UPSC CSE Prelims
New Criminal Laws — BNS, BNSS & BSA Previous Year Questions (PYQs)
Practice solved questions for New Criminal Laws — BNS, BNSS & BSA with detailed step-by-step solutions, key insights, and trend analysis for UPSC CSE PRELIMS.
Solved Previous Year Questions
Filter & practice questions topic-wise
Which of the following statements about a Zero First Information Report (Zero FIR) under the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023 is/are correct?
- A Zero FIR can be lodged at a police station, even though the place of commission of a cognizable/non-cognizable offence is outside the territorial jurisdiction of that police station.
- The Officer-in-Charge of the police station where a Zero FIR has been lodged may, with the permission of the competent authority, initiate a preliminary enquiry.
- Under Zero FIR, it is obligatory for the informant to furnish information electronically.
Select the answer using the code given below:
Detailed Explanation:
Statement 1 — Correct. Under Section 173(1) of BNSS, 2023, a Zero FIR can be lodged at any police station regardless of territorial jurisdiction for cognizable offences. The receiving station must forward it to the jurisdictionally competent station after registration.
Statement 2 — Incorrect. While Section 173(3) of BNSS allows for a preliminary enquiry, it is not specifically tied to Zero FIR registration. It applies to cognizable offences punishable by 3 to 7 years of imprisonment and requires prior permission of a competent authority — the statement incorrectly links it exclusively to Zero FIR.
Statement 3 — Incorrect. Electronic submission of information is not mandatory. Section 173(1) allows information to be given either orally OR by electronic communication — it is an option, not an obligation.
Key Distinctions:
| Aspect | Correct Position |
|---|---|
| Jurisdiction | Any police station — Zero FIR covers cognizable offences |
| Preliminary enquiry | Not exclusive to Zero FIR; requires specific conditions |
| Mode of information | Oral OR electronic — not mandatory to be electronic |
With reference to India, Consider the following pairs:
Action : The Act under which it is covered
- Unauthorized wearing of police or military uniforms : The Official Secrets Act, 1923
- Knowingly misleading or otherwise interfering with a police officer or military officer when engaged in their duties: The Indian Evidence Act, 1872
- Celebratory gunfire which can endanger the personal safety of others : The Arms (Amendment) Act, 2019
How many of the above pairs are correctly matched?
Detailed Explanation:
Answer: Option 2 — Only two
This question tests knowledge of various Acts related to law enforcement and public safety. Out of the three pairs, two are correctly matched while one pair incorrectly associates an offense with the wrong Act.
✅ Pair 1 – Correct: The Official Secrets Act, 1923 indeed prohibits unauthorized wearing of naval, military, air force, police, or other official uniforms under Section 7.
❌ Pair 2 – Incorrect: Knowingly misleading or interfering with a police officer or military officer is covered under The Official Secrets Act, 1923 (Section 6), not the Indian Evidence Act, 1872.
✅ Pair 3 – Correct: The Arms (Amendment) Act, 2019 explicitly includes provisions against celebratory gunfire that endangers human life or personal safety of others.
📝 Short Notes: Official Secrets Act, 1923 & Arms Act
| Act | Key Provisions |
|---|---|
| Official Secrets Act, 1923 |
|
| Arms (Amendment) Act, 2019 |
|
With reference to India, consider the following statements:
- Judicial custody means an accused is in the custody of the concerned magistrate and such accused is locked up in police station, not in Jail.
- During judicial custody, the police officer in charge of the case is not allowed to interrogate the suspect without the approval of the court.
Which of the statements given above is/are correct:
Detailed Explanation:
Answer: Option 2 — 2 Only
This question tests the understanding of the difference between judicial custody and police custody under Indian criminal procedure. Statement 1 incorrectly describes judicial custody, while Statement 2 correctly explains the interrogation restrictions during judicial custody.
❌ Statement 1 – Incorrect: Judicial custody means the accused is in the custody of the concerned magistrate and is locked up in jail, not in a police station. Police custody involves lodging the accused in a police station lockup.
✅ Statement 2 – Correct: During judicial custody, the police officer in charge cannot interrogate the suspect without court approval. The court may permit interrogation if deemed necessary, but such permission is mandatory.
📝 Short Notes: Police Custody vs Judicial Custody
| Aspect | Police Custody | Judicial Custody |
|---|---|---|
| Custody Authority | Accused is in physical custody of police | Accused is in custody of the concerned Magistrate |
| Location | Police station lockup | Jail |
| Interrogation Rights | Police can interrogate freely | Police cannot interrogate without court permission |
| Maximum Duration | 15 days (total) during investigation | Can extend until trial completion or bail |
| Legal Provision | Section 167, CrPC | Section 167, CrPC |
🧐 Not Sure What to Study Next?
Get a personalised study plan based on your goals, time and revision needs.
With reference to India, consider the following statements:
- When a prisoner makes out a sufficient case, parole cannot be denied to such prisoner because it becomes a matter of his/her right.
- State Governments have their own Prisoners Release on Parole Rules.
Which of the statements given above is/are correct?
Detailed Explanation:
Answer: Option 2 — 2 Only
This question tests the understanding of parole provisions in India. While prisoners can apply for parole, it is not an automatic right but a discretionary relief granted by authorities. State governments frame their own parole rules within the framework of central prison legislation.
❌ Statement 1 – Incorrect: Parole is not a matter of right but a discretionary privilege granted by prison authorities. Even if a prisoner makes a sufficient case, the authorities retain the discretion to deny parole based on various factors including security concerns, nature of crime, and conduct of the prisoner.
✅ Statement 2 – Correct: State governments have formulated their own Prisoners Release on Parole Rules within the broad framework of the Prisons Act, 1894 and the Prisoners Act, 1900, as prison and law and order are state subjects under the Seventh Schedule.
📝 Short Notes: Parole and Furlough in India
- Parole: Temporary release granted on specific grounds (family emergencies, medical issues, etc.) as a discretionary privilege, not a right.
- Furlough: Periodic release granted to long-term prisoners as a matter of right to maintain family ties and prevent institutionalization.
- Legal Framework: Governed by the Prisons Act, 1894 and Prisoners Act, 1900 at the central level; states frame detailed rules.
- Prison as State Subject: Under Entry 4, List II (State List) of the Seventh Schedule, allowing states to make their own parole rules.
- Judicial Position: Supreme Court has held that parole is discretionary and can be denied even if grounds are established (State of Haryana v. Mohinder Singh, 2000).
Related Topics in Indian Polity
Frequently Asked Questions
Common questions about New Criminal Laws — BNS, BNSS & BSA in UPSC CSE PRELIMS