RJS Prelims Mock 8
You'll attempt 10 questions with instant scoring and explanations at the end. (90 more in the full paper.)
Sample questions from RJS Prelims Mock 8
The first 10 questions of this RJS Prelims Mock Tests paper, with answers and explanations.
Q1. Which of the following facts are required to be proved?
- A. All laws in force in the territory of India
- B. Public festivals and holidays notified in the official Gazette
- C. The Rules of the road
- D. None of the above
Reveal answer
Answer: D — None of the above
Section 56 & 57 of Indian Evidence Act — Facts of which the Court must take judicial notice need not be proved. Laws in force, public holidays, and rules of the road are all judicially noticed under S.57.
Q2. Which of the following cases is not related to mens rea?
- A. R v. Prince, 1875
- B. Queen v. Tolson, 1889
- C. Sherras v. De Rutzen, 1875
- D. Barendra Kumar Ghosh v. Emperor, 1925
Reveal answer
Answer: D — Barendra Kumar Ghosh v. Emperor, 1925
Barendra Kumar Ghosh v. Emperor (1925) deals with common intention under S.34 IPC and vicarious liability, not mens rea as a general principle. The other three are landmark mens rea cases.
Q3. Under IPC, 1860, which ingredient is not necessary to constitute an offence of abetment?
- A. Conspiracy
- B. Intentional aid
- C. Instigation
- D. Act abetted should be committed
Reveal answer
Answer: D — Act abetted should be committed
Under S.107 IPC, abetment is complete by instigation, conspiracy, or intentional aid. The act abetted need not actually be committed for the offence of abetment to be constituted.
Q4. Removal of ornaments dishonestly from the body of deceased person:
- A. Robbery u/s 392 of IPC
- B. Theft u/s 379 of IPC
- C. Cheating u/s 417 of IPC
- D. An offence u/s 404 of IPC
Reveal answer
Answer: D — An offence u/s 404 of IPC
Section 404 IPC deals with dishonest misappropriation of property possessed by deceased person at the time of death. Since a dead person cannot possess, it's not theft (S.379).
Q5. Which Section of IPC is based on the maxim de minimis non curat lex?
- A. Section 91 of IPC
- B. Section 92 of IPC
- C. Section 94 of IPC
- D. Section 95 of IPC
Reveal answer
Answer: D — Section 95 of IPC
Section 95 IPC — Act causing slight harm. The maxim means 'the law does not concern itself with trifles'. S.95 provides that nothing is an offence by reason that it causes slight harm.
Q6. According to IPC, any man who monitors the use by a woman of the internet, email or any other form of electronic communication commits the offence of:
- A. Voyeurism
- B. Stalking
- C. Watching
- D. Searching
Reveal answer
Answer: B — Stalking
Section 354D IPC defines stalking which includes monitoring the use by a woman of the internet, email or any other form of electronic communication.
Q7. The term for which the Court directs the offender to be imprisoned in default of payment of a fine shall not exceed ___ of the term of imprisonment which is the ___ fixed for the offence, if the offence be punishable with imprisonment as well as fine
- A. two-third, proportionate
- B. half, equal
- C. one fourth, minimum
- D. one fourth, maximum
Reveal answer
Answer: D — one fourth, maximum
Under S.30 IPC, the imprisonment in default of fine shall not exceed one-fourth of the maximum term of imprisonment fixed for the offence.
Q8. CJM punished accused with 5 years imprisonment and Rs.10,000 fine under S.325 IPC. Maximum imprisonment under S.325 is 7 years. On non-payment of fine, maximum imprisonment up to:
- A. 15 months
- B. 21 months
- C. 12 months
- D. 24 months
Reveal answer
Answer: B — 21 months
Under S.30 IPC, default imprisonment cannot exceed 1/4 of maximum term. 1/4 of 7 years (84 months) = 21 months.
Q9. K.M. Nanavati v. State of Maharashtra, 1961 is a leading case on:
- A. exercise of legal powers
- B. grave and sudden provocation
- C. right to private defence
- D. sudden quarrel
Reveal answer
Answer: B — grave and sudden provocation
K.M. Nanavati v. State of Maharashtra (1961) is the landmark case on grave and sudden provocation under Exception 1 to S.300 IPC. The SC held that the provocation must be sudden and the accused must have lost self-control.
Q10. In which case did the SC hold that in a case arising from NI Act, successive sentence may be directed to run concurrently if both transactions are part of single transaction?
- A. Damodar S. Prabhu v. Sayed Babalal H., 2010
- B. Don Ayengia v. State of Assam & Ors., 2016
- C. Mahindra & Mahindra Financial Services Ltd. & Anr v. Rajiv Dubey, 2009
- D. Shyam Pal v. Dayawati Besoya & Ors., 2016
Reveal answer
Answer: A — Damodar S. Prabhu v. Sayed Babalal H., 2010
In Damodar S. Prabhu v. Sayed Babalal H. (2010), the SC laid down guidelines for S.138 NI Act cases including that successive sentences may run concurrently if part of single transaction.
Want the full paper? Create a free account or see premium plans.