Mumbai University Solved Question Papers
BNSS and CrPC
Previous Year Question Paper with Solution
LLB 3 years · Sem 5
Apr 2011 - CrPC Examination
munotes.in
Mumbai
LLB 3 years Sem 5 BNSS and CrPC Apr 2011 - CrPC Question Paper with Solutions
Get access to whole semester resourcesSemester Pass
MU law student group
Free to join
First published on munotes.in on 29 September 2026.
Published by munotes.in, Mumbai.
Model answers written and edited by the munotes.in editorial desk.
Passages from this volume may be quoted, in print, online or by an AI system, with credit: name munotes.in and link to this volume's page. The volume may not be reproduced as a whole. Full terms at munotes.in/content-license.
munotes.in is an independent study resource for students of the University of Mumbai. It is not affiliated with the University of Mumbai, and is not endorsed by it.
The University does not publish an official answer key for this paper. The answers in this volume are model answers, written to show how a full-mark answer is built. They are a study aid, not an authority on what an examiner marked.
The question paper reproduced here is the paper as set by the University of Mumbai at the Apr 2011 - CrPC examination.
This paper was set on the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, and its answers are written on the Code the questions name. The Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 repealed the Code on 1 July 2024, though cases begun before that date still run under it, and the Sanhita papers sit in the same folder; a reader preparing for them should check every section number and every time limit against the Sanhita. Two further things are corrected silently throughout. Where the printed header names the Juvenile Justice Act, 2000, which was repealed on 15 January 2016, the answers are on the Act of 2015 as amended in 2021. And the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958, whose own Section 2(a) still defines the Code as that of 1898, is read today with the Code of 1973.
Contents
The questions below are the paper as the University of Mumbai set it at the Apr 2011 - CrPC examination, in the order it was set.
MarksPage
The Paper as Set
The questions in this volume are the questions asked at the Apr 2011 - CrPC examination, reproduced as the University of Mumbai set them, in the order it set them. Nothing has been reworded, added or left out. Only the answers are ours. See the original question paper.
Duration 3 hours · Total marks 100 · 4 questions answered
How to use this volume
Solve the paper first, under exam conditions and against the clock. Then read the answers here and mark your own. Reading a solution before attempting the question feels productive and teaches very little, because recognising an answer is not the same as being able to write one.
(a)Answer the following in not more than two sentences :[2]
- (a) Doctrine “autrefois acquit” and “autrefois convict” means
- (b) ‘Remand’ means
- (c) Persons entitled to maintenance under Sec. 125
- (d) ‘Bail’ means
- (e) ‘adoption’ as defined in Juvenile Justice (Care & Protection) Act, 2000
- (f) Cognizance is taken of offence & not of offender means
- (g) Removal of disqualification attaching to conviction Sec. 19 Juvenile Justice (Care & Protection of children) Act, 2000
- (h) Definition of ‘Probationary Officer’ under The Probation of Offenders Act, 1958
- (i) Magistrate’s power to appoint receiver under Cr. (Sec. 146) institution’ under the Juvenile Justice (Care & Protection) Act, 2000 means
Answer
The two Latin phrases mean "formerly acquitted" and "formerly convicted". Together they state the rule against double jeopardy: a man who has once been tried and finally dealt with for an offence shall not be tried again for it.
Where the rule lives in Indian law. Article 20(2) of the Constitution provides that no person shall be prosecuted and punished for the same offence more than once. Section 300(1), CrPC (now section 337(1), BNSS, 2023) states the wider statutory form: a person who has once been tried by a court of competent jurisdiction for an offence and convicted or acquitted of it shall, while that conviction or acquittal remains in force, not be liable to be tried again for the same offence, nor on the same facts for any other offence for which a different charge might have been made under section 221(1) or of which he might have been convicted under section 221(2).
The Code is wider than the Constitution in two ways. Article 20(2) bars a second prosecution and punishment; the section bars a second trial. And Article 20(2) speaks of the same offence; the section also bars a trial on the same facts for a different offence within section 221.
The four conditions for the bar: there must have been a trial, before a court of competent jurisdiction, ending in a conviction or an acquittal, and that order must still be in force. A discharge is not an acquittal, so a discharged person may be proceeded against afresh.
The cases. In State of Bombay v. S. L. Apte, AIR 1961 SC 578, a Constitution Bench held that for Article 20(2) the offences must be the same, and sameness is decided by comparing the ingredients of the two offences, not the facts alleged. In Kolla Veera Raghav Rao v. Gorantla Venkateswara Rao, (2011) 2 SCC 703, a man prosecuted under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act was then prosecuted under section 420 of the Penal Code on the same facts. The Supreme Court held the second prosecution barred, because section 300(1) is wider than Article 20(2) and bars a trial on the same facts for a different offence.
The rest of the answers
The first answer is free. The rest come with the LL.B. 3 Years Semester 5 solved papers.
You have read the question paper and its first answer in full. Buy the solved papers once and you can read every answer of every solved paper in this semester.
Notes + Solved papers: ₹798 Already bought it? Sign in
Or solved papers only: ₹499
Or notes only: ₹499
The question paper itself stays free, and so does the syllabus.
Found an error in this volume? Report it and we will check it against the paper.