Chapter 26: Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023

Section 341: Legal aid to accused at State expense in certain cases

This section establishes the fundamental right to a state-funded lawyer for those who cannot afford one.

• Sub-section (1):
  • Simple English: In any trial or appeal, if the accused person does not have a lawyer and it appears to the court that they do not have “sufficient means” (i.e., they can’t afford one), the Court shall (it is mandatory) assign an advocate for their defense. This lawyer is paid by the State (it’s free legal aid).
  • Real-World Example: A person is arrested for robbery and tells the judge, “I am a daily wage laborer and have no money to hire a lawyer.” The judge must pause the trial and appoint a lawyer from the District Legal Services Authority (DLSA) to represent the accused for free. The trial cannot proceed until the accused has a lawyer.
• Sub-section (2):
  • Simple English: The High Court, with the State Government’s approval, is responsible for making the rules for this legal aid system. This includes:
    • (a) How to select and create a panel of lawyers for legal aid.
    • (b) What facilities the court must provide to these lawyers.
    • (c) The fees the government will pay these lawyers.
  • Real-World Example: The High Court of a state publishes “Legal Aid Rules” which state that any lawyer with 5 years of experience can apply to be on the legal aid panel and will be paid a fixed fee per case.
• Sub-section (3):
  • Simple English: The State Government can issue an order to make this free legal aid rule apply to any class of trials (e.g., even minor cases in a Magistrate’s court), not just serious ones.

Section 342: Procedure when corporation or registered society is an accused

This section explains how a court handles a trial when the “accused” is a company, not a person.

• Sub-section (1):
  • Simple English: This just defines “corporation” as any incorporated company or a registered society.
• Sub-section (2):
  • Simple English: A corporation (like a private limited company) cannot be put in the dock. Therefore, if a corporation is an accused, it may appoint a “representative” (like a manager, director, or legal officer) to be physically present in court for the trial.
  • Real-World Example: A company is accused of massive tax fraud. The company’s Board of Directors passes a resolution appointing its Chief Financial Officer (CFO) to be the “representative” for all court hearings.
• Sub-section (3):
  • Simple English: Any part of the BNSS that says “the accused must be present” or “the charge must be read to the accused” is satisfied if it is done to the company’s representative. Any “examination of the accused” will be an examination of the representative.
  • Real-World Example: The judge reads the fraud charges to the CFO (the representative). Later, when it’s time for the “Statement of the Accused” (under Sec 351), the judge will direct the questions to the CFO.
• Sub-section (4):
  • Simple English: If the corporation is summoned but fails to send a representative, the court can just skip all the steps that require the accused’s presence and proceed with the trial without them (“in absentia”).
• Sub-section (5):
  • Simple English: How does the court know someone is the real representative? If the person files a letter of authorization purporting to be signed by the Managing Director (or another key manager), the court shall presume it is genuine and that the person is the authorized representative.
  • Real-World Example: A lawyer appears for the company and files a one-page letter on the company’s letterhead, signed by the CEO, stating, “Mr. Gupta is appointed as our representative.” The court must accept this.
• Sub-section (6):
  • Simple English: If there is a dispute (e.g., two people show up, each claiming to be the real representative), the court itself will decide who is the proper one.

Section 343: Tender of pardon to accomplice

This section provides the legal framework for turning a co-accused into a prosecution witness, commonly known as an “approver.”

• Sub-section (1):
  • Simple English: To get evidence in a serious case, a Chief Judicial Magistrate (CJM) or a Magistrate of the First Class can offer a “pardon” to one of the accomplices (a co-accused).
  • The Condition: The pardon is conditional on the person making a “full and true disclosure” of everything they know about the crime and everyone else involved (their former partners).
  • Real-World Example: Police arrest four people (A, B, C, D) for a complex conspiracy. The case is weak against the ringleader, A. The prosecution asks the CJM to “tender a pardon” to D (the driver). D agrees to testify against A, B, and C in exchange for being pardoned.
• Sub-section (2):
  • Simple English: This powerful tool can only be used for:
    • (a) Very serious offences (those triable only by a Court of Session or a Special Judge).
    • (b) Any other offence punishable with 7 years or more in prison.
• Sub-section (3):
  • Simple English: The Magistrate who offers the pardon must write down:
    • (a) Their reasons for doing it (e.g., “to get crucial evidence against the main accused”).
    • (b) Whether the person accepted or rejected the pardon.
  • The other accused persons (A, B, C) have a right to get a free copy of this record.
• Sub-section (4):
  • Simple English: The person who accepts the pardon (the “approver”) must do two things:
    • (a) Be examined as a witness both in the Magistrate’s court (at the initial stage) and again in the subsequent trial (in the Sessions Court).
    • (b) Be detained in custody (jail) until the entire trial is finished (unless they are already on bail). This is for their own safety and to ensure they remain available.
  • Real-World Example: D accepts the pardon. He is moved from the accused dock to the witness box, and his testimony is recorded. He is then sent to a separate, secure jail (not with A, B, and C) where he stays until their trial is over.
• Sub-section (5):
  • Simple English: After the Magistrate records the approver’s statement, the Magistrate must (without any further inquiry) “commit” (send) the case to the higher court (Sessions Court or Special Court) for the main trial.

Section 344: Power to direct tender of pardon

• Simple English: This gives the same power (as Sec 343) to the Sessions Court (the higher trial court). After a case has been “committed” up to it, but before the final judgment is passed, the Sessions Judge can also offer a pardon to one of the accomplices to get their testimony.
• Real-World Example: In the middle of the murder trial, accused B gets nervous and sends a note to the judge, “I want to confess.” The Sessions Judge can pause the trial and (with the prosecutor’s input) offer B a pardon in exchange for testifying truthfully against A.

Section 345: Trial of person not complying with conditions of pardon

This section explains what happens if the approver (the person who accepted the pardon) betrays the deal and lies in court.

• Sub-section (1):
  • Simple English: If the Public Prosecutor certifies that the approver has not complied with the pardon’s conditions (i.e., they have “willfully concealed” key facts or “given false evidence”), the pardon is revoked.
  • The Consequence: That person can be put on trial for:
    • The original offence they were pardoned for (e.g., the robbery).
    • And for the separate offence of “giving false evidence” (perjury).
  • Provisos:
    • They must be tried separately from their old co-accused.
    • They can only be tried for the perjury part with “sanction” (permission) from the High Court.
  • Real-World Example: D (the approver) gets in the witness box but then lies to protect his friend A. The Public Prosecutor declares him “hostile” and certifies that the pardon conditions are violated. The judge revokes the pardon. A new trial is started against D for the original robbery and for perjury.
• Sub-section (2):
  • Simple English: The original confession that D gave when he accepted the pardon (under Sec 343) can now be used as evidence against him in his own trial.
• Sub-section (3):
  • Simple English: At his new trial, D has the right to plead (argue) that he did comply with the pardon (i.e., “I told the truth, the prosecutor is wrong”). The burden of proof is then on the prosecution to prove that D lied.
• Sub-section (4):
  • Simple English: The court must ask the accused (the ex-approver) if they want to make this plea before the new trial formally starts.
• Sub-section (5):
  • Simple English: If the accused (the ex-approver) pleads that they did comply with the pardon, the trial will proceed. If the judge, at the end, finds that the person did in fact tell the truth as promised, the judge must pass a judgment of acquittal (because the original pardon stands).

Section 346: Power to postpone or adjourn proceedings

This section contains critical rules for managing the speed of a trial, including new, strict rules to prevent delays.

• Sub-section (1):
  • Simple English: This is a new, primary rule. Every trial or inquiry shall be continued from day-to-day until all witnesses who are present in court have been examined.
  • The Exception: An adjournment (postponement) “beyond the following day” is only allowed if the court finds it necessary for reasons it must write down.
  • Proviso (for Rape): Trials for rape and other sexual offences must be completed within two months from the date the chargesheet was filed.
  • Real-World Example: A trial starts on Monday. The prosecution has 3 witnesses present. The judge must examine all 3 (even if it takes until 7 PM) and continue on Tuesday. The judge cannot just hear one witness and then adjourn the case for 2 weeks because the court’s schedule is busy.
• Sub-section (2):
  • Simple English: This is the general power of a court to “postpone” or “adjourn” (pause) a trial “from time to time.” This must be for a recorded reason.
  • Proviso 1 (Remand): If the accused is in jail, the court can remand them back to custody, but not for more than 15 days at a time. (This is for adjournments, not the initial 60/90 day investigation period).
  • Proviso 2 (Witnesses): If witnesses are present in court, the judge cannot adjourn the case without examining them, unless there’s a “special reason” (e.g., the accused is suddenly hospitalized).
  • Proviso 3 (Sentencing): A case cannot be adjourned just to allow the accused to argue against their sentence (this must happen immediately after conviction, as per Sec 258).
  • Proviso 4 (New, Strict Rules): This is the most important part for preventing delays:
    • (a) A party (prosecution or defense) can only get an adjournment if the circumstances are “beyond the control of that party.”
    • (b) Even in such a case, a party is entitled to a maximum of two adjournments.
    • (c) The fact that a lawyer is “engaged in another Court” (i.e., busy with another case) “shall not be a ground for adjournment.”
    • (d) If a witness is present, but the lawyer (for either side) is not present or not ready, the court can record the witness’s main testimony anyway and dispense with (cancel) that lawyer’s right to cross-examine or examine the witness.
  • Real-World Example (Proviso 4c): A defense lawyer stands up and says, “Your Honour, please adjourn this case, I have a matter in the High Court.” The judge must refuse the adjournment, citing this new rule. If the lawyer then walks out, the judge can (under Proviso 4d) proceed to hear the witness’s testimony without him.

Section 347: Local inspection

• Sub-section (1):
  • Simple English: A Judge or Magistrate can, at any stage of a trial, give notice to both sides and conduct a “local inspection.” This means they physically visit the crime scene (or any other relevant place) to better understand the evidence.
  • After the visit, the judge must write a “memorandum” (a note) of any relevant facts they observed.
  • Real-World Example: In a murder trial, witnesses keep arguing about the “line of sight” from a window. The judge, with both lawyers present, visits the crime scene, looks out the window, and writes a note: “From the window, the spot ‘X’ on the road is clearly visible.”
• Sub-section (2):
  • Simple English: This note (memorandum) becomes part of the official court record, and both the prosecutor and the accused can get a free copy of it.

Section 348: Power to summon material witness, or examine person present

This is a very wide and important power of the court, sometimes called “Section 311 power” from the old CrPC.

• Simple English: At any stage of any inquiry or trial, the court has the power to do any of the following on its own initiative:
  1. Summon any person as a witness (even if their name is not on the prosecution or defense witness list).
  2. Examine any person who is just “in attendance” (e.g., a person sitting in the courtroom gallery).
  3. Recall and re-examine any witness who has already testified.
• Mandatory Part: The court shall (it’s mandatory) do any of the above if it believes that person’s evidence is “essential to the just decision of the case.”
• Real-World Example: During a trial, it becomes clear that the one person who knows the truth is “Rohan,” who neither the prosecution nor the defense called as a witness (perhaps for strategic reasons). The judge, to find the truth, issues a “court summons” for Rohan to appear and testify as a “court witness.”

Section 349: Power of Magistrate to order person to give specimen signatures or handwriting, etc.

• Simple English: This is a newly clarified power. A Magistrate of the First Class can, for the purpose of any investigation or proceeding, order any person (including the accused) to provide:
  • Specimen signatures
  • Finger impressions
  • Handwriting samples
  • Voice samples
• Proviso 1: The general rule is that this order can only be made if the person has, at some point, been arrested in connection with the case.
• Proviso 2 (New): This is an exception. The Magistrate can order a person to give these samples even without them being arrested, but they must write down their reasons for doing so.
• Real-World Example: Police are investigating a forged cheque. They have a suspect but haven’t arrested him. The Magistrate can, after recording reasons, issue an order directing the suspect to appear and provide a “specimen handwriting sample” to be compared with the cheque.

Section 350: Expenses of complainants and witnesses

• Simple English: A criminal court can, if it thinks fit (and subject to State Government rules), order the government to pay the “reasonable expenses” of any complainant or witness who attends court for an inquiry or trial.
• Real-World Example: A poor witness, who is a daily-wage laborer, has to travel 50 km and lose a day’s pay to testify. After their testimony, the judge passes an order for the court treasury to pay them ₹300 for their bus fare and lost wages.

Section 351: Power to examine accused

This is a critical stage in the trial, commonly known as the “Statement of the Accused” (formerly Section 313 of the CrPC). It is the accused’s right to personally explain their side of the story directly to the judge.

• Sub-section (1):
  • Simple English: The court’s power to question the accused is twofold:
  • (a) “may at any stage”: The judge can put questions to the accused at any time during the trial to clarify a matter, without any warning.
  • (b) “shall… question him generally”: This part is mandatory. After all the prosecution’s witnesses have testified and their evidence is closed, the judge must call the accused and “question him generally on the case.”
  • The Purpose: This is not an interrogation. The purpose is to allow the accused to “personally explain any circumstances appearing in the evidence against him.”
  • Proviso: In a minor “summons-case,” if the court has already allowed the accused to skip personal attendance (and be represented by their lawyer), it can also dispense with (skip) this formal questioning.
  • Real-World Example: In a trial, a witness testifies, “I saw the accused running from the house.” After the prosecution’s case ends, the judge must ask the accused (as per (b)): “Witness 1 has stated he saw you running from the house. What do you have to say about this?” This gives the accused a chance to say, “He is lying,” or “I was running because I was late for work.”
• Sub-section (2):
  • Simple English: The accused is not under oath when they are examined under this section.
  • Why? Because this is not testimony; it is a chance to explain. Since they are not under oath, they cannot be prosecuted for “perjury” (lying to the court) in this statement.
• Sub-section (3):
  • Simple English: The accused cannot be punished for refusing to answer the judge’s questions or for giving false answers. This is the core of the “right to remain silent.”
  • Real-World Example: The judge asks, “What do you have to say?” The accused replies, “I do not wish to say anything.” The judge cannot hold this against them or punish them for it.
• Sub-section (4):
  • Simple English: The answers the accused does give “may be taken into consideration” by the court (to help it decide the case) and can be used as evidence for or against them in any other trial for any other offence.
• Sub-section (5):
  • Simple English: This is a new provision to make the process more efficient.
    1. The court can ask both the prosecutor and the defense lawyer to help prepare the list of questions to be put to the accused.
    2. The court may also permit the accused to just submit a written statement as a substitute for the lengthy oral Q&A.
  • Real-World Example: In a complex financial case, the judge asks both lawyers to submit a list of “incriminating points” from the evidence. The judge then gives this list to the defense lawyer, who prepares a 20-page written statement where the accused explains each point. The judge accepts this as full compliance with Section 351.

Section 352: Oral arguments and memorandum of arguments

This section deals with the “closing arguments” or “final arguments.”

• Sub-section (1):
  • Simple English: After all the evidence from both sides is finished, any party (prosecution or defense) has the right to “address concise oral arguments.”
  • Written Arguments: Before finishing their oral speech, they can also submit a “memorandum” (a written summary) of their arguments, which becomes part of the official case record.
  • Real-World Example: A defense lawyer gives a 2-hour-long final speech in court. At the end, she says, “Your Honour, for your reference, I am also filing my detailed written arguments with all case citations.”
• Sub-section (2):
  • Simple English: A copy of this written memorandum must be given to the opposite party at the same time.
• Sub-section (3):
  • Simple English: A judge cannot grant an adjournment (postponement) just to give a lawyer more time to file written arguments, unless the judge records a specific, necessary reason for it.
• Sub-section (4):
  • Simple English: The judge has the power to regulate oral arguments if they are not “concise or relevant” (i.e., stop a lawyer who is rambling or wasting time).

Section 353: Accused person to be competent witness

This is a separate right from Section 351. This is the accused’s right to testify as a witness in their own defense.

• Sub-section (1):
  • Simple English: An accused person is a “competent witness” (legally allowed to testify) for the defense. They can choose to enter the witness box, take an oath, and give evidence to disprove the charges.
  • Real-World Example: After the prosecution’s case ends, the defense lawyer says, “My first defense witness is the accused himself.” The accused then goes into the witness box, takes the oath, and tells his side of the story.
• Key Difference from Sec 351: Here, the accused is under oath, just like any other witness. Their testimony is evidence, and they can be cross-examined by the prosecutor.
• Proviso (a):
  • Simple English: The court cannot call the accused as a witness. This can only be done on the accused’s own request in writing.
  • Real-World Example: The accused must give their lawyer a written application saying, “I, the accused, wish to testify as a defense witness.”
• Proviso (b):
  • Simple English: This is the most important protection. If the accused chooses not to testify (i.e., they exercise their “right to remain silent”), their failure to give evidence cannot be commented on by the prosecutor or the judge, and it cannot be used to draw any presumption of guilt.
  • Real-World Example: The defense closes its case without putting the accused on the stand. The prosecutor, in his closing argument, is forbidden from saying, “If he was so innocent, why didn’t he get in the box and tell us that? What is he hiding?”
• Sub-section (2):
  • Simple English: This same right to testify applies to people in “preventive” proceedings (e.g., proceedings for a peace bond under Chapter X or XI).

Section 354: No influence to be used to induce disclosure

• Simple English: This is a firm rule. No one is allowed to use any “influence, promise, or threat” to get an accused person to disclose (or withhold) any information.
• The Only Exception: The formal “tender of pardon” (Sections 343 and 344) is the only legal way to offer an inducement (“testify, and you will be pardoned”).
• Real-World Example: A police officer cannot tell an accused, “Your co-accused has confessed and is blaming you. If you confess too, you’ll get a better deal.” This is illegal influence.

Section 355: Provision for inquiries and trial being held in absence of accused in certain cases

This section allows a trial to continue even if the accused is not physically present in court.

• Sub-section (1):
  • Simple English: A judge can “dispense with” (waive) the accused’s personal attendance and proceed with the trial if:
    1. The accused’s lawyer is present, AND
    2. The judge is satisfied (and writes down the reason) that either:
       • The accused’s presence is not necessary for justice (e.g., in a minor case), OR
       • The accused is persistently disturbing the court proceedings.
  • The judge can, however, order the accused to appear in person at any later stage (e.g., for sentencing).
  • Real-World Example: An accused in a complex cheating case lives in another state. The judge allows him to be represented by his lawyer for most of the trial. OR, an accused in court starts shouting and throwing things. The judge orders him to be removed, and the trial continues with his lawyer present.
• Sub-section (2):
  • Simple English: If the accused is not represented by a lawyer, or if the judge thinks their presence is essential for a fair trial, the judge must either adjourn (postpone) the trial or order that the disruptive accused’s case be “tried separately” from his co-accused.
• Explanation:
  • Simple English: This is a new clarification. “Personal attendance” includes attendance through audio-video electronic means.
  • Real-World Example: An accused is in jail. He can “attend” his entire trial via a video link. This satisfies the “presence of the accused” rule.

Section 356: Inquiry, trial or judgment in absentia of proclaimed offender

This is a major new provision in the BNSS, allowing a full trial to happen even if the accused has run away.

• Sub-section (1):
  • Simple English: If a person has been declared a “proclaimed offender”, has absconded to evade trial, and there is no immediate prospect of arresting them, this is treated as a waiver of their right to be present.
  • The Rule: The court shall, after writing down its reasons, proceed with the trial in their absence (“in absentia”) just as if they were present, and can even pronounce a final judgment (conviction or acquittal).
  • Proviso: The court must wait 90 days after framing the charge before starting this in absentia trial.
  • Real-World Example: A person (“A”) is accused of a major bank fraud and flees the country. The court declares him a “proclaimed offender.” The court will then frame charges against ‘A’. 90 days later, the trial starts without ‘A’ in the courtroom.
• Sub-section (2):
  • Simple English: Before starting the trial, the court must ensure all these steps were taken:
    • (i) Two consecutive arrest warrants were issued (at least 30 days apart).
    • (ii) A notice was published in a national or local daily newspaper at their last known address, telling them to appear within 30 days or the trial will start without them.
    • (iii) A relative or friend (if any are known) was informed.
    • (iv) The notice was pasted on their house and at the local police station.
• Sub-section (3):
  • Simple English: If the absconding accused does not have a lawyer, the court must provide them with a lawyer at state expense. This lawyer will defend the accused’s interests in absentia.
  • Real-World Example: In the fraud trial for ‘A’, the court appoints a lawyer from the legal aid panel. This lawyer will cross-examine the prosecution witnesses and make arguments on ‘A’s behalf, even though ‘A’ is not there.
• Sub-section (4):
  • Simple English: The evidence recorded in this trial is valid and can be used.
  • Proviso: If the accused is arrested during the trial and brought to court, the judge may (it’s discretionary) allow them to “recall” some of the witnesses who already testified, to cross-examine them.
• Sub-section (5):
  • Simple English: All witness testimony in an in absentia trial should, as far as practicable, be recorded by audio-video electronic means.
• Sub-section (6):
  • Simple English: If the accused was present when the trial started, but then “voluntarily absents” themselves, this will not stop the trial from continuing or the judge from pronouncing the final judgment.
  • Real-World Example: An accused is on bail. He attends the first 5 days of the trial, then panics and stops coming. The judge will cancel his bail and continue the trial without him, ultimately passing a verdict.
• Sub-section (7):
  • Simple English: This is a major consequence. If an accused is convicted in absentia (under this section), they lose their right to appeal unless they first “present himself before the Court of appeal” (i.e., surrender).
  • Proviso: The right to appeal is permanently lost three years after the date of the judgment.
  • Real-World Example: ‘A’ is convicted in absentia in 2025 and sentenced to 10 years. He is arrested in 2030. He cannot appeal his conviction, because more than 3 years have passed. He must simply go to jail and serve his sentence.
• Sub-section (8):
  • Simple English: The State Government can, by notification, make these rules apply to any “absconder” (not just a “proclaimed offender”).

Section 357: Procedure where accused does not understand proceedings

• Simple English: If the accused is not legally of unsound mind, but still cannot be made to understand the proceedings (e.g., they speak a rare language for which no interpreter can be found, or have a severe communication-related disability), the court may proceed with the trial.
• Safeguard: If the trial results in a conviction, the case must be forwarded to the High Court with a full report. The High Court will then review the case and pass the final, appropriate order.

Section 358: Power to proceed against other persons appearing to be guilty of offence

This is a powerful tool for a court, often called “Section 319” in the old CrPC. It allows a judge to add a new accused during the trial.

• Sub-section (1):
  • Simple English: If, in the course of a trial, it “appears from the evidence” that some other person (who is not currently an accused) has also committed an offence, the court can “proceed against such person” for that offence.
  • Real-World Example: ‘A’ is on trial for assault. A witness in the box testifies, “Yes, ‘A’ hit the victim, but ‘B’ (who is not an accused) was the one who gave ‘A’ the iron rod and shouted, ‘Hit him!'” Based on this sworn testimony, the judge can immediately add ‘B’ as a co-accused in the trial for abetment.
• Sub-section (2):
  • Simple English: If that new person (‘B’) is not in court, the judge can issue a summons or an arrest warrant for them.
• Sub-section (3):
  • Simple English: If the new person (‘B’) is present in the court (e.g., sitting in the gallery), the judge can order them to be detained right then and there.
• Sub-section (4):
  • Simple English: When a new person is added in the middle of a trial:
    • (a) The proceedings in respect of them must be “commenced afresh,” and all the witnesses must be “re-heard” (called back to the witness box to testify again).
    • Why? This is to protect the new accused’s right to cross-examine all the witnesses who testified before they were added to the case.
    • (b) Otherwise, the case proceeds as if the new person had been an accused from the very beginning.

Section 359: Compounding of offences

This section allows for “compounding,” which is a legal compromise or settlement that ends a criminal case. It’s like a “criminal out-of-court settlement.”

• Sub-section (1):
  • Simple English: This provides a Table of Offences that are compoundable without the court’s permission. The victim (listed in column 3) has the absolute right to settle.
  • Example Offences: Voluntarily causing hurt (BNS 115(2)), Criminal trespass (BNS 329(3)), Defamation (BNS 356(2)).
  • Real-World Example: ‘A’ slaps ‘B’ (simple hurt). They are neighbors. ‘A’ apologizes to ‘B’ and pays for his medical check-up. ‘B’ agrees to “compound the offence.” They jointly file a “Compromise Memo” with the court. The judge must accept it, and the case ends.
• Sub-section (2):
  • Simple English: This provides a second Table of Offences that are more serious and can only be compounded with the permission of the court.
  • Example Offences: Voluntarily causing grievous hurt (BNS 117(2)), Theft (BNS 303), Cheating (BNS 318).
  • Real-World Example: ‘A’ commits “theft” against ‘B’. ‘A’ returns the stolen item and offers compensation. ‘B’ agrees to settle. They jointly apply to the Magistrate. The Magistrate will consider the facts (e.g., is ‘A’ a first-time offender?) and may or may not grant permission. If the judge grants permission, the case ends.
• Sub-section (3):
  • Simple English: The “abetment” (helping) or “attempt” to commit a compoundable offence is also compoundable in the same way.
• Sub-section (4):
  • Simple English:
    • (a) If the victim is a child or of unsound mind, their legal guardian can compound with the court’s permission.
    • (b) If the victim is dead, their “legal representative” (as per civil law) can compound with the court’s permission.
  • Real-World Example: In a cheating case, the victim dies. His son (legal representative) can, with the judge’s approval, settle the case with the accused.
• Sub-section (5):
  • Simple English: If the case has already been “committed” to the Sessions Court or is in the “appeal” stage, the compromise can only be allowed with the permission of that higher court (the Sessions Court or the High Court).
• Sub-section (6):
  • Simple English: A High Court or Sessions Court can also use its “revisional” powers to allow a compromise.
• Sub-section (7):
  • Simple English: This is a critical restriction. An offence cannot be compounded if the accused is a repeat offender (i.e., they have a previous conviction that makes them liable for an “enhanced punishment” for this same crime).
• Sub-section (8):
  • Simple English: This is the effect of compounding. A “composition of an offence” has the legal effect of an ACQUITTAL. The accused is formally found “not guilty.”
• Sub-section (9):
  • Simple English: An offence can only be compounded if it is listed in this section. No other offence can be settled, even if the victim agrees.
  • Real-World Example: Murder is not in the table. The victim’s family and the accused cannot compromise. The case must go to trial.

Section 360: Withdrawal from prosecution

This is different from compounding. This is when the prosecutor (the State) decides to drop the case.

• Simple English: The Public Prosecutor (PP) or Assistant Public Prosecutor (APP) in charge of a case can, at any time before the judgment, decide to “withdraw from the prosecution.”
• The Condition: They must get the consent of the court.
• The Effect:
  • (a) Before Charge is Framed: If the case is withdrawn before charges are framed, the accused is Discharged.
  • (b) After Charge is Framed: If the case is withdrawn after charges are framed (or in a summons-case), the accused is Acquitted.
• Real-World Example: The government decides that prosecuting a 10-year-old political case is a “waste of judicial time.” The government directs the PP to withdraw the case. The PP files an application with the court. The judge reviews the reasons and “consents.” The accused are acquitted.
• First Proviso (Central Govt. Cases):
  • Simple English: If the case involves a Central Agency (CBI, NIA, etc.), a Central Govt. employee, or Central Govt. property, the State’s prosecutor cannot withdraw unless they first get permission from the Central Government.
• Second Proviso (New, Victim’s Right):
  • Simple English: This is a major new safeguard. The court cannot give its consent to the withdrawal without first giving the victim an opportunity of being heard (i.e., allowing the victim to come to court and object).
  • Real-World Example: The PP moves to withdraw an assault case. The court must issue a notice to the victim. The victim appears and objects, “Your Honour, this is wrong! The prosecutor is withdrawing a strong case. I want justice.” The judge must consider the victim’s objection before deciding whether to grant consent for the withdrawal or not.

Section 361: Procedure in cases which Magistrate cannot dispose of

This section explains what a Magistrate should do if they realize they are not the right person to try a case.

• Sub-section (1):
  • Simple English: If, during any inquiry or trial, the Magistrate finds that:
    1. (a) They have no jurisdiction (it’s the wrong court), OR
    2. (b) The case should be tried by a different Magistrate in the same district, OR
    3. (c) The case should be tried by the Chief Judicial Magistrate (CJM) (their boss),
  • …the Magistrate must stop the proceedings and submit the case file, with a brief report, to the CJM (or the other Magistrate with jurisdiction).
  • Real-World Example: A Magistrate in Court A is trying a case. During the evidence, it becomes clear the crime actually happened in the jurisdiction of Court B. The Magistrate must stop the trial and send the case file to the CJM, who will then officially transfer it to Court B.
• Sub-section (2):
  • Simple English: The CJM who receives the file can then either:
    1. Try the case themselves.
    2. Refer it to another subordinate Magistrate who has jurisdiction.
    3. Commit it to the Court of Session (if it’s a very serious case).

Section 362: Procedure when after commencement of inquiry or trial, Magistrate finds case should be committed

This is for cases that appear minor at first but are later revealed to be very serious.

• Simple English: If, at any stage of a trial (but before signing the final judgment), it “appears to the Magistrate” that the case is one that ought to be tried by the Court of Session (e.g., the evidence is far more serious than the initial charge), they must stop the trial.
• The Action: The Magistrate must “commit” (formally send) the case up to the Court of Session using the standard committal procedure (from Section 232). The Sessions Court will then start the trial from the beginning.
• Real-World Example: A trial begins in the Magistrate’s court for “Grievous Hurt” (BNS 117). During the doctor’s testimony, it becomes clear the victim’s injuries are so severe that they are likely to die, making the case one of “Attempt to Murder” (BNS 109), which only a Sessions Court can try. The Magistrate must stop his trial and immediately commit the case to the Court of Session.

Section 363: Trial of persons previously convicted of offences against coinage, stamp-law or property

This section provides a special, stricter rule for habitual property offenders.

• Sub-section (1):
  • Simple English: If a person who has already been convicted of a serious (3+ years jail) property or counterfeiting crime (BNS Chapter X or XVII) is again accused of a similar serious offence, the Magistrate must either:
    1. Send them for trial before the Chief Judicial Magistrate (CJM), OR
    2. Commit them to the Court of Session.
  • The Exception: The Magistrate can try the case themselves only if they are competent to do so and they believe they can pass an “adequate sentence” (i.e., the case doesn’t deserve more than the 3 years’ punishment they can give).
  • Real-World Example: A man with a previous conviction for “Robbery” is arrested again for “House-breaking.” The Magistrate, seeing his record, believes a simple 3-year sentence is not enough. He must commit the case to the Court of Session, which can give a much longer sentence.
• Sub-section (2):
  • Simple English: If the habitual offender (from sub-section 1) is sent to a higher court, all of their co-accused (who were part of the same crime) must be sent to the higher court with them, even if they are first-time offenders.

Section 364: Procedure when Magistrate cannot pass sentence sufficiently severe

This section deals with a situation where the Magistrate can try the case but, after hearing the evidence, feels the punishment the accused deserves is more than the Magistrate has the power to give.

• Sub-section (1):
  • Simple English: If a Magistrate finds an accused person “guilty,” but believes they “ought to receive a punishment… more severe than” the Magistrate can inflict (e.g., the Magistrate’s power is capped at 3 years, but the crime deserves 5), they must not pass the sentence.
  • The Action: They must record their opinion (the “guilty” finding) and submit the proceedings (send the case file and the accused) to the Chief Judicial Magistrate (CJM).
  • Real-World Example: A Magistrate finds a person guilty of an exceptionally brutal cheating offence. The Magistrate thinks the accused deserves 5 years in jail, but his own power is limited to 3 years. He finds the accused “guilty” and sends the file to the CJM for the final sentencing.
• Sub-section (2):
  • Simple English: If this happens in a case with multiple accused, all the accused who are found guilty must be forwarded to the CJM together.
• Sub-section (3):
  • Simple English: The CJM who receives the case can review the evidence, examine the parties, or even take more evidence if needed. The CJM will then pass the final judgment and sentence themselves. The CJM is not bound by the first Magistrate’s opinion and can even acquit the accused if they disagree.
  • Real-World Example: The CJM receives the file, re-hears the arguments on sentencing, and agrees the crime was severe. The CJM then uses their higher power to sentence the accused to 5 years in prison.

Section 365: Conviction or commitment on evidence partly recorded by one Magistrate and partly by another

This section ensures a trial doesn’t have to restart from scratch just because the judge is transferred.

• Sub-section (1):
  • Simple English: If a Judge or Magistrate, after hearing some or all of the evidence, is replaced (e.g., they retire or are transferred), the new (“succeeding”) Judge may act on the evidence already recorded by the previous judge. They do not have to re-hear all the witnesses.
  • Real-World Example: Judge ‘A’ hears 5 witnesses and is transferred. The new Judge ‘B’ takes over. Judge ‘B’ can simply read the 5 witness testimonies from the file and then continue the trial by hearing Witness 6.
• Sub-section (1), Proviso:
  • Simple English: This is the safeguard. The new Judge ‘B’ can decide that, “in the interests of justice,” they need to “re-summon” one of the old witnesses to hear their testimony in person (e.g., to observe their demeanour).
  • Real-World Example: Judge ‘B’ reads the file and sees that Witness 2’s testimony is confusing. He orders Witness 2 to be “re-summoned” so he can ask them questions directly.
• Sub-section (2):
  • Simple English: This clarifies that a “transfer” of a case from one judge to another counts as a “succession” for the purpose of this rule.
• Sub-section (3):
  • Simple English: This rule does not apply to “summary trials” (which are fast and simple) or to the handoff procedures in Sec 361 and 364 (which have their own rules).

Section 366: Court to be open

• Sub-section (1):
  • Simple English: This is the “Open Court” principle. The place where a criminal trial is held is a public space. The public generally has the right to access and watch the proceedings, as long as there is space.
  • Proviso: The Judge always has the power to order the public (or a specific person) to be excluded from the courtroom at any stage, if they think it’s necessary (e.g., to maintain order, or if a witness is intimidated).
  • Real-World Example: A judge can clear the courtroom if it’s too noisy, or can order a disruptive person to be removed.
• Sub-section (2):
  • Simple English: This is a mandatory exception. The inquiry and trial for rape and other sexual offences (BNS 64-68, 70-71, or under the POCSO Act) “shall be conducted in camera.”
  • “In Camera” means: The trial is held in private. The public and the press are excluded.
  • First Proviso: The Judge can still give permission to a specific person (like a family member for support, or an NGO worker) to be present.
  • Second Proviso: The trial must, as far as practicable, be conducted by a woman Judge or Magistrate.
  • Real-World Example: For a rape trial, the judge orders the courtroom doors to be closed. Only the judge, court staff, lawyers, accused, and (with permission) the victim’s mother are allowed to be present.
• Sub-section (3):
  • Simple English: When a trial is held “in camera,” it is illegal for any person to print or publish any matter in relation to those proceedings (e.g., a newspaper cannot report the witness testimony).
  • The Exception: This can only be done with the “previous permission of the Court.”
  • Proviso (New): For rape trials specifically, the ban on publishing details can be lifted, but the confidentiality of the victim’s name and address must be maintained.
  • Real-World Example: A newspaper cannot publish a “live blog” of a rape trial’s testimony. They can only report the final judgment, and even then they are forbidden from publishing the victim’s name or any detail that could identify her.