husband serving in the Armed Forces?

• (A) An oral authorisation given by the husband in the presence of the Commanding Officer.
• (B) A written authorisation signed only by the husband, with no countersignature.
• (C) A written authorisation signed by the husband and verified by the local police.
• (D) A written authorisation signed or attested by the husband, countersigned by his Commanding Officer, and accompanied by that Officer's certificate that leave of absence cannot be granted.

39.Which statement correctly reflects the distinction made by Section 219(2) in relation to offences punishable under section 84 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023?

• (A) No person other than the husband of the woman shall be deemed to be aggrieved by any offence punishable under section 84, so relatives listed under Section 219(1)(c) cannot be treated as aggrieved for section 84 offences.
• (B) Relatives listed under Section 219(1)(c) (e.g., father, mother, brother) are deemed aggrieved along with the husband for offences under section 84.
• (C) Any person may be deemed aggrieved for section 84 offences if the Court grants leave under Section 219(1).
• (D) Only a public prosecutor may file a complaint in respect of offences under section 84.

40.Under Section 220, when may a Court take cognizance of an offence punishable under section 85 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023?

• (A) Only upon a police report of facts constituting the offence, or upon a complaint by the person aggrieved or specified relatives (or, with leave, by other persons related by blood, marriage or adoption).
• (B) Only upon a police report of facts constituting the offence.
• (C) Only upon a complaint by any person (related or unrelated) with the leave of the Court.
• (D) A Court may take cognizance without a police report or complaint.

41.Can a friend of the aggrieved person file a complaint under Section 220 with the leave of the Court?

• (A) No — only persons related by blood, marriage or adoption may file even with the leave of the Court.
• (B) Yes — any person can file with the leave of the Court.
• (C) Yes — if there is no police report, a friend can file without leave.
• (D) Only if the friend is the aggrieved person's legal representative.

42.Does the mother of the aggrieved person need the leave of the Court to file a complaint under Section 220?

• (A) Yes, the mother must obtain leave because only the person aggrieved may complain without leave.
• (B) Yes, unless there is a police report.
• (C) No, but only if the police report supports the complaint.
• (D) No — the mother is explicitly listed among relatives who may complain without leave.

43.Is a police report always mandatory before a Court can take cognizance of an offence under section 85 as per Section 220?

• (A) Yes — a police report is always required before cognizance.
• (B) No — the Court may take cognizance either on a police report or on a complaint by the person aggrieved or specified relatives (or with leave by other related persons).
• (C) Yes — unless the complaint is by a father or mother, in which case a police report is not needed.
• (D) No — cognizance can be taken only on a private complaint without any police report.

44.What does Section 221 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 primarily prohibit?

• (A) A court from taking cognizance of an offence under section 67 where the persons are in a marital relationship
• (B) A court from trying any offence between spouses under any section
• (C) A court from accepting complaints from wives against husbands
• (D) A court from ordering investigation in matrimonial disputes

45.If the wife files a complaint against the husband for an offence under section 67, when may a court take cognizance according to Section 221?

• (A) Always, once the wife files a complaint
• (B) Only if procedural formalities are completed by the police
• (C) Only upon prima facie satisfaction of the facts which constitute the offence after such a complaint
• (D) Only if the husband admits the offence

46.Can a court take cognizance of an offence under section 67 in a marital relationship based on a complaint by a third party (not the wife) under Section 221?

• (A) Yes, any complainant may trigger cognizance
• (B) Yes, but only if the third party is a close relative
• (C) No, unless both spouses consent
• (D) No, the provision permits cognizance only upon a complaint by the wife against the husband and prima facie satisfaction

47.If the husband files a complaint against the wife for an offence under section 67 and the parties are in a marital relationship, can a court take cognizance under Section 221?

• (A) No; the provision permits cognizance only upon a complaint by the wife against the husband and prima facie satisfaction
• (B) Yes; the husband’s complaint is sufficient if the facts appear true
• (C) Yes; either spouse’s complaint suffices provided the court is satisfied
• (D) No; courts can never take cognizance in marital relationships under any circumstance

48.What is the time limit prescribed by Section 222 for a Court of Session to take cognizance under sub‑section (2)?

• (A) Within three months from the date of the offence
• (B) Within one year from the date of the offence
• (C) Within six months from the date on which the offence is alleged to have been committed
• (D) No time limit is prescribed

49.Under the proviso to sub‑section (1), another person may, with the leave of the Court, make a complaint on behalf of the aggrieved person in which of the following situations?

• (A) Only where the aggrieved person is a child
• (B) Only where the aggrieved person is of unsound mind
• (C) Only where the aggrieved person is a woman who, by local custom, ought not to be compelled to appear in public
• (D) All of the above situations listed in the proviso

50.For a complaint under sub‑section (2) by the Public Prosecutor against a Minister of a State Government, whose previous sanction is required under sub‑section (4)?

• (A) The Central Government
• (B) The State Government
• (C) The Governor
• (D) The Court of Session