सं Samvidhan
Or take it online, timed →
संSamvidhan

Practice paper — BNSS Chapter XXVII — Provisions As To Accused Persons Of Unsound Mind

50 questions · answer key at the end · no time limit · 59 more on the site

Scan to practise online

samvidhan.co.in

  1. 1.Under Section 367(1) BNSA 2023, if a Magistrate holding an inquiry has reason to believe the accused is of unsound mind, who shall the Magistrate cause to examine the accused initially?

    • (A) The civil surgeon of the district or such other medical officer as the State Government may direct
    • (B) A psychiatrist or clinical psychologist of a Government hospital or medical college
    • (C) The Medical Board constituted under the proviso to sub-section (2)
    • (D) The head of the psychiatry unit in the nearest Government hospital

  2. 2.If the civil surgeon finds the accused to be a person of unsound mind under Section 367(2), to whom must the civil surgeon refer the accused for care, treatment and prognosis?

    • (A) To the district magistrate for disposition
    • (B) To a psychiatrist or clinical psychologist of a Government hospital or Government medical college
    • (C) To the Medical Board specified in the proviso to sub-section (2) as first instance
    • (D) To a private psychiatrist engaged by the accused

  3. 3.Under Section 367(4), a Magistrate finds the accused to be of unsound mind and incapable of making a defence. After examining the prosecution evidence and hearing the accused's advocate but without questioning the accused, the Magistrate concludes no prima facie case is made out. What should the Magistrate do?

    • (A) Postpone the inquiry for psychiatric treatment
    • (B) Commit the accused to prison custody pending further orders
    • (C) Discharge the accused and deal with him in the manner provided under section 369
    • (D) Refer the matter to the High Court for directions

  4. 4.When the Magistrate is informed under sub-section (2) that the person is a person with intellectual disability, what is the Magistrate required to do if that intellectual disability renders the accused incapable of entering defence?

    • (A) Order closure of the inquiry and deal with the accused as provided under section 369
    • (B) Postpone the proceedings for treatment as per psychiatrist's opinion
    • (C) Discharge the accused only if no prima facie case is found
    • (D) Refer the accused to the Medical Board for appellate review

  5. 5.The proviso to Section 367(2) permits the accused to prefer an appeal before a Medical Board if aggrieved by the psychiatrist's or clinical psychologist's information. According to that proviso, which two persons shall constitute the Medical Board?

    • (A) The civil surgeon of the district and the head of psychiatry unit in the nearest Government hospital
    • (B) Two psychiatrists from any Government hospital chosen by the State Government
    • (C) The head of psychiatry unit in the nearest Government hospital and a faculty member in psychiatry in the nearest Government medical college
    • (D) A magistrate and a faculty member in psychiatry in the nearest Government medical college

  6. 6.When at the trial it appears that a person is of unsound mind and consequently incapable of making his defence, what is the Magistrate or Court required to do in the first instance?

    • (A) Immediately discharge the accused and close the case
    • (B) Try the fact of such unsoundness of mind and, if satisfied, record a finding and postpone further proceedings
    • (C) Refer the accused straightaway to a psychiatrist or clinical psychologist without any preliminary finding
    • (D) Proceed with the trial but appoint an amicus curiae to assist the accused

  7. 7.If the Court is informed that the accused is of unsound mind and determines the accused is incapable of entering defence, and after hearing the accused's advocate but without questioning the accused finds that no prima facie case is made out, what must the Court do?

    • (A) Postpone the trial for an indefinite period
    • (B) Order only medical treatment without any judicial order
    • (C) Discharge the accused and deal with him in the manner provided under section 369
    • (D) Proceed to convict the accused on the basis of prosecution evidence

  8. 8.If the accused is aggrieved by the information given by the psychiatrist or clinical psychologist to the Magistrate or Court, what remedy does the provision provide and what is the composition of that forum?

    • (A) File an appeal to the Sessions Court which will call for a fresh psychiatric report
    • (B) Apply to the High Court for habeas corpus
    • (C) Seek a second opinion from a private psychiatrist and place it on record
    • (D) Prefer an appeal before a Medical Board consisting of (a) head of psychiatry unit in the nearest Government hospital and (b) a faculty member in psychiatry in the nearest Government medical college

  9. 9.While determining under sub‑section (3) whether the unsoundness of mind renders the accused incapable of entering defence, is the Magistrate or Court permitted to question the accused?

    • (A) Yes, the Court must question the accused directly to test capacity
    • (B) No, the Court must not question the accused and must decide after hearing the advocate and examining the record of evidence
    • (C) Only if the psychiatrist or clinical psychologist gives express permission
    • (D) Only if the accused waives his right to silence and agrees to be questioned

  10. 10.Under which sections does Section 369 refer to a person being found incapable of entering defence by reason of unsoundness of mind or intellectual disability?

    • (A) Section 367 or section 368
    • (B) Section 365 or section 366
    • (C) Section 370 or section 371
    • (D) Section 362 only

  11. 11.When a person is found under section 367 or 368 to be incapable of entering defence, the Magistrate or Court shall order release on bail whether bail may be taken or not, provided which condition is met?

    • (A) That the accused is suffering from unsoundness of mind which mandates in-patient treatment and a friend undertakes care
    • (B) That the accused gives a written apology and undertakes counselling
    • (C) That the accused's unsoundness does not mandate in-patient treatment and a friend or relative undertakes to obtain regular out-patient psychiatric treatment and to prevent injury to self or others
    • (D) That the State Government issues a special pardon

  12. 12.If the Magistrate or Court is of the opinion that bail cannot be granted or an appropriate undertaking is not given, what must be ordered under Section 369(2)?

    • (A) Detain the accused in any public mental health establishment without regard to State rules
    • (B) Order the accused to be kept in a place where regular psychiatric treatment can be provided and report the action to the State Government
    • (C) Release the accused unconditionally
    • (D) Transfer the accused immediately to a residential facility for persons with unsoundness of mind or intellectual disability

  13. 13.If the Magistrate or Court, on the basis of medical opinion or opinion of a specialist, decides to order discharge of the accused as provided under sections 367 or 368, what additional requirement does Section 369(3)(a) explicitly impose for such release to be ordered?

    • (A) Immediate transfer to a residential facility for persons with unsoundness of mind
    • (B) Reporting the discharge to the State Government before release
    • (C) An undertaking by a friend or relative to provide out‑patient treatment
    • (D) Sufficient security that the accused shall be prevented from doing injury to himself or to any other person

  14. 14.Who is empowered by Section 370(1) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, to resume an inquiry or trial postponed under sections 367 or 368?

    • (A) The Magistrate or Court
    • (B) Only the Magistrate
    • (C) The Public Prosecutor
    • (D) The State Government

  15. 15.According to Section 370(1), when may the Magistrate or Court resume an inquiry or trial that was postponed under sections 367 or 368?

    • (A) Immediately after postponement
    • (B) At any time after the person concerned has ceased to be of unsound mind
    • (C) Only after a medical board certifies fitness
    • (D) Only after the appellate court gives permission

  16. 16.If an inquiry was postponed under section 368 and the accused remains of unsound mind, what does Section 370(1) imply about resuming the inquiry?

    • (A) The Magistrate may resume the inquiry despite the accused's unsound mind
    • (B) The Magistrate must first obtain a court of appeal's order to resume
    • (C) The Magistrate may not resume until the accused has ceased to be of unsound mind
    • (D) The inquiry automatically converts into a summary trial

  17. 17.Under Section 370(2), whose action produces the accused to the officer appointed by the Magistrate or Court so that the officer's certificate becomes receivable in evidence?

    • (A) A police officer
    • (B) The accused himself
    • (C) A family member of the accused
    • (D) The sureties for his appearance

  18. 18.If, when the accused appears before the Magistrate or Court, the Magistrate or Court considers him capable of making his defence, what does Section 371(1) provide should happen?

    • (A) The inquiry or trial shall proceed.
    • (B) Proceedings must be adjourned for medical examination.
    • (C) The accused shall be remanded for psychiatric evaluation before trial.
    • (D) The Magistrate must discharge the accused.

  19. 19.According to Section 371(2), if the Magistrate or Court considers the accused to be still incapable of making his defence, which provisions must the Magistrate or Court act according to?

    • (A) Section 367 or Section 368.
    • (B) Section 369 only.
    • (C) Section 370.
    • (D) Sections 363 and 364.

  20. 20.If the Magistrate or Court considers the accused still incapable of making his defence and the accused is found to be of unsound mind and consequently incapable, what does Section 371(2) require?

    • (A) The trial must continue despite the incapacity.
    • (B) The accused shall be dealt with in accordance with the provisions of Section 369.
    • (C) The matter must be returned for further inquiry under Section 367 only.
    • (D) The accused must be immediately acquitted.

  21. 21.An accused was initially considered incapable to make his defence and proceedings followed Section 367/368. Later the accused is again brought before the Magistrate and is now considered capable of making his defence. Under Section 371(1), what should happen next?

    • (A) The trial must restart from the preliminary stage.
    • (B) The Court must act under Section 367/368 again before proceeding.
    • (C) The inquiry or trial shall proceed.
    • (D) The case must be transferred to a higher court for determination.

  22. 22.If the Magistrate or Court considers the accused still incapable of making his defence, may the Magistrate immediately deal with the accused under Section 369 without first acting under Sections 367 or 368?

    • (A) Yes, Section 369 applies immediately whenever incapacity is found.
    • (B) Yes, but only if the prosecution agrees.
    • (C) No, the Magistrate must refer the matter to a higher court before Section 369 can apply.
    • (D) No, the Magistrate or Court must first act according to Section 367 or 368 and only if the accused is found of unsound mind and consequently incapable shall Section 369 be applied.

  23. 23.Under Section 372, when does the provision apply?

    • (A) When the accused appears to be of unsound mind at the time of inquiry or trial
    • (B) When the accused appears to be of sound mind at the time of inquiry or trial
    • (C) Only after a formal medical examination proves the accused is of sound mind
    • (D) Only if the alleged offence is triable by the Court of Session

  24. 24.If the accused appears to be of sound mind and there is reason to believe he committed an act which would have been an offence if he had been of sound mind, but the Magistrate is NOT satisfied that the accused was, at the time of the act, by reason of unsoundness incapable of knowing the nature of the act or that it was wrong, then under Section 372 the Magistrate should:

    • (A) Not proceed under this section (i.e., the statutory route in Section 372 does not apply)
    • (B) Proceed under Section 372 and commit the accused to the Court of Session
    • (C) Try the accused summary under Section 372 despite lack of satisfaction about incapacity
    • (D) Order confinement in a psychiatric facility under Section 372

  25. 25.When an accused appears to be of sound mind and the Magistrate is satisfied of the two factual elements required by Section 372, but the offence is triable by a Magistrate (not the Court of Session), Section 372 requires the Magistrate to:

    • (A) Commit the accused to the Court of Session in any event
    • (B) Defer all proceedings until a higher court directs
    • (C) Discharge the accused because the offence is not for the Court of Session
    • (D) Proceed with the case (i.e., deal with it at the Magistrate level) unless the accused ought to be tried by the Court of Session

  26. 26.Which statement correctly captures the apparent and actual mental condition required by Section 372?

    • (A) The accused must appear to be of unsound mind at the time of inquiry, even if he was of sound mind when the act was committed
    • (B) The accused must appear to be of sound mind at the time of inquiry or trial, although he may have been, at the time of the act, by reason of unsoundness incapable of knowing the nature of the act or that it was wrong
    • (C) The accused must both appear to be of unsound mind at inquiry and have been unsound at the time of the act
    • (D) The appearance of the accused's mind at inquiry is irrelevant; only mental state at the time of the act matters

  27. 27.When a person is acquitted on the ground of unsoundness of mind under Section 373, what must the finding specifically state?

    • (A) Whether he committed the act or not
    • (B) Whether he was punished for the offence
    • (C) The precise psychiatric diagnosis of the accused
    • (D) Whether the witnesses were truthful

  28. 28.Section 373 says acquittal may be on the ground that at the time alleged the person was, by reason of unsoundness of mind, incapable of which of the following?

    • (A) Only of knowing the consequences of the act
    • (B) Only of forming an intention to commit the act
    • (C) Of knowing the nature of the act or that it was wrong or contrary to law
    • (D) Only of distinguishing right from wrong in the future

  29. 29.May a court omit stating whether the accused "committed the act" when acquitting on the ground of unsoundness of mind under Section 373?

    • (A) Yes; the court may omit that detail
    • (B) Yes; but only if the medical evidence is inconclusive
    • (C) No; the court must merely describe the mental condition without saying if the act was committed
    • (D) No; the finding must state specifically whether he committed the act or not

  30. 30.Does Section 373 require the court to declare the accused "guilty" when it states whether he committed the act after acquittal on unsoundness of mind?

    • (A) Yes; stating commission is equivalent to declaring guilt
    • (B) No; it requires stating whether he committed the act, not that he is guilty
    • (C) Yes; because commission automatically implies legal responsibility
    • (D) No; it only requires obtaining a psychiatric report

  31. 31.When a Magistrate or Court finds that the accused committed the act alleged but lacked capacity (unsoundness of mind), what must the Magistrate or Court do under Section 374(1)?

    • (A) Convict and sentence the accused as if fully responsible.
    • (B) Discharge the accused without any further order.
    • (C) Order such person to be detained in safe custody or order delivery to any relative or friend.
    • (D) Remand the accused to police custody for further investigation.

  32. 32.Under Section 374(2), an order for detention of the accused in a public mental health establishment under clause (a) of sub-section (1) may be made only in accordance with:

    • (A) Such rules as the State Government may have made under the Mental Healthcare Act, 2017.
    • (B) Any directions of the Magistrate or Court in each case.
    • (C) Central Government guidelines on mental health.
    • (D) Consent of the accused's nearest relative.

  33. 33.Which of the following is required before a Magistrate or Court may order delivery of the accused to a relative or friend under Section 374(1)(b)?

    • (A) No formal application is needed; the Court may order delivery suo motu.
    • (B) There must be an application by the relative or friend and that person must give security to the Magistrate's satisfaction.
    • (C) Approval of the District Magistrate is required.
    • (D) Consent of the accused is the sole requirement.

  34. 34.To whom must the Magistrate or Court report the action taken under sub-section (1) of Section 374?

    • (A) The Central Government
    • (B) The local police superintendent
    • (C) The District Court
    • (D) The State Government

  35. 35.Under Section 375 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, who may empower an officer in charge of a jail to discharge specified functions?

    • (A) The State Government
    • (B) The Central Government
    • (C) The Inspector-General of Prisons
    • (D) The High Court

  36. 36.Who is the specific person that the State Government may empower under Section 375?

    • (A) Any police officer posted in the district
    • (B) The Inspector-General of Prisons
    • (C) The officer in charge of the jail in which a person is confined under section 369 or section 374
    • (D) The District Magistrate

  37. 37.Regarding the extent of functions that may be delegated under Section 375, which statement is correct?

    • (A) The officer may be empowered only to perform all functions of the Inspector-General of Prisons without exception
    • (B) The officer may be empowered to discharge all or any of the functions of the Inspector-General of Prisons under section 376 or section 377
    • (C) The officer may be empowered to discharge functions under section 376 but not under section 377
    • (D) The officer may be empowered only to perform administrative but not supervisory functions of the Inspector-General

  38. 38.Does the empowerment described in Section 375 apply to an officer in charge of any jail irrespective of the reason for confinement of persons housed there?

    • (A) Yes, it applies to any jail officer regardless of the ground of confinement
    • (B) Yes, but only if the Inspector-General specifically consents
    • (C) Yes, but only when multiple prisoners are confined under sections 369 and 374
    • (D) No, it is limited to the officer in charge of the jail in which a person is confined under section 369 or section 374

  39. 39.Which of the following best captures the scope of the functions that the empowered officer may discharge under Section 375?

    • (A) Only a limited subset of administrative duties not covered by sections 376 or 377
    • (B) Only the functions of the Inspector-General under section 376
    • (C) All or any of the functions of the Inspector-General of Prisons under section 376 or section 377
    • (D) Every function of the Inspector-General of Prisons under the entire Act

  40. 40.Who is specified by Section 376 to certify capability to make a defence for a person detained in a public mental health establishment?

    • (A) Inspector-General of Prisons
    • (B) Magistrate
    • (C) Mental Health Review Board constituted under the Mental Healthcare Act, 2017
    • (D) Medical Superintendent of the establishment

  41. 41.Once the appropriate authority certifies that the detained person is capable of making his defence, what does Section 376 require to be done?

    • (A) The person must be released on bail immediately.
    • (B) The person shall be taken before the Magistrate or Court at such time as the Magistrate or Court appoints, and the Magistrate or Court shall deal with such person under section 371.
    • (C) The person must be transferred to another facility for further observation.
    • (D) The Magistrate must obtain a fresh medical report before any proceedings.

  42. 42.What evidentiary status does Section 376 assign to the certificate issued by the Inspector-General of Prisons or the visitors as aforesaid?

    • (A) It is conclusive proof that the person can make his defence.
    • (B) It is inadmissible in court proceedings.
    • (C) It must be corroborated by another medical practitioner before being admitted.
    • (D) It shall be receivable as evidence.

  43. 43.Can the Mental Health Review Board certify that a person detained in a jail is capable of making his defence under Section 376?

    • (A) Yes—the Mental Health Review Board may certify any detained person.
    • (B) No—the Magistrate or Court must certify capability for persons in jail.
    • (C) No—where detained in a jail, the Inspector-General of Prisons must certify.
    • (D) Yes—certification must be jointly issued by the Inspector-General of Prisons and the Mental Health Review Board.

  44. 44.Under Section 377, who may certify that a detained person may be released without danger of injuring himself or others?

    • (A) The State Government
    • (B) A Commission appointed by the State Government
    • (C) The Inspector-General or visitors
    • (D) The District Magistrate

  45. 45.If such certification is given, which of the following is NOT an option the State Government may take under Section 377(1)?

    • (A) Order his release
    • (B) Order his detention in custody
    • (C) Transfer him to a public mental health establishment (if not already sent)
    • (D) Order community supervision at his residence

  46. 46.What are the functions of the Commission appointed under Section 377(2)?

    • (A) Make a formal inquiry into the state of mind, take such evidence as is necessary, and report to the State Government
    • (B) Hold an adversarial criminal trial and pass sentence
    • (C) Order immediate release without referring to the State Government
    • (D) Provide only medical treatment and no report

  47. 47.After the Commission reports under Section 377(2), is the State Government bound to follow the Commission's conclusion?

    • (A) Yes, it must follow the Commission's recommendation
    • (B) No, it may order release or detention as it thinks fit
    • (C) Yes, but only if the recommendation is for detention
    • (D) No, but it must refer the matter to a court

  48. 48.Under Section 378 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, who may apply for delivery of a person detained under sections 369 or 374 to their care and custody?

    • (A) Any State Government officer
    • (B) A Magistrate
    • (C) A relative or friend of the detained person
    • (D) The Public Prosecutor

  49. 49.Who has the power to order that the person be delivered to the relative or friend upon such application and security under Section 378(1)?

    • (A) The Magistrate or Court
    • (B) The State Government
    • (C) The Central Government
    • (D) The inspecting officer

  50. 50.If the inspecting officer certifies that an accused delivered under Section 378 is capable of making his defence, what must the Magistrate or Court do according to Section 378(2)?

    • (A) Call upon the relative or friend to produce him before the Magistrate or Court, and upon such production proceed in accordance with section 371; the certificate shall be receivable as evidence
    • (B) Treat the certificate as conclusive proof and proceed without producing the accused
    • (C) Forward the certificate to the State Government for approval before any judicial step
    • (D) Return custody to the State Government immediately and close the case

Answer key

1. A2. B3. C4. A5. C6. B7. C8. D9. B10. A11. C12. B13. D14. A15. B16. C17. D18. A19. A20. B21. C22. D23. B24. A25. D26. B27. A28. C29. D30. B31. C32. A33. B34. D35. A36. C37. B38. D39. C40. C41. B42. D43. C44. C45. D46. A47. B48. C49. B50. A

Explanations

  1. 1. (A) Section 367(1) requires the Magistrate to cause the person to be examined by the civil surgeon of the district or such other medical officer as the State Government may direct, and then to examine that surgeon/officer as a witness. The psychiatrist/clinical psychologist is involved only after the civil surgeon's finding under sub-section (2).
  2. 2. (B) Section 367(2) states the civil surgeon shall refer such person to a psychiatrist or clinical psychologist of a Government hospital or Government medical college for care, treatment and prognosis. The Medical Board is available only if the accused is aggrieved by that psychiatrist/clinical psychologist's information.
  3. 3. (C) Section 367(4) directs that if no prima facie case is made out, the Magistrate shall, instead of postponing the enquiry, discharge the accused and deal with him as provided under section 369. Postponement is required only if a prima facie case is found and treatment time is needed on psychiatrist's opinion.
  4. 4. (A) Section 367(5) states that if the Magistrate is informed the person is a person with intellectual disability and finds such disability renders the accused incapable of entering defence, the Magistrate shall order closure of the inquiry and deal with the accused under section 369. The proviso and Medical Board process in sub-section (2) relate to aggrievement against psychiatric information, not automatic referral here.
  5. 5. (C) The proviso to sub-section (2) specifies the Medical Board shall consist of (a) the head of the psychiatry unit in the nearest Government hospital and (b) a faculty member in psychiatry in the nearest Government medical college. No other members are provided for in the text.
  6. 6. (B) Section 368(1) requires the Magistrate or Court to 'in the first instance, try the fact of such unsoundness of mind' and if satisfied to 'record a finding to that effect and shall postpone further proceedings.' Thus the court must first determine the fact and then postpone proceedings if satisfied.
  7. 7. (C) Section 368(3) provides that if the accused is found incapable and, after examining the prosecution evidence and hearing the advocate but without questioning the accused, the Court finds no prima facie case, it 'shall... discharge the accused and deal with him in the manner provided under section 369.'
  8. 8. (D) The proviso to Section 368(2) states that if the accused is aggrieved by the psychiatrist's information, he 'may prefer an appeal before the Medical Board' and specifies the Board's composition as the head of psychiatry unit in the nearest Government hospital and a faculty member in psychiatry in the nearest Government medical college.
  9. 9. (B) Section 368(3) expressly provides that the Court shall examine the record and hear the advocate 'but without questioning the accused.' Therefore the Court is not to question the accused when making that determination.
  10. 10. (A) Section 369 repeatedly refers to a person "found under section 367 or section 368" to be incapable of entering defence by reason of unsoundness of mind or intellectual disability. The text expressly names sections 367 and 368.
  11. 11. (C) Section 369(1) provides release on bail provided the accused is suffering from unsoundness of mind or intellectual disability which does not mandate in-patient treatment and a friend or relative undertakes to obtain regular out-patient psychiatric treatment and to prevent injury to the accused or others.
  12. 12. (B) Section 369(2) states that if bail cannot be granted or an appropriate undertaking is not given, the Magistrate or Court shall order the accused to be kept in such a place where regular psychiatric treatment can be provided and shall report the action taken to the State Government.
  13. 13. (D) Section 369(3)(a) provides that if the Magistrate or Court decides to order discharge on the basis of medical opinion, such release may be ordered only if sufficient security is given that the accused shall be prevented from doing injury to himself or to any other person.
  14. 14. (A) Section 370(1) expressly provides that 'the Magistrate or Court, as the case may be, may ... resume the inquiry or trial.' Thus the power is vested in the Magistrate or the Court. The provision does not confer this power on the public prosecutor or the State Government.
  15. 15. (B) Section 370(1) states the Magistrate or Court 'may at any time after the person concerned has ceased to be of unsound mind, resume the inquiry or trial.' The statute therefore ties resumption to the accused having ceased to be of unsound mind, not to an immediate resumption or appellate permission.
  16. 16. (C) Section 370(1) specifies resumption may occur 'at any time after the person concerned has ceased to be of unsound mind.' This indicates that if the accused remains of unsound mind, the Magistrate may not resume the inquiry until that condition is met.
  17. 17. (D) Section 370(2) states that 'when the accused has been released under section 369, and the sureties for his appearance produce him to the officer whom the Magistrate or Court appoints in this behalf, the certificate of such officer ... shall be receivable in evidence.' Thus it is the sureties who must produce the accused to the appointed officer.
  18. 18. (A) Section 371(1) states that if the Magistrate or Court considers the accused capable of making his defence when he appears (or is again brought), 'the inquiry or trial shall proceed.' This directly requires continuation of the process when capacity is found.
  19. 19. (A) Section 371(2) directs that if the accused is still incapable of making his defence the Magistrate or Court 'shall act according to the provisions of section 367 or section 368, as the case may be.' Thus those sections are the immediate provisions to be followed.
  20. 20. (B) Section 371(2) expressly states that if the accused is found to be of unsound mind and consequently incapable, the Magistrate or Court 'shall deal with such accused in accordance with the provisions of section 369.' This requires following Section 369 in such a case.
  21. 21. (C) Section 371(1) covers when the accused 'appears or is again brought' and provides that if the Magistrate or Court 'considers him capable of making his defence, the inquiry or trial shall proceed.' Therefore the proceedings continue once capacity is found.
  22. 22. (D) Section 371(2) requires the Magistrate or Court to 'act according to the provisions of section 367 or section 368, as the case may be,' and only if the accused 'is found to be of unsound mind and consequently incapable of making his defence, shall deal with such accused in accordance with the provisions of section 369.' Thus 369 follows after 367/368 where applicable.
  23. 23. (B) The section begins: "When the accused appears to be of sound mind at the time of inquiry or trial..." indicating the provision applies where the accused appears to be of sound mind at inquiry or trial. Other listed conditions are not stated in the provision.
  24. 24. (A) Section 372 requires the Magistrate to be satisfied both that there is reason to believe the act would have been an offence if the accused had been of sound mind and that the accused was, by reason of unsoundness, incapable of knowing the nature of the act or that it was wrong. If the latter satisfaction is absent, the statutory step in Section 372 does not apply.
  25. 25. (D) The section states the Magistrate "shall proceed with the case," and only adds "and, if the accused ought to be tried by the Court of Session, commit him for trial before the Court of Session." Thus where trial by a Magistrate is appropriate, the Magistrate proceeds with the case rather than committing to the Sessions Court.
  26. 26. (B) Section 372 begins with "When the accused appears to be of sound mind at the time of inquiry or trial" but then contemplates that the Magistrate may be satisfied from evidence that the accused was "by reason of unsoundness of mind, incapable of knowing the nature of the act or that it was wrong or contrary to law" at the time the act was committed. Thus appearance at inquiry and actual unsoundness at the time of the act are distinct requirements in this provision.
  27. 27. (A) Section 373 provides that where a person is acquitted on the ground of unsoundness of mind, the finding shall state specifically whether he committed the act or not. The provision requires this specific statement and does not require punishment, diagnosis, or witness credibility.
  28. 28. (C) The provision specifies incapacity "of knowing the nature of the act alleged as constituting the offence, or that it was wrong or contrary to law." Thus it refers to inability to know the nature of the act or that it was wrong/contrary to law.
  29. 29. (D) Section 373 expressly states that where acquittal is on the ground of unsoundness of mind, "the finding shall state specifically whether he committed the act or not." Therefore the court cannot omit that specific statement.
  30. 30. (B) Section 373 mandates that the finding shall state specifically whether he committed the act or not; it does not equate that statement with declaring the accused guilty. The provision distinguishes the statement of commission from a finding of legal guilt.
  31. 31. (C) Section 374(1) mandates that where the finding is that the accused committed the act but lacked capacity, the Magistrate or Court shall either order detention in safe custody or order delivery to a relative or friend. The provision does not allow ordinary conviction or mere discharge in that situation.
  32. 32. (A) Section 374(2) expressly provides that no order for detention in a public mental health establishment under (1)(a) shall be made otherwise than in accordance with rules made by the State Government under the Mental Healthcare Act, 2017. Thus state rules under that Act are mandatory.
  33. 33. (B) Section 374(3) states that delivery under (1)(b) shall not be made except upon the application of such relative or friend and on his giving security to the satisfaction of the Magistrate or Court. The provision therefore requires both an application and security.
  34. 34. (D) Section 374(4) requires the Magistrate or Court to report to the State Government the action taken under sub-section (1). The provision specifies the State Government as the recipient of the report.
  35. 35. (A) The provision begins: "The State Government may empower the officer in charge of the jail..." which shows the power to empower rests with the State Government. No other authority is named in the text.
  36. 36. (C) The provision states the State Government may empower "the officer in charge of the jail in which a person is confined under the provisions of section 369 or section 374." This identifies the officer in charge of that specific jail.
  37. 37. (B) Section 375 authorises empowering the officer "to discharge all or any of the functions of the Inspector-General of Prisons under section 376 or section 377," which permits delegation of either some or all such functions under those sections.
  38. 38. (D) The provision is specific: empowerment may be given to the officer in charge of the jail "in which a person is confined under the provisions of section 369 or section 374," so it is limited to such jails and not any jail regardless of confinement grounds.
  39. 39. (C) Section 375 expressly permits empowering the officer to "discharge all or any of the functions of the Inspector-General of Prisons under section 376 or section 377," which limits the delegation to functions under those two sections, not the entire Act.
  40. 40. (C) The provision states that where a person is detained in a public mental health establishment, the Mental Health Review Board constituted under the Mental Healthcare Act, 2017 shall certify whether the person is capable of making his defence. The text names the Mental Health Review Board specifically for such establishments.
  41. 41. (B) The provision directs that if the appropriate authority certifies capability, the person shall be taken before the Magistrate or Court at such time as the Magistrate or Court appoints, and the Magistrate or Court shall deal with such person under the provisions of section 371. There is no provision in the text for immediate bail, transfer, or mandatory fresh medical report before proceeding.
  42. 42. (D) The provision expressly states that the certificate of such Inspector-General or visitors as aforesaid shall be receivable as evidence. It does not state that the certificate is conclusive proof or that it is inadmissible or requires corroboration.
  43. 43. (C) The provision distinguishes between detention locations: for a person detained in a jail the Inspector-General of Prisons shall certify, whereas the Mental Health Review Board is specified only for persons detained in a public mental health establishment. Thus the Mental Health Review Board is not the certifying authority for persons detained in jail under this provision.
  44. 44. (C) Section 377(1) states that "such Inspector-General or visitors shall certify that, in his or their judgment, he may be released without danger of his doing injury to himself or to any other person." Thus the Inspector‑General or visitors make that certification.
  45. 45. (D) Section 377(1) authorises the State Government to "order him to be released, or to be detained in custody, or to be transferred to a public mental health establishment if he has not been already sent to such establishment." Community supervision at his residence is not listed.
  46. 46. (A) Section 377(2) states that the Commission "shall make a formal inquiry into the state of mind of such person, take such evidence as is necessary, and shall report to the State Government." It does not conduct trials or make final orders itself.
  47. 47. (B) Section 377(2) provides that the Commission "shall report to the State Government, which may order his release or detention as it thinks fit." This language shows the State Government is not bound by the Commission and may decide as it thinks fit.
  48. 48. (C) Section 378(1) specifies that "whenever any relative or friend of any person detained... desires that he shall be delivered to his care and custody, the State Government may, upon the application of such relative or friend... order such person to be delivered." Thus the application must be by a relative or friend.
  49. 49. (B) Section 378(1) states that "the State Government may, upon the application of such relative or friend and on his giving security... order such person to be delivered to such relative or friend." Hence the authority is the State Government.
  50. 50. (A) Section 378(2) provides that upon such certification the Magistrate or Court "shall call upon the relative or friend to whom such accused was delivered to produce him before the Magistrate or Court; and, upon such production the Magistrate or Court shall proceed in accordance with the provisions of section 371, and the certificate of the inspecting officer shall be receivable as evidence."

Questions generated from the statute text and independently verified against it. Free to print, photocopy and hand out, including in a coaching centre — please leave this attribution on. Full text, explainers and 10,000+ more questions at samvidhan.co.in