Criminal Procedure (CrPC and BNSS) Questions and Answers

Answer: D

The BNSS came into force on July 1, 2024.

The Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita received the President's assent on 25 December 2023, and the Central Government notified 1 July 2024 as the date on which it would come into force, together with the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita and the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam. From that date it replaced the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

December 25, 2023 is the date of assent, not commencement. August 15, 2023 and January 1, 2024 are not dates on which the new criminal laws took effect.

Answer: B

The BNSS replaces the Code of Criminal Procedure.

The Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, which came into force on 1 July 2024, repeals and replaces the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

The Indian Penal Code was replaced by the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita and the Indian Evidence Act by the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam. The Criminal Law Amendment Act is a separate amending law, not a code.

Answer: B

The inquiry by a Juvenile Court regarding delinquent juveniles is dealt with in Section 20 of the Juvenile Justice Act, 1986. The section sets out how the court is to inquire into the case of a delinquent juvenile brought before it and the orders it may pass.

Section 18 is the provision on bail and custody of juveniles, the subject of the question before this one, so it is the tempting wrong answer. Sections 41 and 91 are not the provisions on the inquiry by the Juvenile Court.

Answer: B

Both statements are correct and the Reason explains the Assertion, so the answer is both correct, R the correct explanation of A. Section 27 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 is headed jurisdiction in the case of juveniles, and it provides that a person under sixteen who is accused of an offence not punishable with death or life imprisonment may be tried by the Chief Judicial Magistrate or a court under the Children Act.

The Reason says that the provision on jurisdiction in the case of juveniles is found in the Code, which is the same point stated generally, and it explains the Assertion's location. The options calling either statement false are wrong.

Answer: A

The key is may take charge of such record without any permission.

The Rajasthan High Court's General Rules on the preservation of record say that a Presiding Officer of a Court requiring to examine at his private residence a record of a case in his Court may take charge of it. The official in whose custody the record is kept must enter in a book a note of the record taken, the date it was taken and the date it was returned. The rule asks for an entry in a register, and does not ask for the permission of the District and Sessions Judge or of the High Court, which rules out the second and third options.

The fourth option, that he cannot take charge of the record, is wrong because the rule gives the power. The general rule that a Judge or Magistrate shall not part with the custody of a record is expressly subject to the rules, and this rule is one of them. I read this in the 2018 consolidated General Rules (Civil and Criminal), Order 40, and did not see the older 1980 criminal rules' text for the same rule, which was the one in force on the examination date.