BNSS

UNIT 3
Form of Charge, joinder of charges, alteration of charge, basic rule regarding charge and its trial, withdrawal of
charges, effect of error in the charge.
DEFINITION OF “CHARGE”
Section 2 (f) gives the statutory meaning of a charge and states that it “includes any head of charge when the charge
contains more heads than one”.
This is a very inclusive definition and it does not clearly explains the meaning of charge. So to understand the meaning,
we need to decode the statement and interpret it with an example.
Suppose, a man enters into the house of another person, steals his belongings, murders him and runs away. Then several
offences are committed by him under a single act. Therefore, all the offences are said to be the “heads of charge”.
Individually yet together, all of these offences are tagged as “charge”.
The framing of charge is a very important step before executing a criminal trial. Without a proper structure, the trial
might not reach to a conclusion. The Courts must be very cautious while building the framework of the charges as it will
lead to different paths and portray various conclusions. A criminal trial begins with examining the accused by explaining
him the accusation made against him in his vernacular language. According to Section 262 in case of warrant cases, the
charges framed against the accused and substance of the accusation shall be read over to him. Under Section 274, the
accused has the right to know the subject of the accusation stated against him. The section reads out that “when in a
summons- case the accused appears or is brought before the Magistrate, the particulars of the offence of which he is
accused shall be stated to him and he shall be asked whether he pleads guilty or has any defence to make.” But then
no formal charge is required to be framed. Section 249 gives power to the prosecutor to open the case of the accused by
describing the charges brought against him and stating the evidences which he proposes to prove the guilt of the
accused. Chapter XVIII of the BNSS deals with “The Charges”. There are two parts under this Chapter. Part A deals with
the form of charges (Section 234 to Section 240) and Part B deals with Joinder of Charges (Section 241 to Section 247).
FORM OF CHARGE
(Section 234 to Section 240) Charge is defined as a precise formulation of the specific accusation made against an
accused who has the right to know its nature at the very earliest stage. Charges are framed by the Court itself. But
before framing these charges, the Court carries out proceedings against the accused which is called Trial.
In fact, a charge itself separates the process of inquiry from trial. Section 234 to Section 240 of the BNSS explains that
“charge” is a written allegation made by a court. Section 234 briefly points out the pattern of the contents of charge (in
accordance to The Second Schedule, FORM NO. 33 of BNSS) like name of the offence, the section of the offence
committed, date and place of previous convictions committed by the accused.
In the case of Mohd. Akbar Dar v. State of Jammu Kashmir [AIR 1981 SC 1548], the Court held that meticulous
consideration of evidence and other materials is not necessary to frame a charge.
Section 235 of BNSS mandates to mention the time and place of alleged offence as well as the name of the person or
thing against whom the it was committed, in the particulars of the charge. Sub section (2) states to mention the gross
sum in case of breach of trust or criminal misappropriation of money. In Kadiri Kunhahammad v. State of Madras [AIR
1960 SC 661], the Court said that a charge for criminal breach of trust framed in contravention of proviso mentioned in
sub section (2) of this section is merely an irregularity then it can be cured under both Section 215(now 238, BNSS) &
464 (now 510, BNSS) of the Code and will not vitiate the trial when the accused is not prejudiced. The above mentioned
two sections frame the General Contents of a Charge.
Section 234(7) and Section 236 frames out the special contents of a charge. Section 236 orders to mention the manner
in which the offence has been committed by the accused in the charge sheet. This provision comes into purview only
when the particulars mentioned in Section 234 and 235 do not give sufficient notice of the matter. Section 237 says that
in every charge words used in describing an offence shall be deemed to have been used in the sense attached to them
respectively by law under which such offence is punishable. The judgement given in the case of Mohan Singh v. State of
Bihar clearly explained the provisions related to this section under point 17.
IS A DEFECTIVE CHARGE NECESSARILY FATAL TO CONVICTION?
Section 238 deals with the effects of errors in the charge or a defective charge. It explains that if there are any errors or
omission in the charge then it will not be considered material unless the accused was in fact misled or there has been
a failure of justice. This section was upheld in the case of Om Prakash v. State of UP [AIR 1960 SC 409]. Also, Section
510, BNSS states the effect of omission to frame, or absence, or error in, charge.
ALTERATION OR ADDITITON OF CHARGE
Section 239 speaks about the power of the Court in case of alteration of a charge. It gives the power to alter or add to
any charge at any time before judgement is pronounced. But there are certain provisions related to the alteration of
charge. The alteration of the charge must be brought to notice of the accused and explained to him as is mentioned in
the case of Sabbi Mallesu v. State of A.P. [(2006) 10 SCC 543]. Kantilal Chandulal Mehta v. State of Maharashtra [(1969)
3 SCC 166: (1970) SCC (Cri) 19] rules that the Code gives ample power to the Courts to alter or amend a charge.
Section 240 provides for recalling the witnesses when the charge is altered or added.
JOINDER OF CHARGES
Joinder of charges refers to the legal process of combining multiple criminal charges or offences against a single
defendant into a single trial or legal proceeding. Instead of conducting separate trials for each individual charge, the
court can decide to try them together if they are connected in some way, such as being part of the same transaction or
involving the same defendant.
The joinder of charges under BNSS serves several purposes, including judicial efficiency, reducing the burden on the legal
system and ensuring a fair and comprehensive examination of all relevant facts. However, it’s important to follow specific
legal rules and exceptions when joining charges to maintain the fairness of the trial and protect the rights of the
accused. These rules may vary by jurisdiction and legal system.
This topic comes under Part B of Chapter XVIII of the BNSS. Section 241 to Section 247 deals with “Joinder of Charges”.
This part is inserted in this Sanhita to prevent any kind of prejudice that might develop in the Magistrate’s mind
regarding the character of the accused person due to his offences.
Section 241 explains that every distinct offence shall be a separate charge and every charge shall be tried separately.
In the case of K. Satwant Singh v. State Of Punjab (AIR 1960 SC 266), it was established that the rules about joining
charges are not mandatory. They simply allow charges to be tried together under certain conditions. Courts can decide
to do this in the interest of justice after carefully examining the facts of each case.
Essentials of Joinder of Charges
The essentials of joinder of charges in criminal law include several key principles and considerations:
1. Common Transaction or Same Occurrence: Joinder of charges typically involves multiple criminal offences that are
linked by a common transaction or the same occurrence. This means that the charges must arise from related events
or actions.
2. Same Accused: Joinder of charges applies when the same person is accused of committing multiple offences. It
allows for the consolidation of charges against a single defendant.
3. Avoidance of Multiplicity: One of the primary purposes of the joinder of charges is to avoid the multiplicity of legal
proceedings. It streamlines the judicial process by addressing related offences in a single trial.
4. Legal Provisions: The ability to join charges is governed by specific legal provisions and rules within the criminal
procedure laws of a jurisdiction. These provisions outline the conditions under which charges can be joined.
5. Exceptions: Legal systems often include exceptions to the joinder of charges rule. These exceptions may involve
circumstances where certain charges cannot be joined, even if related, to protect the rights of the accused.
6. Fairness and Prejudice: Courts consider whether the joinder of charges would be fair to the accused. If trying
multiple charges together could prejudice the defendant’s right to a fair trial, the court may opt for separate trials.
7. Judicial Discretion: In some cases, the decision to join or separate charges may be left to the discretion of the judge,
who will weigh factors such as the complexity of the case, potential prejudice and the interests of justice.
8. Efficiency: Joinder of charges is aimed at promoting judicial efficiency by reducing the time and resources required
for separate trials. This is especially important in cases with multiple related offences.
9. Proper Framing of Charges: Charges must be properly framed to reflect the specific offences alleged against the
accused. Incorrectly framed charges can lead to complications in the joinder process.
10. Appeals and Remedies: The accused may have the right to appeal decisions regarding the joinder of charges,
especially if they believe their rights have been violated or they have been unfairly prejudiced.
In essence, the joinder of charges is a legal mechanism designed to balance the efficient administration of justice with
the protection of the accused’s rights. It aims to prevent multiple, duplicative trials while ensuring that defendants are
treated fairly and justly in accordance with the law. The specifics of the joinder of charges may vary from one jurisdiction
to another, but these essentials provide a foundational understanding of this important legal concept.
When Joinder of Charges under CrPC Can be Done: Exceptions to Section 218 under CrPC
The exception to Section 241 is the list of situations where a joinder of charges can be done instead of framing separate
charges.
Joinder of Charges for Similar Offences Within a Year
There is an exception to the general rule of separate charges for each offence which allows the joinder of charges. This
exception allows for the combination of charges when three offences of the same type have been committed within a
year. The purpose of this provision is to prevent multiple legal proceedings when the offences are similar. This exception
consists of two conditions:
 Section 242(1): If a person is accused of three offences of the same type and these offences occurred within twelve
months starting from the first offence, then the person can be tried for all three offences together.
 Section 242(2): This provision applies when the offences are not only of the same type but also carry the same
degree of punishment. In such cases, the charges for these similar offences can be joined together for a single trial.
Joinder of Charges for Offences in the Same Transaction
There is another exception to the general rule of separate charges, which allows the joinder of charges for offences to be
tried together when they are connected within the same transaction. This exception comprises the following situations:
 Connected Series of Acts as a Single Transaction: When a person has committed a series of acts that are so closely
linked that they constitute a single transaction, all of these offences can be charged and tried together. The term
‘transaction’ is not explicitly defined in the legal code.
 Offences Like Criminal Breach of Trust, Misappropriation and Falsification of Accounts: In cases involving offences
like criminal breach of trust or dishonest misappropriation of property, which are often accompanied by offences
such as falsification of accounts, where the latter offence is committed to achieve the objective of the former,
Section 243(2) allows the court to try these offences together.
 Single Act Constituting Different Offences: If a single act falls under different and separate definitions of offences,
these different offences can be tried together as per Section 243(3). For example, if a person X wrongfully strikes
person Y with a cane, X can either be charged and tried separately for offences under Sections 115 and 131 of the
BNS or can be tried and convicted together.
 Acts Forming Different Offences When Separately Tried: If the acts that constitute an offence also constitute
different offences when separately considered and tried, these offences should be tried together in a single trial. For
instance, if person A commits robbery against person B and, in doing so, voluntarily causes harm to B, A may be
separately charged with and convicted of offences mentioned under Sections 115(2), 309(2) and 309(4) of the BNS.
Joinder of Charges in Cases of Doubt
Section 244 deals with situations where there is uncertainty about the circumstances and events that occurred during
the commission of an offence. According to this section joinder of charges can be done:
If the accused has engaged in a series of actions that create confusion about which facts need to be proven, the accused
may be charged with any or all of those offences or charged with alternative offences. In such cases, the accused is
initially charged with one offence, but during the evidence stage, if it is proven that the accused committed a different
offence, they may be convicted of that offence even if they were not originally charged with it.
Conviction for Minor Offence Within a Larger Offence
Section 245 addresses cases where the accused is charged with an offence that consists of several specific details or
particulars. If some of these particulars, when combined and proven, constitute a lesser or minor offence, the accused
can be convicted of that minor offence even if it was not specifically mentioned in the original charge.
In simpler terms, if an accused person is charged with a complex offence that includes various elements and it turns out
that some of these elements on their own would amount to a less serious offence, the accused can still be convicted of
the lesser offence even if the charge only specified the more serious offence.
Joinder of Charges of Different Classes of Persons
Section 246 allows for the joinder of charges of various classes of persons under specific circumstances when there is a
connection between the different offences committed. These classes are not mutually exclusive and can be combined if
necessary. According to this section, the following classes of persons may be tried and charged together:
1. Accused persons who have committed the same offence during the same transaction.
2. Persons who have committed a particular offence and those who have abetted its commission.
3. Persons covered under the scope of Section 242.
4. Persons who, within the same transaction, have committed different offences.
5. Persons who have committed offences like theft, extortion, cheating, or criminal misappropriation of property, along
with those who have received, retained, assisted in disposing of, or concealed property, the possession of which is
illegal.
6. Persons accused of offences under Section 317(2) & (5) of the BNS or similar sections concerning stolen property,
which has already been transferred due to another offence.
7. Persons accused of any offence under Chapter X of the BNS related to counterfeit coins.
It’s important to note that accused persons who do not fall into any of these classes under Section 246 cannot
themselves claim a joint trial. The proviso to this section places a limit on the court’s discretion.
The rules from Section 241 to Section 246 are designed for the benefit of the accused. These classes of sections are not
meant to be treated as mutually exclusive and the courts have the authority to apply the provisions of more than two
clauses. This means that the joinder of charges of several persons can be authorised by applying one clause in part and
another clause in part, as deemed appropriate by the court.
Removal of Remaining Charges
Section 247 specifies that when a charge contains more than one count against the same person, the prosecuting officer
may, with the court’s consent, remove the remaining charges if one or more of them have already resulted in a
conviction against the accused.
Alteration of Charge Meaning
Alteration of charge refers to the legal process where a court modifies or adds to the existing charges against an accused
during the course of a trial. This provision ensures that charges accurately reflect the evidence presented and align with
the facts of the case. The court may alter a charge at any stage before the judgement is delivered, provided it does not
cause prejudice to the accused or prosecution.
The accused must be informed of any changes and given an opportunity to defend themselves. The objective of altering
charges is to ensure fairness and justice by accommodating new developments or clarifications arising during the trial,
thereby preventing procedural loopholes and ensuring a comprehensive evaluation of the case.
The Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) provides guidelines for the addition or alteration of charges during
criminal proceedings to ensure a fair trial. Section 239 of BNSS empowers the court to modify or add charges at any
stage before the judgement, provided it does not prejudice the accused or prosecution. This flexibility allows for
adjustments based on new evidence or facts emerging during the trial.
Furthermore, Section 240 of BNSS addresses the recall of witnesses when charges are altered. It ensures that both
parties have an opportunity to present their case effectively and that no unfair advantage is given to either side. These
provisions uphold the principles of justice and procedural fairness.
Framing of charges
Framing of charges is a crucial stage in criminal in India. It is a process where the court formally communicates to the
accused the specific criminal offenses they are being charged with. Here's a brief explanation of the framing of charges
under the CrPC:
1. Initiation of Criminal Proceedings: Criminal proceedings in India usually start with the registration of an FIR (First
Information Report) or a complaint. If the police, upon investigation, find sufficient evidence to establish a prima
facie case against the accused, they may file a charge sheet or police report before the court.
2. Taking Cognizance: Once the charge sheet is filed, the court examines it to determine if there is enough material to
proceed with the case. If the court is satisfied that there is a prima facie case, it takes cognizance of the offenses.
3. Framing of Charges: After taking cognizance of the case, the court proceeds to frame charges. Framing of charges
involves the following steps:
1. Reading of the Charge: The court reads out the charges to the accused in a language they understand. The
charges must be specific and clear, detailing the offenses the accused is alleged to have committed.
2. Explanation to Accused: The court explains the nature and particulars of the charges to the accused. The
accused is given an opportunity to understand the allegations against them.
3. Recording of Plea: After the charges are read and explained, the court asks the accused how they plead –
whether they plead guilty or not guilty. If the accused pleads guilty, the court may proceed to pass judgment. If
they plead not guilty, the trial continues.
4. Alteration or Addition of Charges: If the evidence on record suggests that additional or different charges should
be framed, the court can alter or add charges at this stage.
5. Effect of Framing Charges: Once charges are framed, the trial commences, and the prosecution presents its
evidence to prove the accused's guilt. The accused has the opportunity to present a defense and challenge the
prosecution's case.
6. Acquittal or Conviction: At the conclusion of the trial, based on the evidence presented and arguments made,
the court will either acquit the accused if the charges are not proved beyond reasonable doubt or convict the
accused if the prosecution establishes the guilt.
7. Judgment: After hearing both sides and considering the evidence, the court passes a judgment, which may
involve sentencing in case of a conviction.
What is framing of chages?
The process of framing charges involves the court’s determination that the accused individual is likely to have committed
a specific offence. This determination is made after a careful examination of the police report, along with other pertinent
documents and after hearing arguments from both parties. Framing of charges serves as the initial step in commencing a
trial against the accused.
It is essential to note that although framing charges is a vital step that informs the accused of the allegations against
them, it is not mandatory in all legal proceedings.
Framing of Charges under Section 251 of the BNSS
Section 251(1) states that
(1) If, after such consideration and hearing as aforesaid, the Judge is of the opinion that there is ground for presuming
that the accused has committed an offence which-
(a) is not exclusively triable by the Court of Session, he may, frame a charge against the accused and, by order, transfer
the case for trial to the Chief Judicial Magistrate and thereupon the Chief Judicial Magistrate shall try the offence in
accordance with the procedure for the trial of warrant- cases instituted on a police report;
(b) is exclusively triable by the Court, he shall frame in writing a charge against the accused.
The case of V.C. Shukla v. State (1980) clarifies that the primary purpose of framing a charge is to provide the accused
with formal notice that is prepared in accordance with the precise language of the law. This notice aims to offer a clear,
unambiguous, and precise description of the nature of the accusation that the accused must address during the course
of a trial.
Q- Ramesh is charged with committing theft on three different occasions in the same locality within a span of two
weeks. The Magistrate frames three separate charges and conducts separate trials for each. Ramesh contends that the
charges should have been tried together under the rules of joinder. Examine the legality of the Magistrate’s action and
whether the charges could have been joined. Also, discuss the basic rules regarding framing and trial of charges.
A- The case of Ramesh raises important legal questions regarding the joinder of charges under the Bharatiya Nagarik
Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023. The key issue is whether the Magistrate was correct in conducting separate trials or
whether the charges should have been tried together under the rules of joinder of charges.
Understanding Joinder of Charges Under BNSS
Joinder of charges refers to the legal process of combining multiple charges into a single trial when certain conditions are
met. This prevents multiplicity of proceedings, ensures judicial efficiency, and avoids harassment of the accused.
Did the Magistrate Act Legally?
1 Separate Trials vs. Joinder of Charges
 Ramesh was charged with three instances of theft in the same locality within two weeks.
 Since theft is an offense of the same kind, and the incidents occurred within a short time frame, Section 242
BNSS applies.
 The Magistrate should have considered joinder of charges instead of conducting separate trials.
2 Judicial Precedents Supporting Joinder
Several Supreme Court rulings reinforce the principle of joinder of charges:
 Birichh Bhuian v. State of Bihar (1963): Held that multiple offenses of the same kind should be tried together if
committed within one year.
 State of Maharashtra v. Tapas D. Neogy (1999): Ruled that separate trials for closely related offenses may lead to
miscarriage of justice.
 K. Thoosimuthu v. K. Balaji (Madras HC): Reinforced that joinder prevents unnecessary harassment of the accused.
Basic Rules Regarding Framing and Trial of Charges
1 Framing of Charges
 Charges must be specific, clear, and based on evidence.
 The accused must be informed of the charges to prepare a defense.
 If multiple offenses are closely connected, they should be framed together.
2 Trial of Charges
 If offenses are of the same kind, they may be tried together.
 If offenses arise from the same transaction, they must be tried together.
 If separate trials cause prejudice, the court may order joinder.
Conclusion
The Magistrate’s decision to conduct separate trials was not legally justified under Section 234 BNSS. Ramesh’s
contention is valid, and he can challenge the decision to seek joinder of charges.
Trial before Sessions Court (Sections 248-260) (ChapterX1X)
A “trial before a Court of Session” refers to a legal proceeding in which serious criminal cases, such as murder or rape,
are heard and adjudicated by a specialised higher court known as the Court of Session.
This court conducts formal legal proceedings, involving the presentation of evidence, witness examination and legal
arguments, ultimately culminating in a verdict of guilt or innocence. If the accused is found guilty, the Court of Session
has the authority to impose appropriate sentences. The process ensures fair and thorough adjudication of major criminal
offences under the jurisdiction of this court.
Process of Trial Before a Court of Session
1. Jurisdiction: The court of Session is a higher court with the authority to handle complex and serious criminal cases.
It can conduct trials for offences that fall under its jurisdiction, such as murder, rape, kidnapping and other major
crimes.
2. Procedures: The trial before a Court of Session follows specific legal procedures, which may vary from one
jurisdiction to another but generally involve the presentation of evidence, examination of witnesses and arguments
from both the prosecution and the defence.
3. Role of the Judge: The judge in a Court of Session trial presides over the proceedings, ensures that proper legal
procedures are followed and makes decisions on legal matters during the trial. In some cases, the judge may also be
responsible for determining the verdict if there is no jury.
4. Verdict: At the end of the trial before a Court of Session, the judge or the jury, depending on the legal system,
delivers a verdict of guilty or not guilty based on the evidence and arguments presented during the trial.
5. Sentencing: If the verdict is guilty, the Court of Session also has the authority to pass sentences, including
imprisonment, fines or other penalties, depending on the nature of the crime and relevant laws.
Provisions in BNSS Dealing with Trial Before a Court of Session
Parties in Trial Before a Court of Session (Section 248)
In a trial in a court of session, there are two main parties involved. The prosecution is handled by a public prosecutor.
The accused person has the right to choose a defence lawyer. If the accused cannot afford a lawyer, the court will
provide one at the state’s expense. Before the trial begins, the accused is given copies of important documents such as
the police report and FIR (First Information Report).
Opening the Case (Section 249)
The public prosecutor begins the case by explaining the accusations against the accused. They briefly outline the
evidence they plan to use to prove the guilt. The prosecutor’s job is not to guarantee a conviction but to present the
case’s facts to the tribunal, which will make the judgment.
Discharge of the Accused in Trial Before a Court of Session (Section 250)
After hearing from both sides, if the court believes there is insufficient reason to proceed against the accused, they will
release the accused and provide the reasons for doing so. This stage does not involve witness examination but allows
both sides to present their arguments for either filing charges or discharging the accused.
Framing of Charges for Trial Before a Court of Session (Section 251)
After listening to both parties in a trial before a Court of Session, if the court believes the accused may have committed
the offence:
If the offence can only be tried in the Court of Session, the court frames the charges in writing.
If the offence is not exclusively for the session’s court, the court frames charges and transfers the case to the Chief
Judicial Magistrate. It’s important to note that when framing charges under Section 228 of the CrPC, the judge doesn’t
need to provide detailed reasons. Only a prima facie case is considered at this stage. This means that the judge doesn’t
have to determine if the case is beyond a reasonable doubt, as clarified by the Supreme Court in the case of Bhawna Bai
v. Ghanshyam & Ors.
In the case of Rukmini Narvekar v. Vijaya Satardekar, the court ruled that the accused could not present evidence at the
charge framing stage. Only materials specified in Section 227 at the time of framing the charges are considered.
Explaining the Charge and Inquiry About Plea (Section 251(2))
The details of the charge must be explained to the accused, allowing them to either admit guilt or request a trial. In the
case of Banwari v. State of UP, the court ruled that not reading or explaining the charge to the accused doesn’t affect
the trial unless it’s proven that not following Section 228 has harmed the accused.
Conviction on a Guilty Plea in Trial Before a Court of Session (Section 252)
If the accused pleads guilty, the judge records the plea and can choose to convict the accused. As seen in Queen
Empress v. Bhadu, the guilty plea must be clear; otherwise, it’s treated as a plea of not guilty. Section 229 specifies that
if an accused pleads guilty, the judge can convict them at their discretion and record it.
However, the court cannot convict the accused on a guilty plea when the offence carries a penalty of death or life
imprisonment. In Hasaruddin Mohommad v. Emperor, the court emphasised that it’s hesitant to convict someone
accused of an offence with the death penalty or life imprisonment based solely on a guilty plea. The accused’s right to
appeal is restricted by Section 375, CrPC if they are convicted based on a guilty plea.
Setting a Date for Prosecution Evidence (Section 253)
If the accused refuses to plead, doesn’t plead, claims to be tried or isn’t convicted under Section 252, the judge
schedules a date for the examination of witnesses or may order the appearance of witnesses or the production of
documents or things.
Evidence for Prosecution (Section 254)
On the scheduled date, the judge gathers all the evidence to support the prosecution’s case.
The judge may, at their discretion, allow the cross-examination of a witness to be postponed until after other witnesses
have been examined or recall a witness for further cross-examination.
In the case of Ram Prasad v. State of U.P, the Supreme Court ruled that if the court finds the prosecution failed to
present witnesses for unreasonable or improper reasons, it can draw a negative conclusion against the prosecution.
The court noted in State of Kerala v. Rasheed that when deciding an application under Section 231(2) CrPC , a balance
should be maintained between the rights of the accused and the prosecution’s obligation to present evidence. Several
factors should be considered, including the risk of undue influence, threats, the potential for later witnesses to adjust
their testimony to undermine the defence and the memory of witnesses whose direct examination is complete.
Prosecution’s Arguments in Trial Before a Court of Session (Section 352(2))
After all witnesses have been heard, the prosecution presents a summary of their oral arguments. A copy of these
arguments is provided to the opposing party.
Examination of the Accused
The accused is questioned without being placed under oath. This process allows the accused to clarify the circumstances
alleged by the prosecution.
Acquittal in Trial Before a Court of Session (Section 255)
If, after hearing from both sides, the judge concludes that the accused did not commit the offence, an order of acquittal
is recorded.
Commencing the Defense (Section 256)
If the accused is not acquitted, they are asked to present their defence. The court has the authority to summon or
question any person as a court witness at any stage.
Arguments (Section 257)
After recording the defence, the prosecutor summarises their case and the accused or their representative is given the
opportunity to respond. If the defence raises any legal points, the prosecutor may be allowed to make additional
submissions.
Judgment of Acquittal or Conviction in Trial Before a Court of Session (Section 258)
After hearing arguments from both sides, the court issues a judgment of either acquittal (not guilty) or conviction
(guilty). In the case of Santa Singh v. State of Punjab, the Supreme Court emphasised that the judge should first decide
on a verdict of either conviction or acquittal. If the accused is convicted, they are given an opportunity to present their
side regarding the sentencing before the court decides the punishment.
In Bacchan Singh v. State of Punjab, the court ruled that this section allows for a two-step trial process. It grants the
accused the right to a pre-sentence hearing, which might not be directly related to the specific crime being investigated
but can impact the choice of punishment.
Previous Conviction (Section 259)
When a prior conviction is alleged, as specified in subsection (7) of Section 234 and the accused does not admit to the
previous conviction as stated in the charge, the judge may collect evidence related to the alleged prior conviction and
make a record of their findings.
It’s important to note that the judge should not read the charge or ask the accused to plead to it and the prosecution
should not mention the previous conviction in any evidence until the accused has been convicted under Section 258 or
Section 262.
Procedure in Cases Instituted Under Section 222(2) (Section 260)
1. Trial Procedure: When a Court of Session takes up a case under Section 222(2), it follows the same trial procedure
used for warrant cases initiated by means other than a police report before a magistrate.
2. In-Camera Trial: All trials under this section can be held in a private session if either party requests it or if the court
deems it appropriate.
3. Compensation for Unfounded Accusations: If the court discharges or acquits all or some of the accused in such a
case and believes that there was no valid reason for making the accusations, it can issue an order. This order directs
the person against whom the offence was alleged to show why they should not compensate the accused. This
applies to each or any of the accused if there are multiple.
4. Determining Compensation: The court examines the reasons presented by the person directed to pay
compensation. If it concludes that there was no reasonable cause for the accusation, it can order compensation, not
exceeding Rs. 5000, to be paid by that person to the accused or each of them.
5. Recovery of Compensation: Compensation awarded under subsection (4) is collected as if it were a fine imposed by
a magistrate.
6. No Exemption from Liability: The person ordered to pay compensation under subsection (4) is not exempted from
any civil or criminal liability regarding the complaint made under this section.
7. Right to Appeal: The person instructed to pay compensation can appeal to the High Court.
8. Payment Timing: When an order for compensation is made in favour of an accused person, the compensation is not
paid to them until the period allowed for filing an appeal has passed or, if an appeal is submitted until the appeal is
decided.
TRIAL OF WARRANT CASES BY MAGISTRATES (SECTION 261 – 273, CHAPTER - XX)
Warrant cases refer to cases involving a criminal offence with the death penalty, life imprisonment, or imprisonment for
a period exceeding two years. These cases typically involve serious or grave offences that are considered cognizable,
allowing the police to make arrests without a warrant. A court of session tries the most severe warrant cases, while
Magistrates handle the rest.
Essential Elements of Warrant Cases
Certain essential elements of warrant cases include:
1. Charges must be specified in a warrant case.
2. The personal appearance of the accused is mandatory.
3. Warrant cases cannot be converted into summons cases.
4. The accused has the right to examine and cross-examine witnesses multiple times.
5. The Magistrate must ensure compliance with the provisions of Section 230.
6. Section 230 mandates the provision of copies of relevant documents, such as the police report, FIR, and recorded
statements, to the accused.
7. The stages of trial in warrant cases are outlined in Sections 261 to 273.
8. Chapter XX of the BNSS governs the trial of warrant cases, while the trial of summons cases falls under Chapter XXI.
9. The discharge of the accused in warrant cases is covered under Section 262 Section 268(2), as applicable to such
cases.
The recall of summons issued against the accused was addressed in the cases of Adalat Prasad v. Rooplal Jindal (338:
2004 SCC (Cri) 1927) and K.M. Mathew v. State of Kerala (1992 SCC (Cri) 88). Also, in Subramanium Sethuraman v. State
of Maharashtra, the Supreme Court was reminded of its decision regarding the warrant procedure in the Adalat Prasad
case.
Trial of Warrant Cases
Chapter XX provides a framework for the procedures related to warrant cases that are triable by Magistrates. This
chapter divides warrant cases into two categories:
Warrant cases instituted on a police report (Section 261-266):
These sections pertain to cases where the police have filed a report regarding the offence. The procedures outlined in
Sections 283 to 243 of Chapter XIX govern such cases.
Warrant cases instituted otherwise than a police report (Section 267-270):
These sections apply to cases where the initiation of the case is not based on a police report.
A. Cases Instituted on a Police Report
1. Compliance with Section 230 (Section 261 BNSS):
When an accused appears in a warrant-case instituted on a police report, the Judicial Magistrate ensures compliance
with Section 230 BNSS.
2. Discharge of Accused (Section 262 BNSS):
The accused has the right to apply for discharge within sixty days from the framing of charges. If the Magistrate
deems the charge groundless after due consideration and hearing, the accused is discharged, and the reasons are
recorded.
3. Framing of Charge (Section 263 BNSS):
If there is ground for presuming the accused committed an offence, the Magistrate frames a written charge within
sixty days from the first hearing on charge. The accused is then asked to enter a plea.
4. Conviction on Plea of Guilty (Section 264 BNSS):
When the accused pleads guilty, the Magistrate may, at their discretion, record the plea and convict the accused.
5. Evidence for Prosecution (Section 265 BNSS):
If the accused refuses to plead or the Magistrate does not convict based on a guilty plea, a date is fixed for the
examination of witnesses. The Magistrate may permit cross-examination deferral and allow the use of audio-video
electronic means for witness testimony.
6. Evidence for Defense (Section 266 BNSS):
 The accused enters the defense, and if written statements are submitted, the Magistrate files them. The Magistrate
may issue processes for witness attendance or document production.
B. Cases Instituted Otherwise Than on Police Report
1. Evidence for Prosecution (Section 267 BNSS):
In warrant-cases instituted otherwise than on a police report, the Magistrate hears the prosecution and takes
evidence in support of it.
2. Discharge of Accused (Section 268 BNSS):
If, after taking evidence, the Magistrate finds no case against the accused, he may discharge the accused. The
Magistrate retains the authority to discharge the accused at any previous stage if the charge is deemed groundless.
3. Procedure Where Accused is Not Discharged (Section 269 BNSS):
If the Magistrate finds grounds for presuming the accused committed an offence, he frames a written charge. The
accused is asked to plead guilty or enter a defense. If the accused refuses to plead, the Magistrate proceeds with
cross-examination and re-examination of prosecution witnesses.
C. Conclusion of Trial
1. Acquittal or Conviction (Section 271 BNSS):
If the Magistrate finds the accused not guilty, an order of acquittal is recorded. In case of a guilty verdict, the
Magistrate, after hearing the accused on the question of sentence, passes sentence according to the law.
2. Absence of Complainant (Section 272 BNSS):
When proceedings are instituted upon a complaint, and the complainant is absent, the Magistrate, after giving thirty
days' time, may discharge the accused if the offence is compoundable or not cognizable.
3. Compensation for Accusation Without Reasonable Cause (Section 273 BNSS):
In cases instituted upon complaint or information, the Magistrate, upon discharging or acquitting the accused, may
order the complainant to pay compensation if there was no reasonable ground for the accusation.

Aspect Warrant Case on Police Report Warrant Case Without Police Report
Meaning Case initiated by police chargesheet Case initiated by private complaint directly to the
after FIR and investigation. Magistrate.
BNSS Section Section 261-266 Section 267- 270
Investigation Conducted by the police under No police investigation unless Magistrate orders under
Section 193. Section 197.
Document Filed Chargesheet under Section 193 BNSS. Complaint under Section 223 BNSS.
Examination of Not required, as police report is Mandatory under Section 223; Magistrate must
Complainant presumed to be sufficient. examine complainant and witnesses on oath.
Discharge Accused may be discharged under Accused may be discharged under Section 268(2) after
Section 262(1) if charge is groundless. complainant is examined and no prima facie case is
found.
Framing of Charge If not discharged, charge is framed Same – charge is framed under Section 269.
under Section 263.
Summoning of Court proceeds to trial by summoning Complainant must bring own witnesses unless court
Witnesses witnesses based on police report. directs otherwise.
Role of Police Police actively investigates and files Police plays no role unless directed by Magistrate.
the final report.
Example A theft case where police files FIR and A cheque bounce case filed directly by a person (not
 chargesheet. investigated by police).
TRIAL OF SUMMON CASES BY MAGISTRATES (SECTION 274 TO 282, CHAPTER - XXII)
A “summon case” refers to a legal case related to an offence that is not considered a warrant case. Warrant cases
typically involve severe punishments like the death penalty, life imprisonment, or imprisonment exceeding two years. In
contrast, summon cases involve offences where the punishment does not exceed two years of imprisonment. These
cases are generally less serious in nature and need to be resolved quickly, without compromising the principles of a fair
trial.
A “summon” refers to a legal document issued by a court, typically a Magistrate, ordering a person to appear before the
court. This document is used in summon cases, which generally involve less serious offenses.
When a summon is issued, it serves as a command for the individual named in it to appear in court on a specified date
and time to respond to a complaint or charges filed against them. The individual may be required to answer questions,
enter a plea (such as guilty or not guilty), or provide their defence during the court proceedings.
I. Substance of Accusation and Plea Options (Sections 274-276):
Section 274 BNSS emphasizes the importance of stating the particulars of the offence when the accused appears before
the Magistrate. Plea options include pleading guilty or presenting a defense. It should be remembered that, if the
Magistrate deems the accusation groundless, the accused may be released with a discharge effect.
II. Conviction on Plea of Guilty (Section 275):
Section 275 BNSS addresses situations where the accused pleads guilty. The Magistrate, at their discretion, may record
the plea and convict the accused accordingly.
III. Conviction in Absence of Accused in Petty Cases (Section 276):
For cases where the accused desires to plead guilty without appearing, Section 276 BNSS provides a mechanism. The
accused can transmit a plea and fine to the Magistrate. The Magistrate, exercising discretion, may convict the accused in
their absence, adjusting the fine accordingly.
IV. Procedure When Not Convicted (Section 277):
Section 277 BNSS outlines the steps when the Magistrate does not convict the accused. It involves hearing both the
prosecution and the accused, summoning witnesses if necessary, and ensuring reasonable expenses are deposited
before witness summoning.
V. Acquittal or Conviction (Section 278 BNSS):
Upon evaluating the evidence and hearing the accused, the Magistrate must either record an order of acquittal or, if
finding the accused guilty, pass a sentence according to law.
VI. Non-Appearance or Death of Complainant (Section 279):
Section 279 BNSS deals with scenarios where the complainant does not appear on the appointed day. The Magistrate
may acquit the accused, but exceptions exist if the complainant is represented by a pleader or if personal attendance is
deemed unnecessary.
VII. Withdrawal of Complaint (Section 280):
Section 280 BNSS allows a complainant to withdraw their complaint before a final order is passed, leading to the
acquittal of the accused against whom the complaint is withdrawn.
VIII. Power to Stop Proceedings (Section 281):
Section 281 BNSS grants the Magistrate the authority to stop proceedings at any stage for recorded reasons, leading to
either an acquittal judgment or the release of the accused.
IX. Power of Court to Convert Summons-Cases into Warrant-Cases (Section 282 BNSS):
In certain circumstances during a summons-case trial, the Magistrate, if in the interest of justice, may convert it into a
warrant-case. This allows for a re-hearing following the procedure outlined in BNSS for warrant-cases.
Manbodh Biswal vs. Samaru Pradhan (1980 Cri LJ 1023): This case emphasized the mandatory nature of Section 251 of
CrPC. It argued that when an accused is brought before a Magistrate, they must be informed about the charges against
them and asked if they want to plead guilty or continue with the trial. In this particular case, because the accused wasn’t
informed about the charges, the trial couldn’t proceed.
In the Arvind Kejriwal case, the Supreme Court noted that the law doesn’t specifically empower Magistrates to dismiss
cases under Section 258(281, BNSS). Instead, it directed such cases to the high court to be handled under Section
482(528, BNSS). However, it’s important to note that even the high court would need to assess whether there are
sufficient grounds to proceed against the accused, potentially delaying the primary goal of summon cases: speedy trials.
Although this issue has been addressed in various cases before the apex court, it warrants further examination to ensure
a fair trial and protect the rights of the accused, especially in situations where their rights may be jeopardized.
Difference Between Summon Case and Warrant Case
There are two main types of criminal cases: Summons Cases and Warrant Cases. The key distinction between these two
types lies in the severity of the offence and the potential punishment involved.
Summons Case
A summons case refers to an offence that does not fall under the category of a warrant case. These offences typically
carry less severe penalties compared to warrant cases under CrPC. In a summons case, the accused is usually issued a
summons by the court to appear before it on a specified date. The case proceeds through the court’s summons process,
and the accused is given an opportunity to present their defence. An example of a summons case is the case of Public
Prosecutor v. Hindustan Motors, Andhra Pradesh, 1970, where the convicted person was sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.
50.
Warrant Case
A warrant case involves offences that are punishable by death, life imprisonment, or imprisonment exceeding two years.
These offences are considered more serious and grave in nature. In a warrant case, the police have the authority to
arrest the accused without a warrant. The trial of a warrant case commences either through filing a First Information
Report (FIR) at a police station or by directly filing it before a Magistrate. It is important to note that the issuance of a
warrant in a summons case does not convert it into a warrant case, as observed in the case of Padam Nath v. Ahmad
Dobi, 1969.
Summons Case Warrant Case

Offence
Less severe offences Serious and grave offences
Severity

Potential Punishable by death, life imprisonment, or

Generally lower penalties
Penalty >2 years’ imprisonment

Accused’s Accused is issued a summons by

Arrested by the police without a warrant
Notice the court

Case Directly filed before the Magistrate FIR filed at a Police Station or before the
Initiation or Police Station Magistrate

Remains a summons case, even if a Remains a warrant case, regardless of

Case Nature
warrant is issued summons issuance

SUMMARY TRIAL (CHAPTER XXII, SECTION 283- 288)

Summary trials, as per the BNSS, are governed by Sections 283 to 288, and they are designed to provide a summary and
expedited process for the trial of certain types of offences. These trials are intended for cases where the maximum
punishment is up to two years of imprisonment or cases that are considered to be of a summary nature by law.
The objective of summary trials is to ensure that justice is delivered swiftly, without compromising on the principles of
natural justice and fair trial.
Key Features of Summary Trials
Summary trials have certain unique features that set them apart from regular trials.
1. Expedited Process: One of the primary features of summary trials is the expedited process. The timelines for various
stages of the legal process, such as investigation, filing of charges, and conducting the trial, are significantly reduced
compared to regular trials. This ensures that the case progresses swiftly and is disposed of in a timely manner.
2. Simplified Procedure: The procedure for summary trials is simpler compared to regular trials. The court has the
discretion to skip certain formalities, such as recording detailed evidence, and can rely on a summary of evidence to
arrive at a decision. The rules of evidence are also relaxed, making the process less formal and more efficient.
3. Limited Punishment: Summary trials are meant for cases where the maximum punishment is up to two years of
imprisonment, although in some cases, it may be extended to three years with the consent of the accused. This
ensures that only offences of a certain gravity are tried summarily, and cases with higher potential punishments are
dealt with through regular trials.
4. Limited Right of Appeal: The right of appeal in summary trials under the Criminal Procedure Code is limited
compared to regular trials. An accused can only appeal to a higher court on points of law, rather than on questions
of fact or mixed questions of law and fact. This helps in expediting the appellate process and reduces delays in the
disposal of cases.
5. Summary Disposal: One of the unique features of summary trials is the provision for summary disposal. If the
accused pleads guilty, and the court is satisfied, the case may be disposed of summarily without a full-fledged trial.
This further accelerates the process and helps in the quick resolution of cases.
Relevant Laws Governing Summary Trials in CrPC
Summary trials are governed by specific sections. Some of the relevant laws that govern summary trials in India are:
1. Section 283: This section defines the offences that can be tried summarily, which include offences where the
maximum punishment is up to two years of imprisonment or offences that are considered to be of a summary
nature by law.
2. Section 284: This section provides a summary trial by Magistrate of the second class.
3. Section 285: This section deals with the procedure to be followed in summary trials.
4. Section 286: This section provides deals with a record in summary trials.
5. Section 287: This section provides for judgment in cases tried summarily.
6. Section 288: Language of Record and Judgment
Who can conduct summary trials?
According to Section 283(1),
 Chief Judicial Magistrate;
 Metropolitan Magistrate;
 Magistrate of the first class specially empowered in this behalf by the High Court, may, if he thinks fit, try in a
summary way.
According to Section 284, the High Court may confer on any Magistrate invested with the powers of a Magistrate of the
second class power to try summarily any offence which is punishable only with fine or with imprisonment for a term not
exceeding six months with or without fine, and any abetment of or attempt to commit any such offence.
Offences tried Summarily
According to Section 283, the following offences can be tried in a summary way:
1. offences not punishable with death, imprisonment for life or imprisonment for a term exceeding three years;
2. theft, under section 303, 305 and 306 of the BNS where the value of the property stolen does not exceed twenty
thousand rupees;
3. receiving or retaining stolen property, under section 317 where the value of the property does not exceed two
hundred rupees;
4. assisting in the concealment or disposal of stolen property, under section 317(5) BNS where the value of such
property does not exceed 20,000 rupees;
5. insult with intent to provoke a breach of the peace, under section 352, and criminal intimidation, under section
351(2) and (3) of the BNS.
6. abetment of any of the foregoing offences;
7. an attempt to commit any of the foregoing offences, when such attempt is an offence;
8. any offence constituted by an act in respect of which a complaint may be made under section 20 of the Cattle-
trespass Act, 1871(1 of 1871).
When, in the course of a summary trial it appears to the Magistrate that the nature of the case is such that it is
undesirable to try it summarily, the Magistrate shall recall any witnesses who may have been examined and proceed to
re-hear the case in the manner provided by this Code.
Procedure for summary trials in CrPC
According to Section 284:
(1) In trials under this Chapter, the procedure specified in this Code for the trial of summons-case shall be followed
except as hereinafter mentioned.
(2) No sentence of imprisonment for a term exceeding three months shall be passed in the case of any conviction under
this Chapter.
Record in summary trials under Criminal Procedure Code
According to Section 285:
In every case tried summarily, the Magistrate shall enter, in such form as the State Government may direct, the following
particulars, namely:-
(a) the serial number of the case:
(b) the date of the commission of the offence;
(c) the date of the report or complaint;
(d) the name of the complainant (if any);
(e) the name, parentage and residence of the accused;
(f) the offence complained of and the offence (if any) proved, and in cases coming under clause (ii), clause (iii) or clause
(iv) of sub-section (1) of section 283, the value of the property in respect of which the offence has been committed;
(g) the plea of the accused and his examination (if any);
(h) the finding;
(i) the sentence or other final order
(j) the date on which proceedings were terminated.
Judgment in cases tried summarily
According to Section 287: In every case tried summarily in which the accused does not plead guilty, the Magistrate shall
record the substance of the evidence and a judgment containing a brief statement of the reasons for the finding.
Language of record and judgment
According to Section 288:
(1) Every such record and judgment shall be written in the language of the Court.
(2) The High Court may authorize any Magistrate empowered to try offences summarily to prepare the aforesaid record
or judgment or both by means of an officer appointed in this behalf by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, and the record
or judgment so prepared shall be signed by such Magistrate.
Withdrawal of remaining charges on conviction on one of several charges
Section 247 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 makes it procedural to withdraw the remaining charges
against an accused person who has already been convicted for one or more offenses.
Subsection (1) states that in multiple charge cases, once conviction has been obtained for one or more offenses, the
prosecuting authority, whether complainant or public prosecutor, may apply to the court for the withdrawal of the
remaining charges.
This provision is set to ensure only the most relevant charges are addressed to save the suspect from facing several
concurrent trials. Withdrawals are subject to the approval of the court, which has to allow the dropping of charges
before a charge is officially dropped.
In the event that the prosecution withdraws any remaining charges after a conviction, the accused is acquitted of those
specific charges. However, this acquittal is conditional upon the conviction on the original charge being valid. If the
original conviction is set aside
-on appeal or otherwise, the court has the power to reinstate the case on the withdrawn charges, subject to any other
order of the court that overruled the conviction. This means that the acquittal on the withdrawn charges is only interim,
based on the finality of the conviction.
Subsection (3) grants the court an discretion to stay and postpone the processes or investigations regarding the
outstanding charges even without a request from the prosecution.
This means that, after convicting, the court may decide to defer and stop continuing with the other charges pending on
its own consideration.
This discretionary power prevents avoidable delays or complications in cases where the outcome of one charge will
render the other charges inconsequential or even redundant.
Section 238: Effect of Charges Errors on Legal Proceedings
Section 238 of the BNSS is a realistic provision covering mistakes in charges, acknowledging that errors may occur in the
intricacies of drafting legal papers. But this section stipulates clearly that not every mistake in a charge sheet is
“material” or significant. Only those mistakes which mislead the accused or result in failure of justice are material. This
emphasis on “material errors” enables the legal process not to be slowed down or entangled in issues over minor
mistakes.
Section 238 provides guidance as to when a mistake in a charge sheet can be deemed to be material and when it would
not be considered so. A summary of its key provisions follows:
Minor Errors Need Not Always Be Material: The subsection makes it clear that minor errors or discrepancies in charges
do not necessarily collapse the legal process. A misdescription of the offense or a failure to include certain particulars
does not necessarily interfere with the proceedings unless it prejudices the accused or affects the case itself. This is done
to see to it that justice is upheld by centering on substance rather than procedure.
Effect on the Accused: For an error to qualify as material, it must have actually misled the accused. When an error or
omission in the charge leaves the accused in doubt regarding the character of the charge, impairing their capacity to
defend themselves appropriately, it qualifies as material. Otherwise, the error is regarded as immaterial, and the trial
continues without having to correct the charge sheet.
Need for a Fair Trial: Section 238’s focus on materiality is in consonance with the values of a fair trial. It makes sure that
the accused are not unduly prejudiced because of mistakes but also that such mistakes do not derail the judicial process
if they have not led to any real harm or confusion to the accused.
Decision on evidence partly recorded by one judge or magistrate and partly by another
In cases where a judge or magistrate who initially heard and recorded part of the evidence in an inquiry or trial is
replaced, the successor judge or magistrate can act on the evidence recorded by their predecessor, including evidence
partly recorded by the predecessor and partly by themselves. This is specifically addressed in Section 365 of the
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), which is the current equivalent of Section 326 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure (CrPC).
Elaboration:
1. BNSS Section 365:
This section provides that if a judge or magistrate ceases to exercise jurisdiction in a case after having recorded some
evidence, their successor can continue the proceedings based on that recorded evidence.
2. Successor’s Powers:
The successor judge or magistrate can act on the evidence recorded by the predecessor and can also take further
evidence if deemed necessary. They are not required to start the trial from scratch.
3. No re-trial:
The BNSS does not require a new trial. The successor can continue from where the previous judge or magistrate left
off.
4. Exception:
This rule does not apply to summary trials or cases where proceedings have been stayed or submitted to a superior
magistrate.
5. Transferred Cases:
When a case is transferred, the original judge or magistrate is deemed to have been succeeded by the judge or
magistrate to whom the case is transferred.
6. Further Examination:
If the successor believes further examination is needed, they can recall the witness and conduct additional
questioning.
Summary procedure to deal with certain cases of perjury and certain kinds of contempt of court,
The concept of perjury is wide, and owing to several circumstances that have prevailed over time, the law makers
bifurcated this concept and specifically delineated various forms of this notion under several sections, starting from
section 227 to 246 of Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS). It is pertinent to mention that the main sections that form the
basis of the word “perjury”, and from which, numerous other branches have emerged, are stated below-
1. Section 227 – Giving false evidence
2. Section 228- Fabricating false evidence
3. Section 229- Punishment for false evidence
The concept of perjury and preliminary inquiries were established to protect the innocent person and to instill fear in
the minds of those individuals who want to wriggle out of the judicial proceedings without facing any consequences of
their ill acts. That after committing an offence, when the accused commits perjury, so that he can go scot-free, is in itself
a grave crime to commit because the person who is carrying out perjury does not realize the repercussions of his
misdoing which can lead to even severe punishment than what that person deserved for the crime he originally
committed as now, the penalty of perjury will also be attracted. Moreover, through perjury the accused also dismantles
the judicial proceedings by fabricating as well as furnishing false evidence in the court of law so that the matter doesn’t
reach its lawful conclusion. Thus, the punishment for perjury, as stated in Section 229 of BNS becomes mandatory and
necessary for the efficient adjudication of a dispute.
The punishment stipulated under section 229 is up to seven years of imprisonment and a fine if the false evidence is
given or fabricated in a “judicial proceeding”. If false evidence is given or fabricated in “any other case”, the punishment
can be up to three years of imprisonment and a fine.
It is to be noted further that, the procedure that is to be followed in perjury cases is outlined in Section 379 of Bhartiya
Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS). If a court believes that an offense under section 215(1)(b) of Bhartiya Nagarik
Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) has been made out then it may conduct an inquiry and, if necessary:
1. Record a finding of the offense.
2. File a written complaint to a Magistrate of the first class having jurisdiction; .
3. Ensure the accused’s appearance, by directing him to deposit enough security or if the offence is non-bailable
then the court can send the concerned accused to such Magistrate’s custody.
4. Bind the accused to furnish evidence before such Magistrate.
It is vital to mention that, the complaints must be in proper format and duly signed by the presiding officer or an
authorized officer of the court.
It is hereby noted that, due to abrogation of the old acts in criminal law, Section 195 of the Indian Penal Code has been
replaced by Section 229 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), and Section 340 of the Criminal
Procedure Code has been amended to Section 379 of the BNSS.
Conditions for intiating Proceedings under 379 of Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS).
The Hon’ble Supreme Court through its landmark judgement in the case titled James Kunjwal vs. State of Uttarakhand
(2024) has laid down the guidelines to commence the prosecution under Section 379 of the BNSS, these guidelines are
as follows:
a. Prima Facie Case for the Offense
The court must first be satisfied that there is enough evidence to suggest that an offense, such as false evidence or
perjury, may have occurred. This means a preliminary case for investigation has been established based on the
materials presented, and there is sufficient ground to believe that a deliberate falsehood has been committed.
b. Expedience in the Interest of Justice
The court must also determine that it is “expedient” to pursue the matter further in the interest of justice. This
involves considering whether investigating the case is crucial to safeguard the legal process and the integrity of the
judicial system, ensuring that false statements do not undermine the course of justice.
c. Deliberate Falsehood on a Matter of Substance
Proceedings should only be initiated if there is a deliberate falsehood on a matter of substance. The court must be
satisfied that the false statement was made intentionally and on an issue that is significant to the case, not merely
due to an innocent mistake or irrelevant inaccuracy.
d. Reasonable Foundation for the Charge
The court should be convinced that there is a reasonable foundation for the charge, supported by distinct and clear
evidence. It is not enough for the court to rely on mere suspicion; there must be tangible evidence to justify the
initiation of proceedings for perjury or false evidence.
e. Exceptional Circumstances for Initiating Proceedings
Proceedings should be initiated in exceptional circumstances, such as when a party has committed perjury to gain a
beneficial order from the court. The court must determine that the false statement has had a direct impact on the
judicial process, leading to an unjust advantage or outcome, thereby justifying the initiation of legal proceedings.
Merely a contradictory statement in a judicial proceeding alone is not enough to justify prosecution for perjury. It must
be proven that the defendant intentionally made a false statement or fabricated evidence, and the court must decide
whether initiating an inquiry is in the interest of justice based on the overall case context,stated in K.T.M.S. Mohd. v.
Union of India (1992).
Is it mandatory to conduct a preliminary inquiry before filing a complaint under Section 229 of BNS 2023 ?
There are different legal precedents offering varying views on the necessity of a preliminary inquiry under Section 340 of
the CrPC before filing a complaint under Section 195. The Supreme Court in State of Punjab vs. Jasbir Singh
(2022) reaffirmed the principle that a preliminary inquiry under Section 340 CrPC is not mandatory before filing a
complaint under Section 195 CrPC. This aligns with the ruling in Iqbal Singh Marwah vs. Meenakshi Marwah
(2005), which emphasized that such an inquiry is discretionary and meant to determine whether proceeding is expedient
in the interest of justice, rather than establishing guilt. This principle streamlines the process, negating the need for a
hearing for the would-be accused.
This recent decision also clarifies that the procedural requirements under Section 340 CrPC are primarily to protect the
administration of justice and are not bound by rigid formalities. This contrasts with the conflicting view in Sharad Pawar
vs. Jagmohan Dalmiya (2010), which mandated a preliminary inquiry and hearing. The reaffirmation of the Constitution
Bench’s ruling ensures consistent application of the law, reducing legal ambiguities and enhancing judicial efficiency.
Q- Neha was charged under Section 420 of IPC (now Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita) for cheating. Midway through the trial,
the court found elements suggesting criminal breach of trust under Section 406. The judge altered the charge without
giving Neha an opportunity to recall witnesses or respond to the new charge. Neha appeals on the ground that the
alteration caused prejudice. Analyze the validity of the alteration and the effect of the procedural lapse.
A- Analysis of the Validity of Charge Alteration and Procedural Lapse
The alteration of charges in Neha’s case raises significant concerns regarding procedural fairness and compliance with
legal safeguards under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023. The key issues to examine are:
1. Legality of altering charges mid-trial
2. Right of the accused to recall witnesses and respond
3. Impact of procedural lapse on the fairness of the trial
Legal Framework Governing Alteration of Charges
1 Power to Alter Charges Under BNS
Under Section 239 of BNS, a court has the authority to alter or add charges at any stage before judgment if new
evidence suggests a different offense. However, this power must be exercised with caution to ensure fairness.
2 Safeguards Against Prejudice
When a charge is altered, the accused must be informed and given an opportunity to:
 Recall witnesses for cross-examination
 Present additional evidence
 Adjust their defense strategy
Failure to provide these safeguards violates the principles of natural justice and can render the trial unfair.
Did the Judge Act Legally?
1 Procedural Lapse in Denying Neha’s Rights
 The court altered the charge from Section 420 (cheating) to Section 406 (criminal breach of trust) without
allowing Neha to recall witnesses or respond.
 This violates Section 240 of BNS, which mandates that the accused must be given an opportunity to defend
against the new charge.
 The alteration caused prejudice, as Neha was not prepared to counter the new allegations.
2 Judicial Precedents Supporting Neha’s Appeal
Several Supreme Court rulings reinforce the importance of procedural fairness:
 Kantilal Chandulal Mehta v. State of Maharashtra (1969): Held that altering charges without giving the accused an
opportunity to respond violates natural justice.
 State of Maharashtra v. Tapas D. Neogy (1999): Ruled that failure to recall witnesses after charge alteration can
invalidate the trial.
 Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978): Established that procedural fairness is an essential component of Article
21 (right to life and liberty).
Effect of the Procedural Lapse on the Trial
1 Violation of Fair Trial Principles
 The alteration without procedural safeguards undermines Neha’s right to a fair trial.
 The denial of witness recall affects her ability to challenge evidence.
 The trial may be declared invalid, requiring a fresh hearing.
2 Possible Legal Remedies for Neha
Neha can:
1. Appeal for quashing of the altered charge due to procedural violations.
2. Seek a retrial with proper safeguards.
3. File a writ petition under Article 226 for violation of fundamental rights.
Conclusion
The judge’s alteration of charges without allowing Neha to recall witnesses or respond was procedurally flawed and
caused prejudice. Neha’s appeal is valid, and she has strong legal grounds to challenge the trial’s fairness.
Evidence in inquiries and trials, general provisions as to inquiries and trials, provisions as to accused persons of unsound
mind.
General provisions to trial and investigation
Investigation
Investigation has been defined under Section 2(l) of bnss. Investigation includes all the proceedings under the Code
required for the collection of evidence. It is conducted by a Police Officer or by any person other than a magistrate, who
has been authorized by the magistrate on this behalf.
Steps of Investigation
1. Proceeding to the spot where the offence has been committed.
2. Ascertain the facts and circumstances of the case.
3. Discovery and arresting the suspected offender.
4. Collecting evidence of the offence that may consist of:
5. Examination of various persons (including accused) and reduction of his statement into writing, if it is deemed fit by
the officer.
6. The search and seizure that are considered necessary for investigation and to produce before trial.
Who has the Authority to Investigate?
The police officer or any other person who has been authorized by a Magistrate on his behalf is competent to
investigate.
Commencement of Investigation
There are two ways to commence the investigation:
 The police officer in charge has the authority to investigate when the FIR is lodged.
 When the complaint has been made to the Magistrate then any person who has been authorized by the
Magistrate can investigate in this regard.
Malafide Investigation
If investigating agencies conduct mala fide investigation, then it is open to correction by invoking the jurisdiction of the
High Court.
Gurman Singh v. State of Rajasthan, 1968
In this case, the Investigating Officer and the Station House Officer had received information about a murder from an
unknown place. It was held that before the investigation commences a Magistrate should take cognizance of the offence.
State v. Pareshwar Ghasi, 1967
In this case, it was observed by the court that etymologically, the meaning of term investigation is that which includes
any process involving sifting of materials or search of any relevant data for the purpose of ascertaining facts in issue in a
matter in hand.
Inquiry
An inquiry is done either by a Magistrate or it is done by the Court but not by a police official. Investigation differs from
inquiry.
According to Section 2(k), Inquiry includes every inquiry except for a trial conducted under this Code, that is done either
by a Magistrate or by the Court. The inquiry relates to the proceedings that are carried out by the Magistrate before a
trial is done.
Inquiry includes all the enquiries that are conducted under this code but it does not include the trials that are conducted
by a Magistrate.
Types of Inquiry
1. Judicial Inquiry
2. Non-Judicial Inquiry/ Administrative Inquiry
3. Preliminary Inquiry
4. Local Inquiry
5. Inquiry into an offence
Inquiry related to matters other than an offence
Under Section 178, the Magistrate is empowered to hold a preliminary inquiry on receipt of the police report under
Section 176, to ascertain whether an offence is committed and if an offence has been committed then whether any
person has to be put upon trial.
The cases which are triable by the Session Court, the commencement of their proceedings take place before a
Magistrate. The proceedings can be in the nature of an inquiry preparatory to send the accused for trial before the court
of Session.
Magistrate also conducts an enquiry in the cases which are triable by himself under Section 339 of the BNSS. If a
complaint is filed before a Magistrate, the Magistrate examines the witnesses and the complainant on an oath to find
out if there is any matter for the investigation that has to be carried out by a criminal court.
If the Magistrate distrusts the statement made by the complainant and the witnesses, the Magistrate may dismiss the
complaint.
The result of the investigation or inquiry does not establish sufficient ground to proceed with the case. All these
proceedings are done in the nature of the inquiry.
Difference between Investigation and Inquiry
Object: The object of investigation is to collect the evidence related to the case, whereas the object of inquiry is to
determine the truth or falsity of certain facts related to the offence, in order to take a further step.
Authority: An investigation is done by a Police Officer or by any person other than a Court or a Magistrate, whereas
inquiry must be done by a Magistrate or Court.
Stage: Investigation is the first stage of any case and the Magistrate further proceeds with an inquiry.
Commencement: Investigation commences after the FIR is lodged or a complaint is made before a Magistrate, whereas
Inquiry commences after the complaint has been filed to a Magistrate.
Trial
The Code of Criminal Procedure does not define the term trial. A trial is a judicial proceeding that ends in either a
conviction or acquittal but does not discharge anyone. It is examination and determination by a judicial tribunal over a
cause which has jurisdiction over it.
The trial begins in a warrant case with the framing of the charge when the accused is called to plead thereto. In a
summons case, it is not necessary to frame a formal charge, the trial starts as soon as the accused is brought before the
magistrate and the particulars of the offence are stated to him. The case which is exclusively triable by a session court,
there the trial begins only after committal proceedings done by the Magistrate. Appeal and revision are included in the
term trial, they are a continuation of the first trial.
In a criminal trial, the function of the court is to find out whether the person who is produced before the court as
accused, is guilty of the offence with which he has been charged. To hold that the accused is guilty of the offence with
which he has been charged, the purpose of the court is to scan the material on record to find out whether there is any
trustworthy and reliable evidence on the basis of which it is possible to find the conviction of the accused.
There are generally three types of trials:
1. Trial by Court of a session.
2. Trial by a magistrate (can we summon or warranty case).
3. Summary trials.
Cases
Javer Chand and Ors. V. Pukhraj Surana, 1961
In this case, it was held that the Court does not proceed further whenever an objection is raised in the court without
passing any order on such an objection. If there is an objection on the stamp duty of a document, then objection will be
decided then and there before proceeding further.
State of Madhya Pradesh v. Budhram, 1995
In this case that accused was convicted for an offence under Section 302 of IPC and was subjected to a death sentence.
The conviction was set aside evidence was not recorded in his presence, later the case was remanded back for trial.
Acquittal of the person again for the same offence
The French terms Autrefois Acquit and Autrefois Convict, meaning "previously acquitted" and "previously convicted"
respectively. A plea of autrefois acquit means that a person cannot be tried for an offence for the reason that he has
been acquitted previously in the same offence and such a plea combined or taken with a plea of not guilty.
Whereas, a plea of autrefois convict means that a person cannot be tried for an offence for the reason that he has been
convicted previously in the same offence and such a plea combined with a plea of not guilty.
Autrefois Acquit and Autrefois Convict are jointly termed as Doctrine of Autrefois Acquit and Autrefois Convict. This
doctrine is basically a rule against double jeopardy, which means a person cannot be tried once again for the same
offence if he has either been acquitted or convicted in a trial relating to the similar offence.
It is provided under Article 20(2) of The Indian Constitution that "No person shall be prosecuted and punished for the
same offence more than once". The same principle has been provided under Section 337 of the BNSS and in Section 26
of The General Clauses Act, 1897.
Section 337 is based upon the maxim "nemo debet bis vexari" which means that a person shall not be brought into
danger more than once for the same offence.
Appearance by public prosecutors
Section 2(v) defines Public Prosecutor. It includes any person acting as per the directions of the Public Prosecutor.
Section 18 defines Public Prosecutor. A Public Prosecutor is considered as an agent of a State, he represents the interest
of the common people in the criminal justice system. They serve the principle of audi alteram partem i.e. no person shall
be condemned unheard.
Babu v. State of Kerala, 2010
In this case, it was observed by the Court that the Public Prosecutors are ministers of justice whose duty is to assist the
judge in the administration of justice.
Directorate of Public Prosecutor supervises as well as scrutinise the functions of various prosecution agencies at Session
level and Assistant Session level except for the High Court.
Section 18 gives the hierarchy of Public Prosecutor
1. Public Prosecutor appointed by the Central Government.
2. Public Prosecutor appointed by the State Government.
3. Additional Public Prosecutor appointed by the State Government.
4. Special Public Prosecutor appointed by the Central Government.
5. Special Public Prosecutor appointed by the State Government.
The permission is granted under Section 360 of BNSS to Public Prosecutor or Assistant Public Prosecutor to withdraw
from the case or prosecution with the Court permission before the pronouncement of a judgement.
Functions of Public Prosecutor
1. Public Prosecutor- supervises the functions of an Additional Public Prosecutor in Session Court and High Court.
2. Chief Prosecutor- supervises the functions of an Assistant Public Prosecutor in a Metropolitan Magistrate Court.
3. Additional Prosecutor- conducts criminal proceedings in a Session Court.
4. Assistant Public Prosecutor- examine the charge sheet that is operated by the agencies and submits acquittal or
discharge. They are even responsible for the evaluation of evidence as well as filing of petitions. They even conduct
criminal proceedings in Metropolitan Magistrate Court.
5. Director of Prosecution This is the head office, they exercise overall control and supervision of officers of Directorate.
They look after the accounts branch.
Role of a Public Prosecutor
The role of a public prosecutor is divided into parts:
1. In the investigation process.
2. During trial
Role of a Public Prosecutor during the investigation process
1. To obtain an arrest warrant by making an appearance in the Court.
2. To obtain a search warrant in order to conduct a search in the specified premises.
3. To obtain remand of police custody for the interrogation that includes custodial interrogation of the accused.
4. To initiate a proceeding for declaring the non-traceable offender as a proclaimed offender.
5. To record in the police report the evidence of the accused with regard to the advisability of the prosecution.
Role of a public prosecutor at the time of trial
1. If the accused is proven guilty then the Public Prosecutor and the defence counsel argue further to decide the
quantum of the punishment.
2. The prosecutors have a responsibility to call upon all the witnesses whose evidence is an essential element in
deciding the case. They also have to cross-examine the witness and make sure that no witness is left
unexamined and to produce all necessary documents.
Cases
Vineet Narain [Link] of India, 1997
In this case, high political dignitaries were involved. There was a failure in the investigation by the CBI. The Court held
that there are no restrictions or limitations in launching prosecutors to initiate the investigation proceedings.
Permission to conduct a prosecution
Section 339 grants permission to the Magistrate who is inquiring into or trying a case may permit the prosecution to be
conducted by any person who is not a police officer but should be below a rank of Inspector. But no person other than
Advocate-General or a Government Advocate or a Public Prosecutor or Assistant Public Prosecutor shall be entitled to
conduct prosecution without such permission.
A police officer cannot be permitted to conduct the prosecution if he took part in the investigation process of the
offence with respect to the offence with which the accused is being prosecuted.
A Magistrate has the power to allow any person or a complainant to appear personally or through a pleader, to conduct
the prosecution.
Section 339 and two Judgements of the Supreme Court of M/s J.K. International vs. State, Govt of NCT of Delhi and Ors.
are the answer to the proposition that a trial by a Magistrate, a complainant or any other person in addition to a Public
Prosecutor can assist the Court and can also participate in the conduct of a trial. The Supreme Court also adhered to the
law of the land binding on all Courts.
Dhariwal Industries Ltd v. Kishori Wadhwani and Ors., 2012
In this case, it was held that the scheme under the Code indicates that a person aggrieved of an offence is not altogether
wiped out from the trial scenario, merely on the ground that the investigation was Section 225 carried out by police and
the charge sheet was laid by them. The fact that the Court had taken cognizance of the offence, even this is not sufficient
to debar him from reaching the court to ventilate his grievance.
Even in the Sessions Court where the only authority is the Public Prosecutor, is empowered to conduct prosecution
under Section 225 of the Code. A private person aggrieved of an offence who is involved in the case is not debarred
altogether from participating in a trial.
The private person who has the permission to conduct prosecution in the Magistrate Court can engage a counsel on his
behalf to do the needful.
It is further amplified that if a private person is aggrieved of an offence that has been committed against him or against a
person whom he is interested in, he can approach the magistrate and seek permission to conduct the prosecution
himself. The Court can accept or reject the request, it is open to the Court decision.
If the Court is of the opinion that the justice can be served better if such permission is granted then generally such
permission is granted by the Court. This wider amplitude is limited to Magistrate Courts, as the private person's right to
participate in the Session Court for the conduct of prosecution is restricted as it is subject under the control of the Public
Prosecutor.
Time limit for investigation and trial under bnss (short)
Under the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, specific time limits have been established to ensure speedy
investigation and trial. Below are the relevant sections governing these timelines:
Time Limit for Investigation
1. Section 173(1)(ii) BNSS – FIR must be recorded within three days if submitted electronically.
2. Section 173(3) BNSS – Preliminary inquiry for offenses punishable between 3 to 7 years must be completed within
14 days.
3. Section 173(5) BNSS – Investigation must be completed within:
o 90 days for minor offenses.
o 180 days for serious offenses (extendable with court approval).
4. Section 173(8) BNSS – Charge sheet must be filed within:
o 60 days for offenses punishable up to 3 years.
o 90 days for offenses punishable beyond 3 years.
Time Limit for Trial
 Section 230 BNSS – Committal proceedings must be completed within 90 days.
 Section 249 BNSS – Charges must be framed within 60 days from the supply of documents to the accused.
 Section 258 BNSS – Judgment must be delivered within 45 days after the trial concludes.
 Section 271 BNSS – Decision on acquittal or conviction must be given within 30 days after arguments are completed
(extendable to 45 days with recorded reasons).
These provisions aim to expedite criminal proceedings, reduce case backlog, and enhance transparency in the justice
system.
POLICE REPORT vs CHARGESHEET (short)
Aspect Police Report Chargesheet
Definition A generic term for any report A specific type of police report filed under Section
submitted by the police to a magistrate 193(2) BNSS (formerly Sec. 173(2) CrPC) when police
during an investigation. conclude that an offence has been committed.
Governing Section 193(1) BNSS Section 193(2) BNSS
Provision
Purpose To inform the magistrate about the To formally accuse a person of a crime and initiate a
progress or result of an investigation. criminal trial.
Contents May include details like FIR, Contains detailed facts of the case, charges, list of
statements, evidence collected, or accused, list of witnesses, documents, forensic reports,
closure report. etc.
Outcome of May state that no offence was found States that sufficient evidence exists to prosecute the
Investigation (e.g., closure report) or some accused.
irregularities were discovered.
Can it result in Not always. A police report may Yes. A chargesheet directly leads to framing of charges
trial? conclude that no case is made out. and beginning of trial.
Magistrate’s Magistrate may accept it, direct further Magistrate may take cognizance of offence under
Role investigation, or treat it as a final Section 210 BNSS and summon the accused.
report.
Related Judicial Pronouncements
1. Bhagwant Singh v. Commissioner of Police (1985)
o SC held that when a police report is a closure report (i.e., no sufficient evidence), the Magistrate must
hear the informant before accepting it.
2. Abhinandan Jha v. Dinesh Mishra (1967)
o Magistrate cannot direct police to file a chargesheet if they have filed a final report. However, he may
disagree and take cognizance himself.
3. State of Gujarat v. Kishanbhai (2014)
o Emphasized that the quality of chargesheet and evidence affects the fairness of trial and conviction.
Conclusion
 Every chargesheet is a police report, but not every police report is a chargesheet.
  The chargesheet is the final culmination of an investigation where the police believe that the accused should be
prosecuted.
 The police report may also be an interim update, a closure report, or a supplementary report.
Investigation v inquiry
Basis Investigation Inquiry
Meaning The investigation is the executive Inquiry is a legal process, which is
procedure of systematically collecting initiated with an aim of clearance of
the facts and evidence, and determining doubt, finding out the truth or
the circumstances of the case. furtherance of knowledge regarding the
case.
Defined in Section 2 (l) Section 2 (k)
Conducted by Police Officer or any other person Magistrate or Court
authorized by Magistrate.
Stage First Stage Second Stage
Objective Collection of facts and evidence Determination of truth and falsehood of
the allegations
Commencement When an FIR or complaint has been When charge-sheet is filed.
lodged.
Ends in Filing of Police Report Framing of Charges
Nature of Administrative Process Judicial or Non-Judicial Process
Process
Role of technology in bnss
The Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS)—which replaces the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), 1973—
marks a significant shift toward modernization and digitization in India’s criminal justice system. One of its standout
features is the explicit integration of technology in various stages of investigation, trial, and procedural compliance.
Use of Electronic Communication for Legal Processes
Section 71 BNSS – Service of summons via electronic communication
 Summons and warrants may be served through email, SMS, or other digital modes.
 Aim: Faster delivery, cost-effectiveness, and traceability.
Section 530 BNSS – Trial and proceedings through video conferencing
 Courts may record statements and conduct inquiries, trials, and even examinations of witnesses through video
conferencing.
 Allows remote appearances for the accused, witnesses, or experts.
Digital FIRs and E-Recording of Evidence
Section 173 BNSS – Filing of FIRs and information in cognizable cases
 Encourages e-FIRs, especially in crimes against women, allowing victims to file complaints electronically from
remote areas.
Section 105 BNSS – Recording of search and seizure
 Allows video recording of search and seizure operations to ensure transparency and prevent tampering or
abuse.
Section 183 BNSS – Recording of victim/witness statements electronically
 Statements under Section 161 (investigation stage) may be recorded electronically or digitally, including audio-
video formats.
Digital Case Management and Filing
 Encourages the use of case management systems, digital police diaries, and e-filing of charge sheets and reports.
 Promotes integration with CCTNS (Crime and Criminal Tracking Network and Systems) and ICJS (Inter-operable
Criminal Justice System).
Technological Safeguards for Evidence Integrity
 Use of electronic signatures, digital seals, and blockchain-inspired timestamps for ensuring authenticity of
electronic records.
 Enhances cyber forensic tools for analyzing digital evidence like emails, chats, cloud storage, etc.
Reducing Delays through Technological Integration
 Virtual hearing mechanisms for bail, remand, and adjournments help in reducing pendency and transportation
delays.
  Tech-enabled monitoring of compliance with timelines (e.g., investigation to be completed within 90 days under
Section 193 BNSS).
Judicial Support for Tech Integration
State of Maharashtra v. Praful Desai (2003)
Supreme Court upheld that video conferencing is a valid method for recording witness testimony.
Conclusion
The BNSS reflects a transformative vision for India’s criminal justice system by:
 Embracing digital efficiency,
 Enhancing access to justice for remote or vulnerable individuals,
 Ensuring transparency, and
 Enabling quicker and tamper-proof processes.
Police accountability increased after amendment
The provisions of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023 that have enhanced transparency and
accountability of police are as under: -
(1) Section 37(b) of BNSS mandates that there will be one designated police officer in every district and at every police
station, not below the rank of Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police responsible for maintaining and displaying
information to the general public about details of persons arrested, etc.
(2) Section 82(2) of BNSS provides that in case of arrest under a warrant executed outside the district, the police officer
making the arrest shall forthwith give information regarding such arrest and the place where the arrested person is
being held to the designated police officer and to such police officer of another district where the arrested person
normally resides.
(3) Section 105 of BNSS provides that search and seizure shall be audio-video recorded and the police officer shall send
such audio-video recording to the District Magistrate, Sub-divisional Magistrate or Judicial Magistrate of first class
without delay. Section 185 of BNSS also provides that search shall be recorded through audio-video electronic
means and copies of any such record shall be sent within 48 hours to the Magistrate empowered to take cognizance
of the offence.
(4) Section 176(2) of BNSS requires the police officer to forward the daily diary report fortnightly to the Magistrate.
(5) Section 176(3) of BNSS mandates the video-recording of the crime scene in case of offences made punishable with
seven years or more.
(6) Section 193 of BNSS mandates that a police report must also include details of the sequence of custody in case of
electronic device. The Section also mandates that the police officer must inform the progress of investigation to the
informant or victim within 90 days of the investigation. This section further provides that after filing of charge sheet,
if further investigation is required, it shall be completed within 90 days and any extension of time period beyond 90
days shall only be with the permission of the Court.
 Unit4
Trials
Q- Vikram is charged with a serious offense under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (murder). The case was
initially heard by a Magistrate, but due to the severity of the offense, it was committed to the Sessions Court for trial.
Vikram’s lawyer argues that the Sessions Court cannot try him without an order of committal from the Magistrate,
and requests the case to be sent back to the Magistrate’s Court. The prosecution contests the request, stating that the
case involves a serious charge and must be tried in the Sessions Court.
Examine the legal requirements for a trial before the Court of Sessions, including the process of committal and the
conditions under which a Sessions Court can take cognizance of an offense. Discuss the applicable provisions under
BNSS and relevant case law.
A- The case of Vikram raises important legal questions regarding the committal process and the jurisdiction of the
Sessions Court under the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023. The key issue is whether the Sessions Court
can proceed with the trial without an order of committal from the Magistrate.
Committal Process Under BNSS
1. When is Committal Required?
Under Section 232 BNSS, a Magistrate must commit a case to the Sessions Court when the offense is triable
exclusively by it. Since murder (Section 302 IPC) is a grave offense, it falls within the jurisdiction of the Sessions
Court, and committal is mandatory.
2. Steps in the Committal Process
The Magistrate must:
1. Examine the case records and ensure compliance with Sections 230 and 231 BNSS.
2. Commit the case to the Sessions Court after verifying that the offense is triable exclusively by it.
3. Send all relevant documents and evidence to the Sessions Court.
4. Notify the Public Prosecutor about the committal.
The committal process must be completed within 90 days from the date of cognizance, extendable to 180 days with
recorded reasons.
Can the Sessions Court Proceed Without Committal?
1. Jurisdiction of the Sessions Court
o The Sessions Court cannot take cognizance of an offense directly unless specifically authorized by law.
o Section 232 BNSS mandates that cases must be committed by a Magistrate before the Sessions Court can proceed.
o If the committal order is missing, the trial cannot legally continue in the Sessions Court.
2. Judicial Precedents Supporting Committal Requirement
Several Supreme Court rulings reinforce the necessity of committal:
 State of Maharashtra v. Tapas D. Neogy (1999): Held that Sessions Courts cannot assume jurisdiction without
committal.
 Kantilal Chandulal Mehta v. State of Maharashtra (1969): Ruled that failure to commit a case properly can
invalidate the trial.
 Birichh Bhuian v. State of Bihar (1963): Established that committal ensures procedural fairness and prevents
arbitrary trials.
Conclusion
Vikram’s lawyer is correct in arguing that the Sessions Court cannot proceed without committal. The Magistrate must
first commit the case, ensuring compliance with Section 232 BNSS. The prosecution cannot bypass this requirement,
even for serious offenses.
Q- Suman is charged with a grave offense of rape under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The case is being
heard by the Sessions Court, but Suman’s defense counsel argues that the Sessions Court has not followed the
appropriate procedure in framing charges and that some evidence has been wrongly admitted. The defense claims
that Suman should be acquitted because the trial process has been fundamentally flawed. The prosecution counters
that the Sessions Court is following all legal procedures correctly and that the charges are appropriate given the
evidence presented.
Discuss the process of trial before the Court of Sessions. Explain the procedure for framing charges and dealing with
evidence, along with the potential impact of errors in the procedure. Include relevant case law and applicable sections
of the BNSS.
A- The case of Suman raises critical legal questions regarding procedural fairness, framing of charges, and admissibility of
evidence under the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023. The defense argues that procedural lapses have
occurred, while the prosecution maintains that the trial is being conducted correctly. To assess the validity of these
claims, we must examine the trial process before the Sessions Court, the procedure for framing charges, and the impact
of errors in the trial process.
Trial Process Before the Court of Sessions Under BNSS
The case of Suman raises critical legal questions regarding procedural fairness, framing of charges, and admissibility of
evidence under the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023. The defense argues that procedural lapses have
occurred, while the prosecution maintains that the trial is being conducted correctly. To assess the validity of these
claims, we must examine the trial process before the Sessions Court, the procedure for framing charges, and the impact
of errors in the trial process.
Stages of Trial in the Sessions Court
The trial process follows these key steps:
1. Committal of the case (234 BNSS)- Magistrate commits the case to Sessions Court since rape is triable exclusively by
it.
2. Opening of the Case (Section 249 BNSS) – The Public Prosecutor presents the charges and outlines the evidence.
3. Framing of Charges (Section 251 BNSS) – The Judge examines the case and frames charges based on the available
evidence.
4. Recording of Prosecution Evidence (Section 254 BNSS) – Witnesses are examined, and evidence is presented.
5. Examination of the Accused (Section 255 BNSS) – The accused is given an opportunity to explain the evidence
against them.
6. Defense Evidence (Section 256 BNSS) – The accused may present witnesses and documents in their defense.
7. Final Arguments (Section 257 BNSS) – Both sides present their closing arguments.
8. Judgment (Section 258 BNSS) – The court delivers its verdict based on the evidence and arguments.
Procedure for Framing Charges
1. Legal Requirements for Framing Charges
Under Section 251 BNSS, the Sessions Court must:
 Examine the case records and evidence.
 Frame charges in writing within 60 days of the first hearing.
 Read and explain the charges to the accused.
 Ask the accused whether they plead guilty or claim trial.
2. Errors in Framing Charges
If charges are not properly framed, the accused may be prejudiced, leading to grounds for appeal. The defense can
challenge the charges if:
 The charges do not match the evidence.
 The accused was not given an opportunity to respond.
 The charges were framed without legal justification.
Admissibility of Evidence and Procedural Errors
1. Rules for Admitting Evidence
Under Section 254 BNSS, evidence must be:
 Relevant to the case.
 Legally obtained.
 Properly recorded.
2. Impact of Wrongly Admitted Evidence
If evidence is wrongly admitted, it can invalidate the trial. The defense can challenge:
 Illegally obtained evidence (e.g., obtained without proper authorization).
 Hearsay evidence that lacks credibility.
 Evidence that violates the accused’s rights.
Judicial Precedents Supporting Procedural Fairness
Several Supreme Court rulings reinforce the importance of procedural fairness:
 State of Maharashtra v. Tapas D. Neogy (1999) – Held that procedural errors can invalidate a trial.
 Kantilal Chandulal Mehta v. State of Maharashtra (1969) – Ruled that failure to frame charges properly can
lead to acquittal.
 Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978) – Established that procedural fairness is essential for a fair trial.
Conclusion
If the Sessions Court failed to follow proper procedures in framing charges or admitting evidence, Suman’s defense has
valid grounds to challenge the trial. Procedural errors can lead to acquittal or a retrial. The defense may seek quashing of
the charges or exclusion of wrongly admitted evidence.
Q- Rajesh has been charged with a serious offense under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) for the alleged
murder of his neighbor. The case was registered in a Magistrate’s Court, and it is classified as a warrant case due to
the severity of the charge. The prosecution has presented evidence, but the defense claims that the Magistrate’s
Court cannot proceed with the trial as the offense is serious and needs to be tried by the Sessions Court. The defense
counsel argues that the case should be transferred to the Sessions Court for trial.
Discuss the procedure for trial in a warrant case by a Magistrate under BNSS, the powers of the Magistrate, and the
procedure for transferring a case to the Sessions Court. Include relevant sections of the BNSS and applicable case law.
A- The case of Rajesh raises important legal questions regarding jurisdiction, trial procedure, and committal to the
Sessions Court under the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023. Since murder (Section 302 IPC) is a grave
offense, the defense argues that the Magistrate’s Court cannot proceed with the trial and must transfer the case to the
Sessions Court. Let’s examine the relevant legal provisions.
Warrant Case Defined – Section 2(1)(x) BNSS
A warrant case means a case relating to an offence punishable with death, life imprisonment, or imprisonment for more
than two years.
Trial Procedure for Warrant Cases Under BNSS
Procedure for Warrant Cases Under BNSS
Under the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, warrant cases refer to offenses punishable by death, life
imprisonment, or imprisonment exceeding two years. The procedure for handling warrant cases is outlined in Chapter
XXI of BNSS, covering cases instituted on a police report and those instituted otherwise than on a police report.
Cases Instituted on a Police Report
1. Compliance with Section 230 BNSS
When an accused appears in a warrant case instituted on a police report, the Magistrate ensures compliance with
Section 230 BNSS.
2. Discharge of Accused (Section 262 BNSS)
 The accused has the right to apply for discharge within 60 days from the framing of charges.
 If the Magistrate finds the charge groundless, the accused is discharged, and reasons are recorded.
3. Framing of Charge (Section 263 BNSS)
 If there is sufficient ground to presume the accused committed an offense, the Magistrate frames a written
charge within 60 days from the first hearing.
 The accused is then asked to enter a plea.
4. Conviction on Plea of Guilty (Section 264 BNSS)
If the accused pleads guilty, the Magistrate may record the plea and convict the accused at their discretion.
5. Evidence for Prosecution (Section 265 BNSS)
 If the accused refuses to plead guilty, the Magistrate examines witnesses and records evidence.
 The Magistrate may permit cross-examination deferral and allow audio-video electronic means for witness
testimony.
6. Evidence for Defense (Section 266 BNSS)
 The accused presents their defense, including written statements.
 The Magistrate may issue processes for witness attendance or document production.
Cases Instituted Otherwise Than on a Police Report
1 Evidence for Prosecution (Section 267 BNSS)
 The Magistrate hears the prosecution and takes evidence in support of the charge.
2 Discharge of Accused (Section 268 BNSS)
 If the Magistrate finds no case against the accused, they may discharge the accused.
 The Magistrate retains the authority to discharge the accused at any previous stage if the charge is deemed
groundless.
3 Procedure Where Accused is Not Discharged (Section 269 BNSS)
 If the Magistrate finds grounds for presuming the accused committed an offense, they frame a written charge.
 The accused is asked to plead guilty or enter a defense.
 If the accused refuses to plead, the Magistrate proceeds with cross-examination and re-examination of
prosecution witnesses.
Conclusion of Trial
1 Acquittal or Conviction (Section 271 BNSS)
 If the Magistrate finds the accused not guilty, an order of acquittal is recorded.
 If the accused is found guilty, the Magistrate passes sentence after hearing the accused on the question of
punishment.
Powers of the Magistrate in Warrant Cases
A Magistrate has the authority to:
 Conduct preliminary proceedings to determine whether there is sufficient evidence.
 Frame charges under Section 263 BNSS if the case is triable by a Magistrate.
 Commit the case to the Sessions Court under Section 232 BNSS if the offense is exclusively triable by the
Sessions Court.
Since murder is exclusively triable by the Sessions Court, the Magistrate cannot conduct the trial and must commit the
case.
Procedure for Transferring a Case to the Sessions Court
232 section deals with the procedure to be followed when a Magistrate finds that an offence, for which a case has been
instituted, is triable exclusively by the Court of Session. In such cases, the Magistrate is obligated to commit the case to
the Court of Session.
Procedure outlined in the section:
a) (a) Commitment to Court of Session: After complying with the provisions of Section 230 or 231 (relating to
examination of witnesses and recording of evidence), the Magistrate shall commit the case to the Court of Session.
The accused is remanded to custody until the commitment is made, subject to the provisions of bail.
b) (b) Remand during trial: The accused is further remanded to custody during the trial and until its conclusion, again
subject to the provisions of bail.
c) (c) Sending records to Court of Session: The Magistrate sends the case record, documents, and articles to be
produced as evidence to the Court of Session.
d) (d) Notification to Public Prosecutor: The Magistrate informs the Public Prosecutor about the commitment of the
case to the Court of Session.
Time limit for completion of proceedings:
The proceedings under this section must be completed within 90 days from the date of taking cognizance. This period
can be extended by the Magistrate for a maximum of 180 days, but only for reasons recorded in writing.
Forwarding of applications:
Any applications filed before the Magistrate by the accused, victim, or their authorized representatives in a case triable
by the Court of Session shall be forwarded to the Court of Session along with the committal of the case.
Illustration:
Imagine a case involving murder. The Magistrate, after conducting the initial proceedings, finds that the offence is triable
exclusively by the Court of Session. The Magistrate will then commit the case to the Court of Session, remand the
accused to custody, send the relevant documents, and inform the Public Prosecutor.
Judicial Precedents Supporting Committal Requirement
Several Supreme Court rulings reinforce the necessity of committal:
 State of Maharashtra v. Tapas D. Neogy (1999) – Held that Sessions Courts cannot assume jurisdiction without
committal.
 Kantilal Chandulal Mehta v. State of Maharashtra (1969) – Ruled that failure to commit a case properly can
invalidate the trial.
 Birichh Bhuian v. State of Bihar (1963) – Established that committal ensures procedural fairness and prevents
arbitrary trials.
Conclusion
The defense counsel is correct in arguing that the Magistrate cannot proceed with the trial and must commit the case to
the Sessions Court. The prosecution cannot bypass this requirement, even for serious offenses. The Magistrate must
follow the committal process under Section 232 BNSS before the Sessions Court can assume jurisdiction.
Plea bargaining (long and short)
Plea bargaining is a legal procedure in criminal law wherein the defendant negotiates with the prosecutor to admit guilt
to a reduced offence in exchange for a more lenient punishment.
This approach helps to reduce the backlog of cases in the judicial system by expediting the proceedings. It is not
employed for highly grave offences, such as those that carry the penalty of death or life imprisonment.
Plea bargaining was incorporated into India’s criminal justice system by the BNSS, notably in Sections 289 to 300 of
Chapter XXIII. The Criminal Law (Amendment) Act, 2005, introduced a modification that permits plea bargaining for
offences meeting specific criteria:
 Carry a maximum penalty of 7 years’ imprisonment.
 Do not affect the socio-economic state of the country.
 They do not target women or children under the age of 14.
In section 290 of BNSS, plea bargaining has been made time bound and application can be made within 30 days from
date of framing of charge.
The concept originated from the Law Commission’s 154th Report, which proposed its implementation to address the
accumulation of pending cases. Subsequently, the Malimath Committee, operating under the NDA government,
endorsed this viewpoint, acknowledging the effectiveness of this approach in the United States.
Plea Bargaining under Sections 289 to 300 of the BNSS
Section 289 (Application of Chapter) states that plea bargaining applies to offences that do not include the death
penalty, life imprisonment, or a sentence exceeding seven years. The Central Government compiles a list of offences that
have a significant impact on the country’s socioeconomic situation but are not eligible for plea bargaining.
Section 290 allows accused individuals to submit applications for plea bargaining in ongoing proceedings. The
application should contain comprehensive information about the case and an affidavit confirming the plea’s voluntary
nature. Subsequently, the court will inform the prosecutor, investigating officer, and victim and establish a date for the
hearing.
Section 291, also known as the “Guidelines for Mutually Satisfactory Disposition,” provides instructions on the proper
procedures for the court to follow to reach a mutually agreeable resolution of the matter through discussions. The court
dispatches notifications to all parties concerned with the aim of convening a discussion and reaching a mutually
acceptable conclusion on the issue.
If the parties involved in a legal matter reach an agreement, the court will create a report that all parties sign, according
to Section 292, also known as the “Report of the Mutually Satisfactory Disposition.” If no consensus is achieved, the
court duly documents this, and the matter continues in the usual manner.
Section 293, also known as “Disposal of the Case,” pertains to the finalisation of a matter in court. Once an agreement is
reached, the court proceeds to deliberate on the appropriate sentence or potential probation. The court has the
authority to grant the accused probation or impose a less severe sentence, depending on the agreement.
The court issues a judgement under Section 294, based on the plea bargaining agreement.
According to section 295, judgements resulting from plea bargaining are considered final and cannot be appealed
through conventional means. Nevertheless, it is possible to pursue a review via a special leave petition for a writ
petition.
Section 296 of the law provides the court with distinct authorities in the process of plea bargaining, such as making
decisions about bail and other procedural matters.
Section 297, commonly referred to as the Period of Detention Set Off, allows for the deduction of the time an accused
person has already spent in detention from their eventual sentence.
Section 298 (Savings) states that the regulations in this chapter take precedence over any contradictory statutes in the
Code.
Section 299, also known as the “Statement of the Accused,” states that any statements made by the accused during plea
bargaining applications can only be utilised for the specific purposes outlined in this chapter and cannot be utilised for
any other legal concerns.
Section 300 states that the concept of plea bargaining does not apply to individuals who are considered minors or
children according to the Juvenile Justice Act.
Types of Plea Bargaining
There are three primary types of plea bargaining:
1. Sentence Bargaining: The defendant admits guilt to the initial accusation in return for a reduced punishment.
2. Charge Bargaining: This is the most prevalent kind of bargaining, in which the defendant admits guilt to a less
serious offence in exchange for the dismissal of more serious charges. For instance, the defendant might choose to
plead guilty to the charge of manslaughter instead of murder.
3. Fact bargaining is an infrequently employed strategy where the defendant consents to acknowledge specific facts in
exchange for the exclusion of other facts from being presented in court.
Landmark Cases on Plea Bargaining
1. In the case of Murlidhar Meghraj Loya versus the State of Maharashtra (1976), the Supreme Court expressed
disapproval of plea bargaining, stating that it is detrimental to the interests of society.
2. In the case of Kasambhai versus the State of Gujarat (1980), the Supreme Court ruled that plea bargaining is contrary
to public policy. The court also criticised a magistrate for accepting plea bargaining, deeming it illegitimate and
unconstitutional.
3. In the case of Thippaswamy versus the State of Karnataka (1983), the Supreme Court explicitly declared that it is
unconstitutional to force a guilty plea from an accused individual. The superior courts should overturn the conviction
and initiate a new trial if they coerce a plea.
4. In the case of Uttar Pradesh versus Chandrika (2000), the Supreme Court reaffirmed that plea bargaining is
unconstitutional. The court emphasised that matters should be decided based on their merits and the law rather
than through plea bargaining.
Q- Ramesh is charged under Section 324 of the IPC (Voluntarily causing hurt by dangerous weapons), which is
punishable with up to 3 years imprisonment. During the proceedings, he expresses willingness to plead guilty in
exchange for a lesser sentence. The Magistrate agrees to this and records his statement. Later, Ramesh claims he was
pressured by the police to accept a plea bargain and files an appeal.
Discuss the legality and procedure of plea bargaining under BNSS, including safeguards to ensure voluntariness. Also,
examine whether Ramesh can revoke his plea. Refer to statutory provisions and case laws.
A- Plea bargaining is a legal mechanism under the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, allowing an accused
to plead guilty in exchange for a reduced sentence. However, safeguards exist to ensure voluntariness and prevent
coercion. Ramesh’s claim that he was pressured into accepting a plea bargain raises concerns about procedural fairness
and whether he can revoke his plea.
Legal Framework for Plea Bargaining Under BNSS
1. Applicability of Plea Bargaining (Section 289 BNSS)
Plea bargaining is permissible for offenses where:
 The punishment does not exceed seven years.
 The offense does not affect the socio-economic condition of the country.
 The offense is not committed against a woman or child.
Since Section 324 IPC carries a maximum punishment of three years, plea bargaining is allowed in Ramesh’s case.
2. Procedure for Plea Bargaining (Section 290 BNSS)
1. Application Submission: The accused must file an application within 30 days of charge framing.
2. Affidavit Requirement: The application must include an affidavit affirming voluntariness.
3. Private Examination: The court privately examines the accused to ensure the plea is voluntary.
4. Negotiation Period: The court grants up to 60 days for the prosecution and accused to reach an agreement.
5. Final Decision: If the plea is accepted, the court passes an appropriate sentence.
Safeguards to Ensure Voluntariness
1 Judicial Oversight
 The court must ensure that the plea is not induced by coercion.
 The accused must be examined privately, without police or prosecution influence.
2 Right to Legal Counsel
 The accused must have access to legal representation before accepting a plea bargain.
 If coercion is suspected, the plea can be revoked.
3 Case Law Supporting Voluntariness
 Kasambhai Abdul Rehman Bhai Sheikh v. State of Gujarat (1980): The Supreme Court ruled that forced plea
bargaining is unconstitutional.
 State of Gujarat v. Natwar Harchandji Thakor (2005): Held that plea bargaining must be voluntary and fair.
Can Ramesh Revoke His Plea?
1. Grounds for Revocation
Ramesh can revoke his plea if:
 He was coerced by the police.
 The plea was not voluntary.
 The court failed to conduct a private examination.
2. Legal Remedies Available
 File an appeal challenging the plea bargain.
 Seek a retrial if coercion is proven.
 Request exclusion of the plea statement from evidence.
Conclusion
Ramesh’s claim of coercion raises valid concerns. If his plea was not voluntary, he can revoke it and seek a fair trial. The
court must ensure procedural safeguards to prevent wrongful convictions.
Q- Fatima is an undertrial for theft under Section 379 IPC (punishable up to 3 years). Her defense counsel advises her
to opt for plea bargaining to avoid lengthy proceedings. She accepts and is awarded a lighter sentence. However, a
public interest group files a petition claiming her right to a fair trial under Article 21 was violated, and that poor and
illiterate undertrials may not understand plea bargaining fully. Critically examine the balance between plea bargaining
and the constitutional guarantee of a fair trial under Article 21. Can plea bargaining be misused? Support your answer
with provisions and judicial precedents.
A- Plea bargaining, introduced in India through amendments to the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) in 2005, is a
mechanism allowing an accused to plead guilty in exchange for a reduced sentence. While it helps in reducing case
backlog and expediting justice, concerns arise regarding its impact on the constitutional guarantee of a fair trial under
Article 21. The petition filed by the public interest group in Fatima’s case highlights the potential risks of coercion, lack of
informed consent, and misuse of plea bargaining, particularly for poor and illiterate undertrials.
Constitutional Guarantee of a Fair Trial Under Article 21
1. Meaning of a Fair Trial
Article 21 of the Constitution guarantees the right to life and personal liberty, which includes the right to a fair trial.
A fair trial ensures:
 Legal representation for the accused.
 Opportunity to present evidence and cross-examine witnesses.
 Protection against coercion or forced confessions.
2. Judicial Interpretation of Fair Trial
 Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978): Established that procedure must be fair, just, and reasonable.
 Zahira Habibullah Sheikh v. State of Gujarat (2006): Reinforced that a fair trial is essential for justice.
If plea bargaining compromises these principles, it may violate Article 21.
Plea Bargaining Under BNSS
1. Legal Framework for Plea Bargaining
Plea bargaining is governed by Section 289 BNSS. It applies to:
 Offenses punishable up to seven years.
 Cases where the offense does not affect socio-economic conditions.
 Cases not involving women or children as victims.
Fatima’s case under Section 379 IPC (theft) qualifies for plea bargaining.
2. Safeguards to Prevent Misuse
To ensure fairness, plea bargaining requires:
 Voluntary consent of the accused.
 Private examination by the court to confirm no coercion.
 Legal representation for the accused.
 Prohibition on using plea statements in other proceedings.
Can Plea Bargaining Be Misused?
1. Risks of Coercion and Exploitation
 Poor and illiterate undertrials may not fully understand the consequences.
 Police pressure may force accused persons into accepting plea deals.
 Judicial oversight may be inadequate, leading to unfair outcomes.
2. Judicial Precedents Highlighting Concerns
 Kasambhai Abdul Rehman Bhai Sheikh v. State of Gujarat (1980): Held that forced plea bargaining is
unconstitutional.
 State of Gujarat v. Natwar Harchandji Thakor (2005): Reinforced that plea bargaining must be voluntary and fair.
Conclusion
While plea bargaining expedites justice, it must not compromise the right to a fair trial. Courts must ensure
voluntariness, legal representation, and judicial oversight to prevent misuse. Fatima’s case highlights the need for greater
safeguards, especially for vulnerable undertrials.
Roles of Executive and Judicial Magistrates Under BNSS (short)
Under the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, magistrates are classified into Executive Magistrates and
Judicial Magistrates, each with distinct roles and responsibilities.
Executive Magistrates
Executive Magistrates primarily handle administrative and preventive functions related to law and order. Their powers
are outlined in Sections 14 to 17 BNSS.
1. Appointment and Jurisdiction
 Appointed by the State Government.
 Includes District Magistrates, Additional District Magistrates, Sub-divisional Magistrates, and Special Executive
Magistrates.
 Responsible for maintaining public order and preventing offenses.
2. Powers and Functions
 Preventive Actions: Can issue orders under Section 144 BNSS to prevent disturbances.
 Security for Keeping Peace: Can require individuals to furnish bonds for good behavior.
 Public Order Maintenance: Handle cases related to riots, unlawful assemblies, and nuisance control.
 Police Supervision: Oversee law enforcement actions in their jurisdiction.
Judicial Magistrates
Judicial Magistrates handle criminal trials and judicial proceedings. Their powers are defined under Sections 9 to 13
BNSS.
1 Classification and Jurisdiction
 Chief Judicial Magistrate (CJM): Supervises all Judicial Magistrates in a district.
 Judicial Magistrate First Class (JMFC): Handles cases punishable up to three years imprisonment.
 Judicial Magistrate Second Class (JM-II): Handles cases punishable up to one year imprisonment.
 Special Judicial Magistrates: Appointed for specific cases by the High Court.
2 Powers and Functions
 Trial of Criminal Cases: Conducts trials for offenses under BNSS and IPC.
 Issuance of Warrants and Summons: Can issue arrest warrants, search warrants, and summons.
 Granting Bail: Decides bail applications based on case severity.
 Recording Confessions and Evidence: Ensures fair trial procedures.
Key Differences Between Executive and Judicial Magistrates
Aspect Executive Magistrates Judicial Magistrates
Appointment By State Government By High Court
Primary Role Law and order maintenance Criminal trials and judicial proceedings
Jurisdiction Preventive actions, security orders Trial of offenses, sentencing
Authority Over Supervisory role No direct control
Police
Issuance of Warrants Limited to preventive cases Handles criminal warrants
Conclusion
Executive Magistrates focus on preventive measures and law enforcement, while Judicial Magistrates handle criminal
trials and judicial decisions. Their distinct roles ensure efficient administration of justice under BNSS.