Introduction

Jurisdiction is a fundamental concept in the

legal framework that determines the
authority of a court to hear and decide cases.
In criminal law, jurisdiction is crucial as it
ensures that offences are prosecuted in
appropriate venues, thereby upholding
justice and the rule of law. The introduction
of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita
(BNSS) marks a significant development in
India’s criminal justice system. The BNSS, as
a comprehensive legal code, aims to address
the dynamic and complex nature of criminal
law in India by providing clear and structured
guidelines on various aspects, including
jurisdiction.

Jurisdictional provisions in criminal law are

designed to ensure that cases are tried in
courts that have the most logical and
practical connection to the offence. This is
essential not only for the convenience of the
parties involved but also for the effective
administration of justice. By delineating the
appropriate venues for criminal inquiries and
trials, the BNSS seeks to prevent
unnecessary delays and jurisdictional
disputes that can impede the legal process.

The BNSS’s jurisdictional rules are crafted to

accommodate various scenarios, including
offences committed across different
locations, those involving digital
communications, and crimes that occur
during journeys. These provisions are vital in
a country as vast and diverse as India, where
the location of the crime can significantly
impact the judicial process.

This article delves into the specific sections

of the BNSS that govern the jurisdiction of
criminal courts in inquiries and trials.
Through detailed explanations and practicals,
it aims to provide a comprehensive
understanding of how these provisions
function in practice. Legal practitioners, law
students, and anyone interested in the
criminal justice system will find this
exploration of jurisdiction under the BNSS
both informative and essential for navigating
the complexities of criminal law in India.

Section 197: Ordinary

Place of Inquiry and
Trial under the BNSS
Jurisdiction is a fundamental aspect of
criminal law, ensuring that cases are tried in
the appropriate venue, which facilitates the
effective administration of justice. Section
197 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha
Sanhita (BNSS) outlines the principle of the
ordinary place of inquiry and trial. This
provision is designed to ensure that criminal
proceedings are conducted in a location that
is most relevant to the offence, thereby
promoting convenience and fairness for all
parties involved.

The primary rule established by Section 197

is that every offence should be inquired into
and tried by a court within whose local
jurisdiction it was committed. This principle is
grounded in the notion that the court closest
to the crime scene is best positioned to
handle the case effectively. The proximity to
the location of the offence allows for easier
access to evidence, witnesses, and the crime
scene itself, all of which are crucial for a
thorough and fair investigation and trial.

Consider a case where a burglary occurs in

Jaipur. According to Section 197, the inquiry
and trial should be conducted in a court
located in Jaipur. This ensures that the
investigating authorities can easily access
the crime scene, gather evidence, and
summon witnesses who reside in the area.
Conducting the trial in Jaipur also minimizes
the inconvenience for the victims and
witnesses, who would otherwise have to
travel to another jurisdiction.

The rationale behind the rule of local

jurisdiction is multifaceted. Firstly, it ensures
the efficient administration of justice by
reducing logistical challenges. Courts located
near the crime scene can swiftly gather and
examine evidence, thus expediting the legal
process. Secondly, it upholds the principle of
fairness by making it easier for witnesses and
victims to participate in the trial. Lastly, it
reinforces the credibility of the judicial
system by ensuring that justice is seen to be
administered within the community where
the crime occurred.
While Section 197 establishes the, it also
allows for certain exceptions. For instance, in
cases where it is unclear where the offence
was committed, other provisions within the
BNSS guide determine the appropriate
jurisdiction. Additionally, there may be
situations where the High Court deems it
necessary to transfer the trial to a different
jurisdiction for reasons such as ensuring a
fair trial or addressing security concerns.

In a high-profile case where there is

significant public and media attention, the
High Court may decide to transfer the trial to
another district to prevent undue influence
and ensure impartiality. For instance, if a
widely publicized crime occurs in a small
town, the High Court might transfer the trial
to a larger city to mitigate the risk of local
biases and pressures affecting the
proceedings.
General Rule for Place
of Inquiry or Trial
The primary provision of Section 198 allows
for the inquiry and trial to be conducted in
any of the local areas where the offence
might have occurred. This rule is essential in
cases where it is challenging to pinpoint the
exact location of the criminal act, thereby
preventing jurisdictional disputes and
ensuring that the judicial process is not
hindered.

Imagine a scenario where a fraudulent

transaction takes place online, involving
parties in different cities. If the victim resides
in Delhi and the accused in Mumbai, and the
transaction itself occurred over the Internet
with no clear indication of where the offence
was executed, Section 198 allows the inquiry
and trial to be conducted in either Delhi or
Mumbai. This flexibility ensures that the case
can proceed without unnecessary delays due
to jurisdictional ambiguity.

The rationale behind allowing multiple

venues for inquiry and trial lies in the need to
address the complexities of modern crimes,
which often transcend traditional
geographical boundaries. In today’s
interconnected world, crimes such as cyber
offences, fraud, and even physical crimes
committed across different locations require
a more adaptable approach to jurisdiction.

Consider a case of human trafficking where

victims are transported through multiple
states before being rescued. The exact point
of the offence might be unclear, and the
criminal activities may span across several
jurisdictions. Section 198 permits the trial to
take place in any jurisdiction involved,
ensuring that justice is not impeded by the
technicalities of determining a single
location.

Section 198 is designed to avoid jurisdictional

conflicts that could arise from overlapping or
unclear boundaries. By allowing inquiries and
trials to be conducted in any relevant
jurisdiction, the BNSS ensures that legal
proceedings are not stalled by debates over
the proper venue. This provision enhances
the efficiency of the judicial system and helps
in delivering timely justice.

If a financial scam impacts investors in

multiple cities, it might be unclear where the
offence primarily occurred. Section 198
allows the trial to be conducted in any city
affected by the scam, ensuring that the
judicial process can proceed without delay
and that all affected parties have access to
justice.
In cases where there is still uncertainty about
the appropriate venue, the High Court has
the authority to decide. This oversight
ensures that the decision regarding the place
of inquiry or trial is made by a higher judicial
authority, thereby reinforcing the fairness
and integrity of the legal process.

If there is a dispute between two jurisdictions

about where a high-profile corruption case
should be tried, the High Court can intervene
and decide the appropriate venue. This
ensures that the trial is conducted in the
most suitable location, considering all
relevant factors such as convenience,
security, and the interests of justice.

Section 199: Offence

Triable Where Act is
Done or Consequence
Ensues
Jurisdiction in criminal law determines where
a case should be tried, and it plays a critical
role in ensuring justice is effectively
administered. Section 199 of the Bharatiya
Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) addresses
a specific aspect of jurisdiction concerning
where an offence can be tried based on the
location of the act or its consequences. This
provision is vital in handling cases where the
criminal act and its effects are geographically
distinct. By allowing flexibility in venue
selection, Section 199 ensures that the legal
process accommodates the complexities of
modern criminal activities.

Section 199 establishes that an offence can

be tried either where the act was committed
or where its consequences ensued. This dual
approach recognizes that the impact of a
criminal act can be as significant as the act
itself, and it provides a practical solution for
cases where the geographical location of the
act and its effects differ.

Consider a case of online harassment where

a person based in Delhi sends threatening
messages to an individual residing in
Bangalore. The act of sending the messages
occurs in Delhi, but the consequences—such
as emotional distress and disruption of the
victim’s life—occur in Bangalore. According
to Section 199, the trial can be held in either
Delhi or Bangalore. This flexibility ensures
that the legal process can address the harm
caused to the victim, irrespective of the
location of the offence.

The rationale behind allowing trials based on

the place of consequence is rooted in the
need for justice to address the full impact of
criminal conduct. In many cases, particularly
those involving cybercrime, fraud, and
harassment, the effects of the crime extend
beyond the location where the crime was
initially perpetrated. Section 199 ensures
that victims can seek redress in a jurisdiction
where the consequences of the crime are
felt, thereby facilitating a more
comprehensive approach to justice.

In the case of financial fraud, if the fraudulent

activity occurs in Mumbai but affects
investors across different states, the
consequences of the fraud are felt in those
states. Section 199 allows the trial to be
conducted in any of the states where the
financial harm has occurred, thereby allowing
affected investors to seek justice closer to
home.

Applying Section 199 in practice requires

careful consideration of both the location of
the act and the extent of its consequences.
Legal practitioners must evaluate the specific
circumstances of each case to determine the
most appropriate venue for the trial. This
often involves assessing factors such as the
location of evidence, the convenience of
witnesses, and the overall impact of the
offence.

If a defamation case involves false

statements published on a national news
platform, the act of publication occurs where
the platform is based, but the consequences
(such as reputational damage) can affect
individuals in various locations. Section 199
allows the trial to be held in any location
where the defamation has had a significant
impact, providing flexibility to ensure that
justice is served effectively.

In situations where there is ambiguity or

dispute about the appropriate venue based
on the act or its consequences, the High
Court can step in to decide. This oversight
ensures that the venue chosen for the trial is
fair and just, taking into account all relevant
factors.

If a case involves multiple jurisdictions due to

the broad impact of the offence, and there is
disagreement about where the trial should
take place, the High Court can adjudicate and
decide the most suitable location for the
proceedings. This intervention helps resolve
jurisdictional conflicts and ensures that the
trial proceeds in a venue that serves the
interests of justice.

Section 200: Place of

Trial Where Act is an
Offence because of
Relation to Other
Offence
Jurisdictional provisions in criminal law play a
critical role in ensuring that cases are heard
in the most appropriate and effective venue.
Section 200 of the Bharatiya Nagarik
Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) addresses the
specific scenario where an act constitutes an
offence by its relationship to another offence.
This provision is essential in managing cases
involving interconnected criminal activities
and ensuring that justice is administered
efficiently and comprehensively.

Section 200 stipulates that when an act is

considered an offence because of its
connection or relation to another offence, the
trial for both offences can be conducted in a
single court. This provision allows for the
consolidation of related criminal charges,
facilitating a more streamlined judicial
process and reducing the likelihood of
fragmented trials.

Imagine a case where an individual is

charged with embezzlement and, as part of
the embezzlement scheme, also commits
fraud. The embezzlement charge is related to
the fraud charge because the fraud was
carried out to facilitate the embezzlement.
According to Section 200, both the
embezzlement and fraud charges can be
tried together in a court that has jurisdiction
over either of the offences. This approach
ensures that the court can consider the full
context of the criminal conduct and deliver a
more informed judgment.

The rationale behind allowing trials for

related offences to be conducted together is
to promote judicial efficiency and fairness.
When offences are interconnected, trying
them separately could lead to inconsistencies
in judgment and complicate the legal
process. Consolidated trials enable the court
to address the complete criminal conduct
coherently, ensuring that all related aspects
of the case are considered together.

In a case involving a drug trafficking

operation, the accused might face charges of
drug possession, trafficking, and distribution.
Since these charges are interrelated—one act
of drug trafficking encompasses possession
and distribution—Section 200 permits the
trial to encompass all related charges in a
single court. This consolidated approach
helps in understanding the full scope of the
criminal activity and ensures that all
elements of the offence are addressed in a
unified legal proceeding.

In complex cases where the relationship

between offences is intricate or contested,
the High Court may intervene to determine
the appropriate jurisdiction. The High Court’s
involvement ensures that the trial is
conducted in a venue that adequately
addresses the complexities of the case and
serves the interests of justice.

If there is a dispute over whether certain

charges should be tried together due to their
relationship, and lower courts are unable to
resolve the issue, the High Court can provide
a ruling on the appropriate venue. This
intervention ensures that the judicial process
remains fair and effective, particularly in
cases involving complex criminal conduct.

Place of Trial in Case of

Certain Offences under
the BNSS
Section 201 provides specific guidelines for
the trial of certain types of offences,
establishing designated places where these
cases should be heard. These provisions
recognize that some offences, due to their
nature or the circumstances surrounding
them, require a specialized approach to
jurisdiction.

Consider offences related to national

security, such as espionage or terrorism.
Given the gravity and complexity of these
crimes, Section 201 might stipulate that such
cases be tried in specialized courts or
designated jurisdictions equipped to handle
matters of national security. This ensures
that cases involving sensitive or high-stakes
issues are addressed by courts with the
appropriate expertise and resources.

Offences with Designated

Trial Locations:
1.

National Security Offences

2.

Offences like terrorism, espionage, and

other crimes that threaten national security
may be tried in specialized courts or specific
locations designated by law. The intent is to
ensure that such cases receive the attention
and expertise required due to their
complexity and potential impact on national
security.

If an individual is accused of planning a

terrorist attack, Section 201 may direct that
the trial take place in a court located in a
high-security zone or a specialized terrorism
court. This designation helps in handling the
sensitive nature of the evidence and the
security implications of the trial.

1.
 Organized Crime
2.

Offences related to organized crime, such

as racketeering or large-scale trafficking
operations, might also be subject to specific
jurisdictional rules under Section 201. These
cases often involve multiple locations and
require coordination between various legal
authorities.

In a large-scale drug trafficking case

involving operations across several states,
Section 201 could provide for the trial to be
conducted in a central jurisdiction with the
capacity to manage complex, multi-
jurisdictional cases. This centralization
facilitates a more efficient legal process and
ensures that all aspects of the criminal
enterprise are addressed.

1.
 Corporate Crimes
2.

Financial crimes involving large

corporations, such as corporate fraud or
embezzlement, may be assigned to specific
courts or locations with expertise in handling
complex financial cases. If a corporation is
accused of massive financial fraud affecting
multiple stakeholders, the trial might be held
in a commercial court or a specialized
jurisdiction known for dealing with intricate
corporate matters. This specialization
ensures that the court has the necessary
expertise to handle the complexities of
corporate law.

The rationale for designating specific places

for the trial of certain offences lies in the
need for specialized handling and expertise.
Crimes that involve complex issues,
significant security concerns, or large-scale
operations benefit from being tried in venues
equipped to deal with such challenges. This
approach enhances the efficiency of the legal
process and ensures that cases are
adjudicated with the appropriate level of
scrutiny.

A cybercrime case involving international

networks and high-tech evidence may be
assigned to a specialized cybercrime court.
This specialization ensures that the court has
the necessary technical expertise and
resources to effectively handle the evidence
and complexities involved.

In cases where there is uncertainty or dispute

over the designated trial location for certain
offences, the High Court has the authority to
provide guidance or rulings. This oversight
ensures that the trial is conducted in the
most suitable venue, taking into account the
specific nature of the offence and the
requirements of justice.

If there is a disagreement about whether a

particular case falls under the designated
trial locations specified by Section 201, the
High Court can intervene to decide. This
intervention ensures that the trial is
conducted in the appropriate venue and
aligns with the statutory requirements.

Section 202: Offences

Committed using
Electronic
Communications,
Letters, etc.
Section 202 stipulates that offences
committed through electronic
communications, letters, or similar means
can be tried in any jurisdiction where the
communication was received or where its
effects were felt. This provision recognizes
the need for flexibility in handling crimes that
transcend geographical boundaries due to
their nature or the technology used.

Consider a case of online fraud where a

scammer based in Chennai sends fraudulent
emails to victims in different cities across
India. According to Section 202, the trial for
this offence could be held in any city where
the victims received the emails or where they
experienced the consequences of the fraud.
This flexibility allows the judicial system to
address the crime effectively, regardless of
the geographic origin of the communication.

The rationale for allowing trials in

jurisdictions where the effects of electronic
communications or letters are felt lies like
such crimes. Offences involving digital or
written communication often have
widespread impacts that are not confined to
a single location. By permitting trials in
multiple jurisdictions, Section 202 ensures
that justice can be pursued in a venue where
the criminal conduct has had significant
repercussions.

In a case involving cyberstalking, the

perpetrator may send threatening messages
to victims across different regions. The
emotional and psychological impact of these
messages might be felt in various locations.
Section 202 allows the trial to be conducted
in any jurisdiction where the victims
experienced the consequences, ensuring that
the legal proceedings consider the full extent
of the harm caused.

Applying Section 202 involves assessing

where the communication or its effects have
occurred. Legal practitioners must determine
the most appropriate jurisdiction based on
where the crime’s impact is most significant,
which can sometimes be complex in cases
involving multiple locations or jurisdictions.

In situations where determining the

appropriate jurisdiction is challenging due to
the nature of electronic communications or
letters, the High Court has the authority to
intervene. This oversight ensures that the
trial is held in a venue that effectively
addresses the complexities of the case and
serves the interests of justice.

If there is a dispute over whether a case of

online harassment should be tried in the city
where the communications originated or
where the victims reside, the High Court can
guide the appropriate venue. This
intervention helps resolve jurisdictional
conflicts and ensures that the trial is
conducted in a location that best serves the
interests of justice.

Section 203: Offence

Committed on Journey
or Voyage
Section 203 of the Bharatiya Nagarik
Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) addresses the
jurisdictional issues for offences committed
during a journey or voyage. This provision is
designed to handle crimes that occur while
an individual is travelling or aboard a vessel,
and it specifies where such offences can be
tried.

According to Section 203, if an offence is

committed during a journey or voyage, the
trial can be held in any jurisdiction that
encompasses a location where the journey
began, where it concluded, or where the
offence was detected. This flexibility ensures
that justice can be pursued even when the
crime occurs in transit or areas not easily
linked to a specific jurisdiction.

If a theft occurs on a cruise ship travelling

from Mumbai to Chennai, Section 203 allows
the trial to take place in any of these
locations, depending on where the crime was
reported or where evidence is found. This
provision accommodates the complexities of
crimes occurring in transit and ensures that
legal proceedings are effective and practical.

Section 204: Place of

Trial for Offences
Triable Together
Section 204 stipulates that when offences are
triable together due to their connection, they
should be tried in a court that has jurisdiction
over any of the offences. This provision is
crucial for maintaining judicial efficiency and
coherence, ensuring that all related charges
are addressed comprehensively within a
single legal proceeding.

If an individual is charged with both burglary

and assault that occurred during the same
criminal incident, Section 204 allows these
offences to be tried together in a court that
has jurisdiction over either charge. This
approach prevents the need for separate
trials, reduces legal complexity, and ensures
a unified examination of the evidence and
circumstances surrounding the offences.

The rationale behind this provision is to avoid

the fragmentation of cases involving
interconnected charges. Trying related
offences together allows the court to consider
the full context of the criminal conduct,
leading to more informed judgments and
reducing the risk of inconsistent outcomes.

In a case where an accused is charged with

theft and possession of stolen property from
the same crime, Section 204 enables the trial
to address both charges in a single court.
This consolidation helps in presenting a
complete picture of the criminal activity and
facilitates a more efficient legal process.

Section 205: Power to

Order Cases to be Tried
in Different Sessions
Divisions
Section 205 of the Bharatiya Nagarik
Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) grants courts the
authority to order that cases be tried in
different session divisions. This provision is
particularly relevant in complex cases where
the charges span multiple jurisdictions or
when the interests of justice are best served
by decentralizing the trial process.

According to Section 205, a court has the

power to direct that a case or its parts be
tried in different session divisions if it deems
this approach necessary for the effective
administration of justice. This can be
essential in cases involving multiple offences,
witnesses, or evidence spread across
different regions.

In a large-scale fraud case where different

aspects of the crime occurred in various
locations, Section 205 allows for the trial to
be divided among multiple sessions divisions.
For instance, charges related to financial
transactions might be tried in one division,
while other related criminal activities are
tried in another.
The rationale behind this provision is to
enhance judicial efficiency and ensure that
trials are conducted in a manner that best
accommodates the complexity and
geographical spread of cases. It helps in
managing large or intricate cases more
effectively.

A high-profile drug trafficking case with

operations across several states might be
divided among different session divisions to
handle specific aspects of the case
efficiently. This approach ensures that each
part of the case is addressed
comprehensively.

Section 206: High

Court to Decide, in Case
of Doubt, the District
Where Inquiry or Trial
Shall Take Place
Section 206 of the Bharatiya Nagarik
Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) addresses
situations where there is uncertainty
regarding the appropriate district for
conducting an inquiry or trial. This provision
empowers the High Court to decide in such
cases.

When there is doubt or conflict over which

district should handle an inquiry or trial,
Section 206 authorizes the High Court to
decide the appropriate district. This ensures
clarity and consistency in the judicial
process, particularly in complex cases
involving multiple jurisdictions.

In a case where an offence affects multiple

districts and there is disagreement over the
proper venue for the trial, the High Court can
step in to resolve the issue, ensuring that the
trial occurs in a district that adequately
addresses the complexities of the case.

Section 207: Power to

Issue Summons or
Warrant for Offence
Committed Beyond
Local Jurisdiction
Section 207 of the Bharatiya Nagarik
Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) provides courts with
the authority to issue summons or warrants
for offences committed beyond their local
jurisdiction. This provision ensures that
individuals involved in criminal activities
cannot evade justice simply because the
offence occurred outside a court’s immediate
area of authority.
Under Section 207, if an offence is committed
outside the local jurisdiction of a court, that
court retains the power to issue summons or
warrants to compel the accused to appear or
be arrested. This provision allows courts to
take necessary legal actions to ensure that
individuals involved in criminal activities are
held accountable, regardless of where the
crime was committed.

If a person in Chennai commits fraud against

a victim in Delhi, the Chennai court can issue
a summons or warrant to compel the accused
to attend court or be arrested, even though
the crime occurred outside its local
jurisdiction.

The rationale behind this provision is to

bridge jurisdictional gaps and ensure
effective law enforcement. By allowing courts
to issue summons or warrants across
jurisdictional boundaries, Section 207 helps
in addressing crimes that span multiple
regions and ensures that justice is served.

In a cross-border smuggling case, if the crime

involves multiple states, a court in one state
can issue necessary legal orders to ensure
that suspects are apprehended and brought
to justice, regardless of where the crime
occurred.

Section 208: Offence

Committed Outside
India
Section 208 of the Bharatiya Nagarik
Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) addresses the
jurisdictional issues related to offences
committed outside India. This provision is
critical for managing crimes that occur
beyond Indian borders and ensuring that
perpetrators can be held accountable under
Indian law, even when the crime occurs
internationally.

Section 208 stipulates that if an offence is

committed outside India but falls within the
scope of Indian criminal law, the prosecution
and trial of the offence can still occur within
India. This provision ensures that Indian
citizens and interests are protected, and
justice can be pursued for crimes committed
abroad if they impact Indian jurisdiction.

Consider a scenario where an Indian citizen

commits serious fraud while residing in a
foreign country. According to Section 208,
the Indian authorities can prosecute the
individual under Indian law if the crime falls
under the jurisdictional provisions specified
by the BNSS. This allows Indian courts to
address international crimes affecting its
nationals or interests.
The rationale behind this provision is to
extend the reach of Indian criminal law to
address offences that occur outside the
country’s borders but have implications for
Indian citizens or interests. It ensures that
individuals cannot escape accountability
merely because their criminal conduct occurs
in another country.

If an Indian businessperson is involved in

embezzlement in a foreign country but the
crime affects Indian companies or financial
interests, Section 208 permits the
prosecution of the accused in India, ensuring
that justice is served even when the crime
transcends national borders.

Section 209: Receipt of

Evidence Relating to
Offences Committed
Outside India
Section 209 of the Bharatiya Nagarik
Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) addresses the
procedural aspects of obtaining and utilizing
evidence for offences committed outside
India. This provision is vital for ensuring that
Indian courts can consider evidence related
to international crimes, enabling the effective
prosecution and adjudication of such cases.

Section 209 empowers Indian courts to

receive and admit evidence related to
offences committed outside India. This
provision facilitates the inclusion of
international evidence in Indian legal
proceedings, ensuring that the courts have
access to all relevant information needed for
a comprehensive adjudication of cases
involving transnational crimes.
If an Indian national is accused of committing
a crime abroad, such as drug trafficking or
financial fraud, Section 209 allows Indian
courts to receive evidence collected from
foreign jurisdictions. For, if the crime involves
financial transactions in a foreign country,
bank statements, witness testimonies, and
other relevant documents from abroad can
be admitted in the Indian trial.

The rationale behind this provision is to

overcome the challenges of cross-border
evidence collection and ensure that Indian
courts can effectively handle cases involving
international elements. By allowing the
receipt of foreign evidence, Section 209
supports the prosecution and defence in
presenting a complete picture of the crime
and its context.

In a case where an Indian company is

defrauded by an international scam,
evidence such as emails, financial records,
and testimonies from foreign witnesses can
be crucial. Section 209 ensures that this
evidence can be presented in Indian courts to
support the case.

Conclusion
The Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita
(BNSS) provides a comprehensive framework
for handling criminal jurisdiction and
procedures, addressing complex issues
arising from both domestic and international
contexts. From determining the ordinary
place of inquiry and trial to managing cases
involving electronic communications and
offences committed abroad, the BNSS
ensures that the legal system can adapt to
modern challenges. Sections 199 through
209 establish clear guidelines for where and
how various offences should be tried,
enhancing judicial efficiency and ensuring
that justice is accessible and effective. By
incorporating these provisions, the BNSS
reinforces its commitment to a fair and
adaptive legal system that addresses the
nuances of contemporary crime and
maintains the integrity of justice across
diverse and evolving scenarios.