Practice paper — BNSS Chapter XXXVII — Irregular Proceedings
35 questions · answer key at the end · no time limit
samvidhan.co.in
1.According to Section 506 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, if a Magistrate not empowered by law erroneously in good faith performs one of the listed acts, what is the effect on his proceedings?
- (A) They shall not be set aside merely on the ground of his not being so empowered.
- (B) They shall be declared void and set aside.
- (C) They shall be automatically referred to a higher court for review.
- (D) They shall be valid only if the accused waives objection.
2.Which power is specified in clause (a) of Section 506?
- (A) To order, under section 174, the police to investigate an offence.
- (B) To hold an inquest under section 196.
- (C) To issue a search-warrant under section 97.
- (D) To sell property under section 504.
3.What state of mind qualifying the magistrate’s act is expressly mentioned in Section 506?
- (A) Mala fide (bad faith).
- (B) In good faith.
- (C) Negligently.
- (D) Knowingly without jurisdiction.
4.If a Magistrate not empowered to issue process under section 207 erroneously in good faith issues such a process for apprehension of a person who committed an offence outside his local jurisdiction, what does Section 506 provide?
- (A) The proceedings are automatically invalid and must be set aside.
- (B) The proceedings require a fresh trial by a competent magistrate.
- (C) The proceedings are void unless confirmed by a superior court.
- (D) The proceedings shall not be set aside merely on the ground of his not being so empowered.
5.Does Section 506 bar setting aside proceedings on any ground once a magistrate is found not to have been empowered to do a listed act?
- (A) No — it only prevents setting aside merely for lack of empowerment; proceedings may still be set aside on other grounds.
- (B) Yes — once lack of empowerment is shown, proceedings cannot be set aside for any reason.
- (C) Yes — proceedings become immune from challenge except by the Attorney General.
- (D) No — it requires that all such proceedings be retried afresh.
6.Under Section 507 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, what is the effect if a Magistrate not empowered by law attaches and sells property under section 85?
- (A) The proceedings shall be void
- (B) The sale is valid but subject to appeal
- (C) The Magistrate is liable to a fine but the sale stands
- (D) The attachment is void but the sale is valid
7.Which of the following actions is expressly listed in Section 507 as an irregularity that vitiates proceedings when done by a Magistrate not empowered by law?
- (A) Enters premises without a warrant
- (B) Issues a search-warrant for a document, parcel or other things in the custody of a postal authority
- (C) Grants anticipatory bail
- (D) Transfers the case to another court
8.A Magistrate not empowered by law makes an order under section 152 as to a local nuisance. According to Section 507, what is the legal consequence of that act?
- (A) The order is valid but open to challenge
- (B) The proceedings shall be void
- (C) The order is valid if urgent
- (D) Only the nuisance portion of the order is void
9.Section 507 lists both 'tries an offender' and 'tries an offender summarily' separately. What does this indicate about these acts when performed by a Magistrate not empowered by law?
- (A) Only summary trials are void
- (B) Only regular trials are void
- (C) Neither act is covered by Section 507
- (D) Both trying an offender and trying summarily are irregularities that vitiate proceedings
10.Does Section 507 provide any proviso or exception that allows the acts listed (when done by an unempowered Magistrate) to be valid in certain circumstances?
- (A) Yes — if the high court approves retrospectively
- (B) Yes — if done in good faith
- (C) No — the provision contains no exception or proviso and states such proceedings shall be void
- (D) Yes — if parties consent to the act
11.According to Section 508 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, which of the following may not be set aside merely because the proceedings took place in a wrong local area?
- (A) Only the sentence passed by a Criminal Court
- (B) Only the finding of guilt
- (C) A finding, sentence or order of any Criminal Court
- (D) Only judicial orders other than sentences
12.Section 508 applies to which of the following authorities?
- (A) The Supreme Court only
- (B) Any Criminal Court
- (C) Administrative tribunals
- (D) Civil courts
13.If a trial was held in a wrong district but there is no indication that this caused any miscarriage of justice, what does Section 508 permit regarding the conviction?
- (A) The conviction shall not be set aside merely on that ground
- (B) The conviction must be set aside automatically
- (C) The conviction can be set aside only if the prosecutor files a fresh complaint
- (D) The conviction can be set aside only by the High Court under special leave
14.Under Section 508, when is it permissible to set aside a finding, sentence or order that resulted from proceedings held in a wrong sessions division, district, sub-division or other local area?
- (A) Whenever an appellant proves any procedural irregularity
- (B) Only if the court of appeal believes the error was prejudicial in general
- (C) Only if it appears that such error has in fact occasioned a failure of justice
- (D) Only if the wrong locality was outside the territorial jurisdiction of the state
15.Which statement best captures the meaning of the phrase 'shall be set aside merely on the ground that' in Section 508?
- (A) A decision can be set aside if the wrong local area is shown together with any other irregularity
- (B) A decision can be set aside only if the wrong local area error itself has in fact occasioned a failure of justice
- (C) A decision can never be set aside for venue errors, regardless of consequence
- (D) A decision can be set aside whenever an appellate court feels the venue was inconvenient
16.Under Section 509 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, non-compliance with which provisions is addressed when a confession or other statement of an accused is recorded or purporting to be recorded?
- (A) Section 94 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 only
- (B) Section 316 only
- (C) Section 183 or Section 316
- (D) Any provision of the Code of Criminal Procedure
17.May a Court, before which a statement recorded under section 183 or 316 is tendered, take evidence regarding non-compliance even though section 94 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 exists?
- (A) Yes, it may take such evidence notwithstanding section 94
- (B) No, section 94 always prevents taking such evidence
- (C) Only if the Magistrate recording the statement consents
- (D) Only if the accused expressly waives section 94 protections
18.Which of the following describes the conditions under which a Court may admit a statement recorded under section 183 or 316 despite non-compliance by the Magistrate?
- (A) That non-compliance occurred but the accused did not object at trial
- (B) That non-compliance has not injured the accused in his defence on the merits and that he duly made the statement recorded
- (C) That the statement was recorded in the presence of a police officer only
- (D) That the Magistrate subsequently certifies the accuracy of the record
19.To which Courts do the provisions of Section 509 apply?
- (A) Only trial Courts where the statement was tendered in the first instance
- (B) Only to Magistrates who recorded the statement
- (C) Only to Courts of appeal and not to reference or revision
- (D) It applies to Courts of appeal, reference and revision
20.Is court satisfaction that the non-compliance "has not injured the accused in his defence on the merits" alone sufficient for admission of the statement under Section 509?
- (A) Yes, that single satisfaction is sufficient
- (B) No — the Court must also be satisfied that the accused duly made the statement recorded
- (C) Yes, provided section 94 is not invoked
- (D) No — the statement is automatically inadmissible once there is any non-compliance
21.Under Section 510(1) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, does a finding, sentence or order become invalid merely because no charge was framed?
- (A) Yes — absence of a framed charge automatically invalidates the decision.
- (B) No — it is not invalid merely for that reason unless the Court of appeal, confirmation or revision is of opinion that a failure of justice has in fact been occasioned.
- (C) Only if the trial court itself declares the decision invalid on that ground.
- (D) Only if there is a misjoinder of charges in addition to the absence of a framed charge.
22.Who, under Section 510(1), determines whether a failure of justice has in fact been occasioned by an error, omission or irregularity in the charge?
- (A) The Court of appeal, confirmation or revision.
- (B) The trial court which heard the case originally.
- (C) The prosecution on review.
- (D) Any Court of competent jurisdiction at first instance.
23.If the Court of appeal, confirmation or revision is of opinion that an omission to frame a charge has occasioned a failure of justice, which of the following actions may it take under Section 510(2)(a)?
- (A) It must acquit the accused immediately.
- (B) It may transfer the case to another trial court for fresh proceedings from the beginning.
- (C) It may order that a charge be framed and that the trial be recommenced from the point immediately after the framing of the charge.
- (D) It can only remit the matter back to the trial court for reconsideration without specifying the point of recommencement.
24.When the Court of appeal, confirmation or revision finds an error, omission or irregularity in the charge (other than omission to frame), what does Section 510(2)(b) empower the Court to do?
- (A) Reduce the sentence but leave the conviction intact.
- (B) Order framing of a fresh charge and recommence the trial from that point.
- (C) Dismiss the appeal and leave the original trial's outcome undisturbed.
- (D) Direct a new trial to be had upon a charge framed in whatever manner it thinks fit.
25.If the Court of appeal, confirmation or revision is of opinion that the facts proved are such that no valid charge could be preferred against the accused in respect of those facts, what must the Court do under the proviso to Section 510(2)?
- (A) Order a fresh trial with a differently framed charge.
- (B) Quash the conviction.
- (C) Frame a lesser charge and remit the case for trial on that charge.
- (D) Suspend the sentence pending further investigation.
26.Under Section 511(1) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, when may a Court of appeal, confirmation or revision reverse or alter a finding, sentence or order because of an error, omission or irregularity in proceedings?
- (A) Whenever any error, omission or irregularity is found in the proceedings
- (B) Only if, in the opinion of that Court, a failure of justice has in fact been occasioned thereby
- (C) Only if the accused personally requests reversal on that ground
- (D) Only if the trial court certifies that the error affected the verdict
27.How does Section 511 treat errors or irregularities in any sanction for the prosecution?
- (A) They are reversible only if the appellate court finds a failure of justice has in fact been occasioned
- (B) They are automatically reversible regardless of impact on justice
- (C) They are never reversible under any circumstances
- (D) They are reversible only if the sanction was entirely absent
28.When determining whether an error, omission or irregularity has occasioned a failure of justice under Section 511(2), which of the following is the Court required to have regard to?
- (A) Whether the accused admitted the error at trial
- (B) Whether the appellate court had jurisdiction over the matter
- (C) Whether the objection could and should have been raised at an earlier stage in the proceedings
- (D) Whether the trial judge imposed the maximum sentence
29.If an irregularity in the complaint was not objected to during trial, can an appellate court still reverse or alter a finding or sentence under Section 511?
- (A) No — failure to object at trial automatically bars reversal
- (B) Only if the trial judge later amends the record to note the irregularity
- (C) No — reversal is allowed only for sentences, not findings
- (D) Yes — the Court may reverse or alter if, in its opinion, a failure of justice has in fact been occasioned thereby
30.What does the opening phrase "Subject to the provisions hereinbefore contained" in Section 511(1) indicate about the operation of Section 511?
- (A) It means Section 511 overrides any earlier provisions in the Sanhita
- (B) It means Section 511 is limited by the provisions contained earlier in the Sanhita
- (C) It creates a separate independent ground for reversal aside from failure of justice
- (D) It excludes the application of subsection (2) on previous-objection considerations
31.According to Section 512 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, what is the effect of a defect or want of form in the summons on an attachment made under the Sanhita?
- (A) The attachment is automatically void and unlawful.
- (B) The attachment shall not be deemed unlawful on account of that defect.
- (C) The attachment-maker is criminally liable for making the attachment.
- (D) The attachment is valid only after a court validates the summons.
32.Which of the following documents are specifically mentioned in Section 512 as defects in whose form will not make an attachment unlawful?
- (A) Summons, conviction and writ of attachment.
- (B) Only the summons.
- (C) Search warrant and property title.
- (D) Only the writ of attachment.
33.If there is a defect of form in proceedings 'relating thereto' (related to an attachment) under this Sanhita, can the person who made the attachment be treated as a trespasser on that ground alone?
- (A) Yes, they will be deemed a trespasser regardless of the defect.
- (B) No, the person shall not be deemed a trespasser on account of such defect or want of form.
- (C) Only if the defect caused physical damage to property.
- (D) Only if the defect was wilful and fraudulent.
34.Does Section 512 extend protection to defects or want of form occurring in 'other proceedings relating thereto' (i.e., proceedings besides summons, conviction and writ of attachment)?
- (A) Yes — it expressly includes other proceedings relating thereto.
- (B) No — it is limited only to summons, conviction and writ of attachment.
- (C) Yes — but only if the other proceedings are court orders.
- (D) No — it applies only to pre-attachment administrative steps.
35.Which of the following best captures a limit implied by the wording of Section 512 regarding what defects it protects against?
- (A) It protects against any and all defects, including lack of jurisdiction and fraud.
- (B) It protects only against a defect or want of form in the listed documents or related proceedings.
- (C) It protects only defects discovered within 30 days of attachment.
- (D) It protects only defects in property description, not in summons.
Answer key
Explanations
- 1. (A) The provision states that if a Magistrate not empowered by law erroneously in good faith does any of the listed things, "his proceedings shall not be set aside merely on the ground of his not being so empowered." This means lack of empowerment alone is not sufficient to set aside proceedings.
- 2. (C) Clause (a) of the provision refers to "to issue a search-warrant under section 97." The text explicitly lists this as clause (a).
- 3. (B) The provision repeatedly qualifies the magistrate's actions as done "erroneously in good faith." Thus the recognised state of mind in the section is "in good faith."
- 4. (D) Clause (d) deals with issuing process under section 207 for apprehension within local jurisdiction for offences outside it. The section concludes that such proceedings "shall not be set aside merely on the ground of his not being so empowered."
- 5. (A) The wording is that proceedings "shall not be set aside merely on the ground of his not being so empowered," which means the protection is limited to that sole ground; it does not preclude setting aside for other valid reasons.
- 6. (A) Clause (a) of Section 507 states that if any Magistrate not empowered by law attaches and sells property under section 85, his proceedings shall be void. The provision declares such proceedings void without qualification.
- 7. (B) Clause (b) of Section 507 specifically lists issuing a search-warrant for a document, parcel or other things in the custody of a postal authority as one of the acts which, if done by an unempowered Magistrate, renders his proceedings void.
- 8. (B) Clause (h) of Section 507 includes making an order under section 152 as to a local nuisance among acts which, if done by an unempowered Magistrate, render his proceedings void. The provision states such proceedings shall be void without qualification.
- 9. (D) Clauses (l) and (m) of Section 507 separately list 'tries an offender' and 'tries an offender summarily' as acts which, if done by a Magistrate not empowered by law, render his proceedings void. Thus both types of trials are covered and vitiate the proceedings.
- 10. (C) Section 507 concludes by stating 'his proceedings shall be void' after listing the acts, and contains no proviso or exception within the text. Therefore the provision contains no stated exceptions allowing those acts to be valid.
- 11. (C) Section 508 states that no finding, sentence or order of any Criminal Court shall be set aside merely on the ground that the proceedings took place in a wrong local area. Thus it covers findings, sentences and orders together.
- 12. (B) The provision expressly refers to 'any Criminal Court', so it applies to findings, sentences or orders of Criminal Courts, not to civil courts or administrative tribunals.
- 13. (A) Section 508 provides that a finding, sentence or order shall not be set aside merely because the proceedings took place in a wrong local area, unless the error in fact occasioned a failure of justice. Absent such failure, setting aside is not permitted.
- 14. (C) The provision states an exception: a decision may be set aside if 'it appears that such error has in fact occasioned a failure of justice.' Mere procedural irregularity or location outside the state is not the standard set out in Section 508.
- 15. (B) Section 508 prohibits setting aside a decision merely because proceedings occurred in a wrong local area, and permits setting aside only 'unless it appears that such error has in fact occasioned a failure of justice.' Thus the decisive test is whether the venue error caused a failure of justice.
- 16. (C) The section explicitly refers to a confession or other statement recorded or purporting to be recorded under section 183 or section 316, and addresses non-compliance with the provisions of either of such sections. Thus it is concerned with sections 183 or 316. (Section 509(1))
- 17. (A) Section 509(1) states that the Court may, notwithstanding anything contained in section 94 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023, take evidence regarding such non-compliance. Therefore the Court can take that evidence despite section 94.
- 18. (B) Section 509(1) permits admission of the statement if the Court is satisfied that the non-compliance has not injured the accused in his defence on the merits and that he duly made the statement recorded. Both conditions are specified in the provision.
- 19. (D) Section 509(2) expressly states that the provisions of this section apply to Courts of appeal, reference and revision. Hence those courts are within its scope.
- 20. (B) Section 509(1) requires the Court to be satisfied of two things before admitting the statement: that the non-compliance has not injured the accused in his defence on the merits AND that he duly made the statement recorded. Both conditions must be met.
- 21. (B) Section 510(1) states that no finding, sentence or order shall be deemed invalid merely because no charge was framed, unless the Court of appeal, confirmation or revision is of opinion that a failure of justice has in fact been occasioned. Thus invalidity is not automatic; it depends on the appellate court's opinion.
- 22. (A) Section 510(1) expressly refers to the opinion of the Court of appeal, confirmation or revision as decisive on whether a failure of justice has in fact been occasioned. The provision does not attribute that role to the trial court or the prosecution.
- 23. (C) Section 510(2)(a) authorises the appellate court, when omission to frame a charge has occasioned failure of justice, to order that a charge be framed and that the trial be recommenced from the point immediately after framing of the charge. It does not require immediate acquittal or an unspecified remand.
- 24. (D) Section 510(2)(b) gives the appellate court power to direct a new trial upon a charge framed in whatever manner it thinks fit when there is an error, omission or irregularity in the charge. The provision does not merely permit sentence reduction or dismissal in such circumstances.
- 25. (B) The proviso to Section 510(2) states that if the Court is of opinion that no valid charge could be preferred against the accused in respect of the facts proved, it shall quash the conviction. Thus quashing is mandatory in that circumstance.
- 26. (B) Section 511(1) states that no finding, sentence or order shall be reversed or altered on account of such errors or irregularities unless the appellate court is of the opinion that a failure of justice has in fact been occasioned thereby. Thus reversal requires a finding of actual failure of justice by the court.
- 27. (A) Section 511(1) expressly includes errors or irregularities in any sanction for the prosecution among matters that do not warrant reversal unless, in the opinion of the appellate court, a failure of justice has in fact been occasioned. Therefore such errors are reversible only when they cause a failure of justice.
- 28. (C) Section 511(2) directs the Court, in determining whether an error or irregularity occasioned a failure of justice, to have regard to whether the objection could and should have been raised earlier in the proceedings. This is a specified factor the Court must consider.
- 29. (D) Section 511(1) allows reversal or alteration despite errors or omissions not objected to earlier, but only if the appellate court is satisfied that a failure of justice has in fact been occasioned. Section 511(2) requires the Court to consider whether the objection could and should have been raised earlier, but does not make earlier failure to object an absolute bar.
- 30. (B) The phrase "Subject to the provisions hereinbefore contained" qualifies Section 511(1), showing that its rule (that reversal requires a failure of justice) operates subject to earlier provisions of the Sanhita. It therefore limits Section 511 by earlier provisions rather than overriding them.
- 31. (B) Section 512 states that no attachment made under this Sanhita shall be deemed unlawful on account of any defect or want of form in the summons. Thus a mere defect in form of the summons does not render the attachment unlawful.
- 32. (A) Section 512 expressly mentions defects or want of form in the summons, conviction, writ of attachment or other proceedings relating thereto. Therefore summons, conviction and writ of attachment are specifically covered.
- 33. (B) Section 512 states that no person making an attachment shall be deemed a trespasser on account of any defect or want of form in the summons, conviction, writ of attachment or other related proceedings. Thus mere defects of form do not make the attachor a trespasser.
- 34. (A) The provision explicitly states that defects or want of form in the summons, conviction, writ of attachment or other proceedings relating thereto shall not make the attachment unlawful. Therefore it expressly includes other proceedings relating thereto.
- 35. (B) Section 512 speaks specifically of defects or want of form in the summons, conviction, writ of attachment or other proceedings relating thereto; it does not purport to cover all possible defects (for example, defects beyond 'form' are not mentioned). Hence the protection is limited to defects of form in those proceedings.