Chapter 20: Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023

We are now in Chapter XX (Trial of Warrant-Cases by Magistrates). This chapter lays out the step-by-step procedure for trials in a Magistrate’s Court. This applies to “warrant-cases,” which are serious enough (punishable with more than 2 years imprisonment) to require a formal trial, but are not so severe that they must be tried by a Sessions Court (like murder or rape).

This chapter is divided into two separate procedures: one for cases started by the police and one for cases started by a private citizen.

A.—Cases instituted on a police report

This procedure is for trials that begin with a police chargesheet (a “police report”).

Section 261: Compliance with section 230

• Simple English: This is the first step of the trial. When the accused person appears or is brought before the Magistrate (at the start of the trial), the Magistrate’s first duty is to check and confirm (“satisfy himself”) that the police have given the accused their free copy of the complete chargesheet and all related documents (as required by Section 230).
• Real-World Example: The trial date is set. The Magistrate asks the accused’s lawyer, “Has compliance with Section 230 been done?” The lawyer confirms, “Yes, Your Honour, we have received the full set of documents.” The Magistrate makes a note of this and only then moves to the next stage.

Section 262: When accused shall be discharged

• Sub-section (1):
  • Simple English: This is a new mandatory timeline. The accused person has a specific window of 60 days, starting from the day they were given the chargesheet (under Sec 230), to file a “discharge application.”
  • Real-World Example: An accused receives his chargesheet on May 1st. His lawyer must file the discharge application by June 30th.
• Sub-section (2):
  • Simple English: This is the “discharge hearing.” The Magistrate must do three things:
    1. Consider the entire police report and all attached documents.
    2. Make any “examination” of the accused that they think is necessary (this can be done in person or via audio-video).
    3. Give both the prosecution and the defense a full opportunity to argue their case.
  • The Test: If, after all this, the Magistrate believes the charge against the accused is “groundless” (meaning there is no real evidence to even justify a trial), the Magistrate shall discharge the accused and must write down the reasons.
  • Real-World Example: The accused is charged with theft. His lawyer argues for discharge, stating, “Your Honour, the only evidence in the chargesheet is that my client was found 10 km away. There are no witnesses, no recovery, and no motive. The charge is groundless.” The Magistrate agrees, “discharges” the accused, and the case is over.

Section 263: Framing of charge

• Sub-section (1):
  • Simple English: If the Magistrate denies the discharge application (meaning they believe there is a case to answer), they must then formally “frame a charge” in writing. This charge states the exact offence the accused is presumed to have committed.
  • New Mandatory Timeline: This charge must be framed within 60 days from the date of the first hearing on the charge.
  • Real-World Example: The Magistrate rejects the discharge application and says, “There is a clear ground for presuming the accused committed theft. I will frame the charge.” The court then formally drafts the charge sheet.
• Sub-section (2):
  • Simple English: The charge that was just framed must be read out and explained to the accused.
  • The Plea: The accused is then formally asked, “Do you plead guilty to this charge, or do you claim to be tried?”
  • Real-World Example: The judge reads the charge: “That you, on [date], did commit theft…”. The judge then asks the accused, “Do you plead guilty, or not guilty?”

Section 264: Conviction on plea of guilty

• Simple English: If the accused says, “I plead guilty,” the Magistrate must write down the plea (record it). The Magistrate may then, in their discretion, convict the accused immediately based on that plea.
• Real-World Example: The accused says, “Guilty, Your Honour.” The Magistrate records this and can immediately move to the sentencing (punishment) phase.

Section 265: Evidence for prosecution

• Sub-section (1):
  • Simple English: If the accused pleads “not guilty” (or refuses to plead, or the Magistrate doesn’t convict on a guilty plea), the Magistrate must fix a date for the trial to begin and for the prosecution (the police) to present their witnesses.
  • Proviso: The Magistrate must ensure that the accused is given (in advance) the police statements of the witnesses who are scheduled to be examined on that day.
  • Real-World Example: The accused pleads “not guilty.” The Magistrate sets the trial date for one month later and orders the prosecutor, “Ensure the statements of the first three witnesses are supplied to the defense at least one week prior.”
• Sub-section (2):
  • Simple English: The Magistrate can, on the prosecutor’s request, issue an official summons to force any witness to attend the trial or to produce any document.
• Sub-section (3):
  • Simple English: On the trial date, the Magistrate must proceed to take “all such evidence” (hear all the witnesses) that the prosecution brings in support of its case. This involves the witness’s main testimony, cross-examination by the defense, and re-examination by the prosecutor.
  • First Proviso: The Magistrate has the discretion to allow the cross-examination of one witness to be deferred (postponed) until other witnesses have been examined, or to “recall” a witness for more cross-examination.
  • Second Proviso (New): The examination of a witness can be done using “audio-video electronic means” (like a video call) at a designated place (like another court or an official video-conferencing room).
  • Real-World Example: A government doctor who performed the medical exam has been transferred to another state. The Magistrate allows them to testify and be cross-examined via a secure video link, saving time and travel costs.

Section 266: Evidence for defence

• Sub-section (1):
  • Simple English: After the prosecution has finished presenting all of its witnesses and evidence, the accused is “called upon to enter upon his defence.” This is the accused’s turn to present their own evidence and witnesses to prove their innocence. If the accused provides a written statement, the Magistrate must file it with the case record.
  • Real-World Example: The prosecutor says, “The prosecution closes its evidence.” The Magistrate then turns to the accused and says, “It is now your turn to present your defense.” The defense lawyer then calls their first alibi witness.
• Sub-section (2):
  • Simple English: The accused has the right to ask the Magistrate to issue a summons to compel a defense witness to attend court or produce a document. The Magistrate must issue this summons.
  • The Exception: The Magistrate can refuse this request only if they believe the accused is doing it just to waste time (“vexation or delay”) or to obstruct justice. The Magistrate must write down this reason.
  • First Proviso: If the accused already had a chance to cross-examine a prosecution witness, they can’t force them to come back again as a “defense” witness, unless the Magistrate agrees it’s truly necessary for justice.
  • Second Proviso (New): Defense witnesses can also be examined via audio-video.
  • Real-World Example: The accused wants to prove an alibi. Their witness, a hotel manager, refuses to come to court. The accused’s lawyer applies for a summons, and the Magistrate issues it, forcing the manager to appear.
• Sub-section (3):
  • Simple English: Before issuing a summons for a defense witness, the Magistrate can order the accused to deposit money in the court to cover the “reasonable expenses” (like travel and food) for that witness.

B.—Cases instituted otherwise than on police report

This procedure is for trials that begin with a private complaint (where a citizen, not the police, started the case). This procedure is different because there is no prior police investigation or chargesheet.

Section 267: Evidence for prosecution

• Sub-section (1):
  • Simple English: When the accused appears in court (in response to a summons from a private complaint), the Magistrate must “proceed to hear the prosecution” (the complainant) and take all evidence (hear all the witnesses) they produce. This is called “pre-charge evidence.”
  • Real-World Example: You filed a private complaint against someone for cheating. On the first day of the trial, you and your witnesses must, one by one, go into the witness box, give your main testimony (examination-in-chief), and be cross-examined by the accused’s lawyer.
• Sub-section (2):
  • Simple English: The Magistrate can, on the complainant’s request, issue a summons to force a reluctant witness to attend.

Section 268: When accused shall be discharged

• Sub-section (1):
  • Simple English: This is the “discharge” stage for a private complaint. It happens after all the complainant’s witnesses have testified (under Sec 267). If the Magistrate, after hearing all this evidence, believes that “no case against the accused has been made out” (meaning, even if the evidence is true, it’s not enough to convict), the Magistrate must discharge the accused and write down the reasons.
  • Real-World Example: In your cheating complaint, your own witnesses admit in cross-examination that it was just a business loss, not a crime. After all your evidence is done, the Magistrate says, “The complainant has failed to make a case for cheating. The accused is discharged.”
• Sub-section (2):
  • Simple English: The Magistrate also has the power to discharge the accused at any earlier stage if they consider the charge to be “groundless” (e.g., frivolous or absurd).
  • Real-World Example: The Magistrate reads a private complaint and finds it’s about “black magic.” The Magistrate can discharge the accused immediately as the complaint is “groundless,” without even hearing witnesses.

Section 269: Procedure where accused is not discharged

• Sub-section (1):
  • Simple English: If the Magistrate does think there’s a case after hearing the complainant’s evidence, then and only then will the Magistrate formally “frame a charge” in writing.
  • Real-World Example: The Magistrate hears your witnesses and is convinced there is a prima facie (at first glance) case for cheating. The Magistrate now formally frames the charge.
• Sub-section (2):
  • Simple English: The newly framed charge is read and explained to the accused, who is then asked to plead “guilty” or “not guilty” (has any defense).
• Sub-section (3):
  • Simple English: If the accused pleads guilty, the Magistrate can record the plea and convict them.
• Sub-section (4):
  • Simple English: This is a crucial difference in a private complaint trial. If the accused pleads “not guilty” (or refuses to plead), the Magistrate must then ask the accused if they want to cross-examine again any of the complainant’s witnesses who have already testified.
  • Why? Because the first cross-examination (in Sec 267) happened before the accused knew what the exact formal charge was. This gives them a second chance to cross-examine after the charge is framed.
• Sub-section (5):
  • Simple English: If the accused says, “Yes, I want to re-cross-examine the main witness,” that witness must be recalled to the witness box for another round of cross-examination.
• Sub-section (6):
  • Simple English: If the complainant has any remaining witnesses (who were on their list but not called in the pre-charge stage), they will be heard after this second round of cross-examination is finished.
• Sub-section (7):
  • Simple English: This is a new rule to speed up trials. If a prosecution witness (who is recalled under sub-section 5, or called for the first time under sub-section 6) fails to appear for cross-examination despite reasonable efforts, the Magistrate can’t wait forever.
  • The Consequence: The Magistrate can declare that the witness’s evidence is void (“shall be deemed that such witness has not been examined”) because they weren’t available for a full cross-examination. The Magistrate can then close the prosecution’s case and proceed with the remaining evidence.
  • Real-World Example: The complainant’s key witness (who testified in pre-charge) is recalled. He fails to appear for three consecutive dates. The Magistrate issues a warrant, which also fails. The Magistrate can now pass an order: “The evidence of this witness is struck from the record. The prosecution case is closed.”

Section 270: Evidence for defence

• Simple English: This is the final stage. After the prosecution’s case is fully closed (including any re-cross-examinations and remaining witnesses), the accused is finally “called upon to enter upon his defence” and present their own witnesses and evidence (just like in Section 266).
• Real-World Example: The complainant’s case is now completely finished. The Magistrate says, “The defense may now present its evidence.” The accused’s lawyer then calls their witnesses.

C.—Conclusion of trial

Section 271: Acquittal or conviction

This section details the final judgment in a Magistrate’s trial for a “warrant-case.”

• Sub-section (1):
  • Simple English: If the Magistrate, after hearing all the evidence, finds the accused “not guilty,” they must record a formal order of acquittal.
  • Real-World Example: After hearing the prosecution and defense in a theft case, the Magistrate concludes, “The prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt. The accused is found not guilty and is acquitted.”
• Sub-section (2):
  • Simple English: If the Magistrate finds the accused “guilty,” they must (like in a Sessions trial) hold a separate hearing on the “question of sentence” (how much punishment to give). After that hearing, the Magistrate passes the sentence.
  • Exception: This separate hearing is not needed if the Magistrate decides to use probation (Section 401) or a severe sentence that requires sending the case to the CJM (Section 364).
  • Real-World Example: The Magistrate finds the accused guilty of cheating. He says, “I will now hear both sides on the quantum of sentence.” The prosecutor argues for jail time, and the defense lawyer argues for a fine. After hearing both, the Magistrate passes the final sentence.
• Sub-section (3):
  • Simple English: This is the same procedure as in a Sessions trial for repeat offenders. If the accused was charged with having a “previous conviction” (for a harsher sentence) and denied it, the Magistrate will:
    1. First, find them guilty of the current offence.
    2. Then, take evidence (like old court records) to prove the previous conviction.
  • Proviso: To avoid prejudice, the charge of the previous conviction must not be read out or mentioned by the prosecution during the main trial. It is only dealt with after the accused is found guilty of the current crime.
  • Real-World Example: A man is on trial for theft. The Magistrate first finds him guilty. Then, the prosecutor says, “Your Honour, the accused has a prior theft conviction from 2020. Here is the certified judgment.” The Magistrate confirms it and can then give a harsher sentence.

Section 272: Absence of complainant

This section applies only to “warrant-cases” started from a private complaint.

• Simple English: If, on any hearing date before the formal charge is framed, the complainant (the person who filed the case) is absent, the Magistrate has a choice. If the offence is minor (compoundable or non-cognizable), the Magistrate may discharge the accused.
• New Mandatory Timeline: This is a new rule. The Magistrate must first give the complainant 30 days’ time to be present. If the complainant still doesn’t show up after 30 days, the Magistrate can then use their discretion to discharge the accused.
• Real-World Example: In a private complaint for cheating, the complainant doesn’t show up for a hearing. The Magistrate cannot immediately dismiss the case. They must issue a notice or set a new date at least 30 days away. If the complainant fails to appear again on that new date, the Magistrate is free to say, “The complainant is clearly not interested in pursuing this case. The accused is discharged.”

Section 273: Compensation for accusation without reasonable cause

This section is a powerful tool to penalize people who file false or frivolous criminal cases.

• Sub-section (1):
  • Simple English: If a Magistrate is hearing any case (started from a complaint or police information) and discharges or acquits the accused, and the Magistrate is of the opinion that there was “no reasonable ground” for making the accusation in the first place, they can take action.
  • Action: The Magistrate can immediately (if the complainant is present) or by issuing a summons (if they are absent) order the original complainant/informant to “show cause” (explain) why they shouldn’t have to pay compensation to the person they falsely accused.
  • Real-World Example: The Magistrate acquits an accused of theft, finding that the complainant (the informant) clearly “framed” the accused due to a personal grudge. The Magistrate immediately turns to the complainant and says, “I find this accusation was made without reasonable grounds. I am issuing you a show-cause notice to explain why you should not pay compensation.”
• Sub-section (2):
  • Simple English: If the complainant/informant fails to show a good reason, the Magistrate can order them to pay compensation to the accused. The amount can be up to the maximum fine the Magistrate is empowered to impose (e.g., up to ₹50,000 for a First Class Magistrate, as per Sec 23).
  • Real-World Example: The complainant gives a weak explanation. The Magistrate issues a final order: “The explanation is not satisfactory. The complainant shall pay ₹10,000 as compensation to the accused for the harassment and legal fees.”
• Sub-section (3):
  • Simple English: If the complainant/informant refuses to pay the compensation, the Magistrate can order them to be sent to simple imprisonment for up to 30 days.
• Sub-section (4):
  • Simple English: If the person is sent to jail for non-payment, the imprisonment will end as soon as the compensation is paid (as per the rules in the BNS).
• Sub-section (5):
  • Simple English: This compensation order does not stop the accused from also filing a separate civil lawsuit for “malicious prosecution” to claim even more damages.
  • Proviso: If the civil court awards damages, the amount already paid under this section (e.g., the ₹10,000) will be deducted.
• Sub-section (6):
  • Simple English: If a Magistrate of the Second Class orders compensation over ₹2,000, the complainant/informant has the right to appeal this order (as if they themselves had been convicted).
• Sub-section (7):
  • Simple English: The compensation money won’t be paid to the accused until the time limit for an appeal has passed, or (if an appeal is filed) until the appeal is decided. This prevents the money from being paid out and then needing to be recovered if the order is overturned.
• Sub-section (8):
  • Simple English: This rule for compensation applies to both summons-cases (minor) and warrant-cases (serious).