Criminal law questions and answers

Yes. Section 3(1) of the Arms Act, 1959 bars anyone from acquiring, possessing or carrying a firearm or ammunition without a licence issued under the Act and its rules. A person may carry a firearm without his own licence only in the presence of the licence holder or under that holder's written authority, for repair, renewal or the holder's use.

Section 3(2) of the Arms Act, 1959 bars a person from having more than two firearms at any time. Dealers in firearms and licensed rifle club or association members using a point 22 bore rifle or air rifle for target practice are excluded. Inheritance or heirloom licences also stay within the limit of two.

Section 25(1B)(a) of the Arms Act, 1959 punishes acquiring, possessing or carrying a firearm or ammunition in contravention of Section 3 with imprisonment of two to five years and fine. The court may impose less than two years for adequate and special reasons recorded in the judgment. In a disturbed area, Section 25(1C) raises the range to three to seven years.

Section 7 bars acquiring, possessing, carrying, using, manufacturing or selling prohibited arms or ammunition unless the Central Government has specially authorised the person. Section 25(1A) punishes possession with seven to fourteen years, and Section 25(1AA) punishes manufacture or sale with ten years to life. Ordinary firearm possession under Section 25(1B) carries two to five years.

Yes. Section 5 of the Arms Act, 1959 requires a licence to manufacture, sell, transfer, repair, test or prove firearms, prescribed arms or ammunition, or to offer or hold them for sale. Section 25(1)(a) punishes a contravention with imprisonment of seven years to life and fine. A private sale of one's own lawfully held arms is treated differently under Section 5(2).

Section 27 punishes using arms or ammunition in contravention of the Act. Use in contravention of Section 5, which requires a licence, carries three to seven years. Use of prohibited arms in contravention of Section 7 carries seven years to life. If that use or act causes another person's death, the punishment is life imprisonment or death, with fine in each case.

Yes, in defined circumstances. Section 29(a) of the Arms Act, 1959 punishes purchasing a firearm, ammunition or other prescribed arms from a person the buyer knows is not licensed or authorised under Section 5. The punishment is up to three years, or fine, or both. Knowledge is an element, so the facts decide the case.

Section 30 of the Arms Act, 1959 punishes breach of a licence condition, or of the Act or its rules, where no punishment is provided elsewhere in the Act. The sentence is up to six months, or fine up to two thousand rupees, or both. Whether carrying outside a permitted area falls under another section depends on the facts.

Section 14 requires refusal where the licence is for prohibited arms, or the applicant is prohibited by law from holding arms, is of unsound mind or is otherwise unfit. Refusal is also required when the authority considers it necessary for public peace or safety. Lack of property is no ground, and reasons must be recorded in writing.

Generally yes. Section 10(1) of the Arms Act, 1959 bars bringing arms or ammunition into India without a licence. A person already entitled to possess the arms may bring reasonable quantities for private use without a licence under proviso (a). A customs officer in doubt may detain the arms until the Central Government gives orders under Section 10(2).

Only for offences under Section 3. Section 39 of the Arms Act, 1959 provides that no prosecution for an offence under Section 3 may be instituted without the previous sanction of the district magistrate. The section does not extend that requirement to other offences in the Act, such as those under Sections 5 or 7.

Yes, in a limited way. The proviso to Section 25(1B) lets the court impose imprisonment of less than two years for adequate and special reasons recorded in the judgment. Section 25(1A) has a similar proviso allowing less than seven years. The provision for sale and manufacture of prohibited arms under Section 25(1AA) shows no such proviso in the text.

Yes. Section 25(1C) provides that an offence under Section 25(1B) committed in a disturbed area is punishable with three to seven years and fine, instead of two to five years. A disturbed area means one declared so under an enactment for suppressing disorder, and includes areas notified under Section 24A or 24B.

Only in the narrow case in the proviso to Section 3(1) of the Arms Act, 1959. A person may carry a firearm or ammunition without his own licence in the presence of the licence holder, or under the holder's written authority, for repair, for renewal of the licence, or for use by the holder.

Under the proviso to Section 5(2), the owner must inform the district magistrate or the officer in charge of the nearest police station in writing of the intended sale and the buyer's name and address. At least forty-five days must pass after that notice. Section 25(3) punishes breach with up to six months, or fine up to five hundred rupees, or both.

Section 3(a) of the Explosive Substances Act, 1908 punishes unlawfully and maliciously causing an explosion likely to endanger life or seriously injure property, whether or not injury actually results. With an ordinary explosive substance the punishment is life imprisonment or rigorous imprisonment of at least ten years, with fine. For a special category explosive substance, Section 3(b) provides death or rigorous life imprisonment.

No. Section 4 of the Explosive Substances Act, 1908 punishes attempts, conspiracy and intent-based making or possession with life imprisonment or imprisonment of either description up to ten years, and fine. Section 3 sets a minimum of ten years or life for an actual explosion. Section 4 applies whether or not an explosion takes place or injury is caused.

Possibly not, but the burden shifts. Section 5 of the Explosive Substances Act, 1908 applies where making or knowingly possessing an explosive substance raises a reasonable suspicion of an unlawful object, unless the accused can show a lawful object. The punishment for an ordinary explosive substance is up to ten years and fine. The outcome depends on what the accused can show.

The District Magistrate. Under Section 7 of the Explosive Substances Act, 1908, no court may proceed to the trial of any person for an offence against the Act except with the consent of the District Magistrate. The requirement applies to any offence against the Act, so the consent must exist before the trial proceeds.

Section 4(b) punishes unlawfully and maliciously making, or having in possession or under control, an explosive substance with intent to endanger life or seriously injure property, or to enable another to do so in India. It applies whether or not an explosion occurs. The punishment is life imprisonment or up to ten years, with fine.

Yes. Section 118(1) of the BNS (earlier IPC 324) punishes voluntarily causing hurt with an instrument for shooting, stabbing or cutting, or any instrument likely to cause death if used as a weapon, with up to three years, or fine up to twenty thousand rupees, or both. For grievous hurt by those means, Section 118(2) provides life imprisonment or one to ten years, with fine.

Only for listed offences. Section 41 of the BNS (earlier IPC 103) extends private defence of property to causing death for robbery, house-breaking at night, mischief by fire or explosive on a dwelling or custody building, and theft, mischief or house-trespass causing reasonable apprehension of death or grievous hurt. It operates under the restrictions in Section 37.

Under Section 10(1) proviso (b), a bona fide tourist from a country notified by the Central Government may bring arms and ammunition in reasonable quantities without a licence, for sport only, under prescribed conditions. The tourist must not be prohibited from holding them in his own country. A tourist visits for no more than six months.

Under Section 415(3) of the BNSS (earlier CrPC 374), a person convicted by a Magistrate of the first or second class may appeal to the Court of Session, unless a sentence of more than seven years brings Section 415(2) into play.

Under Section 415(2) of the BNSS (earlier CrPC 374), a person convicted by a Sessions Judge or Additional Sessions Judge may appeal to the High Court. So may a person convicted by any other court where a sentence of imprisonment above seven years was passed against him or a co-accused at the same trial.

Section 85 of the BNS (old IPC 498A) carries up to three years, and the police may arrest without a warrant under Section 35 of the BNSS (old Section 41 CrPC) only if they are satisfied that arrest is necessary and record their reasons in writing. Arnesh Kumar (2014) bars automatic arrest in such cases. Where arrest is not required, a notice of appearance is issued instead.

A notice is compulsory only where arrest is not required. Section 35(3) of the BNSS makes the police issue a notice in every such case. Where the Section 35(1) grounds are met, the officer may arrest without a notice, after recording written reasons that arrest is necessary, for example for proper investigation or to prevent evidence being tampered with.

A Section 35(3) notice directs a person to appear before the police and leaves them free, while an arrest without warrant under Section 35(1) takes them into custody. Arrest needs one of the grounds listed in Section 35(1) and, where the necessity test applies, recorded reasons. A person who complies with the notice is not arrested for that offence unless the officer records reasons for it.

Complying with the notice is a duty under Section 35(4) of the BNSS. If a person fails to comply with its terms or will not identify himself, Section 35(6) allows the police to arrest him for the offence in the notice, subject to any order of a competent court. A court order, such as interim protection, can change this.

No. Registering an FIR does not require an arrest. For offences up to seven years, Section 35 of the BNSS lets the officer arrest only when satisfied that arrest is necessary for a stated reason, such as proper investigation or securing attendance in court, and he records in writing his reasons for not arresting when arrest is not required. Arnesh Kumar (2014) rejects automatic arrest.

Prior permission is needed for a person who is infirm or above sixty years of age. Section 35(7) of the BNSS bars arrest for an offence punishable with less than three years' imprisonment without prior permission of an officer not below the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police. The rule does not cover a healthy person under sixty or an offence of three years or more.

Under Section 40(1) of the BNSS a private person may arrest, or have arrested, a person who commits a non-bailable and cognizable offence in his presence, or a proclaimed offender. The arrested person must be handed to a police officer without unnecessary delay and within six hours, or taken to the nearest police station if no officer is present.

Yes, if the person resists. Under Section 43(2) of the BNSS, when a person forcibly resists arrest or tries to evade it, the officer may use all means necessary to effect the arrest. Section 43(4) gives no right to cause the death of a person who is not accused of an offence punishable with death or life imprisonment.

Another woman must carry out the search, with strict regard to decency. Section 49(2) of the BNSS requires this whenever a female is to be searched on arrest. The search of the arrested person under Section 49(1) covers articles in the person's possession, other than necessary wearing apparel, and a receipt is given for what is seized.

Section 36 of the BNSS requires every police officer making an arrest to bear an accurate, visible and clear identification of his name, and to prepare an arrest memorandum. The memo must be attested by at least one witness, either a family member or a respectable person of the locality, and countersigned by the person arrested.

Yes. Section 47(1) of the BNSS requires the police to communicate full particulars of the offence or other grounds of arrest forthwith. Where the offence is not non-bailable, Section 47(2) also requires them to say the person may be released on bail and may arrange sureties. Vihaan Kumar (2025) treats communication of the grounds as mandatory under Article 22(1).

They must. Section 48(1) of the BNSS requires the arresting officer to give information of the arrest and the place of custody forthwith to a relative, friend or other person the arrested person names, and to the designated police officer in the district. The station records who was informed, and the Magistrate checks compliance when the person is produced.

Yes, during interrogation, though not throughout it. Section 38 of the BNSS entitles a person who is arrested and interrogated by the police to meet an advocate of his choice. The section gives a right to meet the advocate and does not give a right to have the advocate present at every question.

A receipt is required where articles are seized from you. Under Section 49(1) of the BNSS the police may search an arrested person who cannot legally be admitted to bail or cannot furnish bail, and keep articles other than necessary wearing apparel in safe custody. A receipt showing the articles taken must be given to the person.

No. Section 58 of the BNSS (old Section 57 CrPC) bars detaining a person arrested without warrant for more than twenty-four hours, and Section 57 requires production before a Magistrate or the station officer without unnecessary delay. Detention beyond that period needs a Magistrate's authority under Section 187. How a holiday affects the count depends on the facts.

Without unnecessary delay, and within twenty-four hours. Section 57 of the BNSS requires the police to take a person arrested without warrant before a Magistrate having jurisdiction, or the officer in charge of a police station, without unnecessary delay. Section 58 states that a person arrested is not to be detained more than twenty-four hours, and Section 187 governs detention beyond that.

Section 187(7) of the BNSS requires a Magistrate who authorises police custody to record his reasons. Under Arnesh Kumar (2014) he reads the police report and records his own satisfaction that arrest is necessary, and does not authorise detention mechanically. Under Section 48(4) he also checks that the arrested person was told of the right to have someone informed and that the station entry was made.

When a police officer knows of a design to commit a cognizable offence and it appears that the offence cannot otherwise be prevented. Section 170(1) of the BNSS allows the arrest without a Magistrate's order or warrant. Under Section 170(2) the person cannot be held beyond twenty-four hours unless another provision of the Sanhita or another law authorises further detention.

Yes, within limits. Section 185 of the BNSS lets the investigating officer search without a warrant when he has reasonable grounds to believe something necessary for the investigation is in the station's limits and cannot otherwise be obtained without undue delay. He must first record his grounds in the case diary, and the search is recorded on audio-video.

Yes. Section 105 of the BNSS requires the search, the taking of possession of property and the signing of the seizure list by witnesses to be recorded through audio-video electronic means, preferably a mobile phone. The officer must forward the recording without delay to the District Magistrate, Sub-divisional Magistrate or Judicial Magistrate of the first class.

They can search for and take possession of documents they reasonably believe are necessary for the investigation, if the Section 185 conditions are met. The officer records his grounds and describes the thing sought, the search is recorded on audio-video, and a seizure list is prepared. Alternatively, Section 94 lets the officer require production of documents by written order.

Under Vihaan Kumar (2025) and Mihir Rajesh Shah (2025), non-compliance makes the arrest and remand illegal, and the court must order release. Written grounds, in a language the person understands, are required in all offences, at least two hours before production for remand. The Delhi High Court has held that this applies to arrests made after 6 November 2025.

It depends on when the investigation began. The BNSS replaced the CrPC on 1 July 2024. Under Section 531(2)(a), an investigation pending immediately before that date continues under the CrPC as if the BNSS had not come into force. An investigation that began afterwards, even for a 2023 offence, follows the BNSS.

Section 58 of the BNSS requires officers in charge of police stations to report to the District Magistrate, or to the Sub-divisional Magistrate if he so directs, the cases of all persons arrested without warrant within their station limits. The report covers persons admitted to bail and those who were not.

A designated police officer, not below the rank of Assistant Sub-Inspector, in every district and every police station. Section 37 of the BNSS requires the State Government to designate this officer, who maintains the names and addresses of arrested persons and the offence charged. The information is displayed prominently, including digitally, in every police station and at the district headquarters.

Yes, if you are prepared to give bail. Section 478(1) BNSS (earlier Section 436 CrPC) says a person arrested without warrant, or appearing before a court, in a bailable offence shall be released on bail. A bailable offence is one shown as bailable in the First Schedule or made bailable by another law. Breaking an earlier bond's attendance conditions in the same case can lead to refusal (Section 478(2)).

Yes, if the court finds you indigent. Under Section 478(1) BNSS (earlier Section 436 CrPC), the officer or court must discharge an indigent person who cannot furnish a surety on a bond for appearance. If you cannot give a bail bond within a week of arrest, the court may presume that you are indigent. This applies to bailable offences, and the court decides indigence on the facts.

A bailable offence is one shown as bailable in the First Schedule to the BNSS or made bailable by another law, and every other offence is non-bailable (Section 2(1)(c)). For a bailable offence, a person prepared to give bail shall be released under Section 478. For a non-bailable offence, bail is a decision for the court under Sections 480 and 483.

A police officer can release a person on bail in a non-bailable offence under Section 480 BNSS (earlier Section 437 CrPC). But release is barred where there are reasonable grounds to believe the person is guilty of an offence punishable with death or life imprisonment, or where the offence is cognizable and he has certain earlier convictions. A court may still release a child, woman or sick person.

Under Section 480 BNSS (earlier Section 437 CrPC), bail is refused where there are reasonable grounds to believe the accused is guilty of an offence punishable with death or life imprisonment, or where the offence is cognizable and he has certain earlier convictions. Needing identification, or police custody beyond fifteen days, is not by itself a ground. The Public Prosecutor is heard first for offences carrying seven years or more.

No. Section 85 BNS (earlier Section 498A IPC) carries imprisonment up to three years and fine, and the section itself contains no bar on bail. In Arnesh Kumar (2014) the Supreme Court held that police must not arrest automatically in such cases, and in Satender Kumar Antil (2022) it held that non-compliance with those safeguards entitles the accused to bail. Otherwise bail turns on the facts.

Total detention is capped by Section 187(3) BNSS (earlier Section 167 CrPC) at ninety days where the investigation relates to an offence punishable with death, life imprisonment or imprisonment of ten years or more, and at sixty days for any other offence. If no charge sheet is filed by then, the accused shall be released on bail if prepared to furnish it. This is called default bail.

You get default bail under Section 187(3) BNSS (earlier Section 167(2) CrPC) once the sixty or ninety day period ends with no charge sheet filed, provided you apply and are prepared to furnish bail. Ninety days applies to offences punishable with death, life imprisonment or ten years or more, and sixty days to others. Count the days of custody exactly and apply as soon as the period ends.

Ninety days applies where the investigation relates to an offence punishable with death, life imprisonment or imprisonment of ten years or more. For any other offence the limit is sixty days (Section 187(3) BNSS, earlier Section 167 CrPC). The punishment prescribed for the offence under investigation decides which limit applies, so the penalty section must be checked in each case.

No, if you applied after the period expired. In M. Ravindran, decided under Section 167(2) CrPC (now Section 187(3) BNSS), a three-judge bench held that once the accused files the application after the period ends, he has availed of the right. A charge sheet filed while that application is pending does not defeat it. The application must follow the expiry of the period.

You can apply under Section 482 BNSS (earlier Section 438 CrPC) when you have reason to believe you may be arrested on an accusation of a non-bailable offence and have not yet been arrested. An FIR is not required, but the fear must rest on specific facts (Sibbia). Relief can follow an FIR and even a charge sheet. After arrest, the remedy is regular bail under Section 480 or 483.

Both can. Section 482(1) BNSS (earlier Section 438 CrPC) gives the power to the High Court and the Court of Session. Whichever court is approached must apply its own mind and decide whether relief is made out (Sibbia). Whether to go to the Sessions Court first is a matter of practice, and the current position in the Madras High Court should be checked before filing.

Ordinarily no. In Prathvi Raj Chauhan v. Union of India the Supreme Court held that Section 438 CrPC (now Section 482 BNSS) does not apply to offences under the SC/ST Atrocities Act. The bar in Sections 18 and 18A of that Act does not apply if the complaint does not make out a prima facie case under the Act. The answer therefore depends on what the complaint discloses.

A usual file holds the FIR, complaint or police notice, or a written account of the threat of arrest if no FIR exists. It also holds documents showing your side, such as agreements, correspondence, payment records and civil cases, details of earlier cases against you, and your address and passport details. The application should rest on concrete facts about a specific offence and explain why arrest is feared (Sushila Aggarwal).

Under Section 482(2) BNSS (earlier Section 438 CrPC) the court may attach conditions suited to the facts. These include making yourself available for police interrogation as and when required, not inducing, threatening or making promises to anyone who knows the facts, not leaving India without the court's previous permission, and any condition that Section 480(3) allows.

Anticipatory bail under Section 482 BNSS (earlier Section 438 CrPC) is sought before arrest from the High Court or Sessions Court, and directs release on bail if you are arrested. Regular bail follows arrest and is decided under Section 480 by the police or Magistrate, or under Section 483 by the Sessions Court or High Court. An anticipatory order can last until the trial ends (Sushila Aggarwal).

The High Court and the Court of Session, under Section 483 BNSS (earlier Section 439 CrPC). They may release an accused in custody and modify or set aside a Magistrate's conditions. Under Section 483(3) they may also order a person on bail to be arrested and committed. For offences triable only by the Court of Session or punishable with life imprisonment, notice goes first to the Public Prosecutor unless impracticable.

Yes. Section 483(3) BNSS (earlier Section 439 CrPC) lets the High Court, as well as the Court of Session, order a person who is on bail to be arrested and committed to custody. The power extends to bail that a Sessions Court granted. Whether it uses the power depends on the facts placed before it.

No. Section 479 BNSS (earlier Section 436A CrPC) releases an undertrial on bail after half the maximum sentence, and a first-time offender on bond after one third. It does not apply to offences punishable with death or life imprisonment, and Section 479(2) bars release where more than one offence or several cases are pending. Delay caused by the accused is excluded.

The appellate court can, for recorded reasons, suspend your sentence and release you on bail or bond under Section 430 BNSS (earlier Section 389 CrPC). Where the offence carries death, life or ten years or more, the Public Prosecutor must first be allowed to show cause. If you were on bail and got three years or less, the trial court must keep you on bail to appeal, absent special reasons.

Section 485(1) BNSS leaves the amount to the police officer or court, which sets the sum it thinks sufficient. The released person executes the bond, and when released on bail bond, one or more sufficient sureties join it, conditioned on attending as directed. Any bail condition must be written into the bond (Section 485(2)). Antil asks courts to keep Section 440 CrPC on sureties in mind.

A missed date can lead to forfeiture of the bond. Under Section 491 BNSS the court may, after recording reasons, remit part of the penalty and enforce the rest. Under Section 492, a forfeited bond cancels your bond and your sureties' bonds, and you cannot be released on your own bond alone unless you show sufficient cause. A fresh bond with sureties remains possible.

The High Court or Court of Session may direct that a person released on bail be arrested and committed to custody (Section 483(3) BNSS, earlier Section 439 CrPC). Conditions are written into the bond under Section 485(2). Where a bond for appearance is forfeited for breach of a condition, Section 492 cancels it and your sureties' bonds, and fresh release needs a new bond with sureties.

A drawer whose cheque is returned unpaid for insufficient funds, or because it exceeds the amount arranged with the bank, commits an offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The punishment is imprisonment up to two years, a fine up to twice the cheque amount, or both. The offence is complete only if the proviso conditions on presentation, notice and non-payment are met.

The payee must give written notice demanding payment within thirty days of receiving information from the bank that the cheque was returned unpaid. This is a condition in the proviso to Section 138, so a notice sent later does not support a prosecution. The thirty days run from the payee's receipt of the bank's information, not from the cheque date.

The drawer has fifteen days from receiving the demand notice to pay the cheque amount. Under the proviso to Section 138, the offence arises only if the drawer fails to pay within those fifteen days. The cause of action for a complaint arises when the fifteen days pass without payment.

The written complaint is due under Section 142(1) within one month of the date the cause of action arises, which is the end of the fifteen day payment period. In Sri Dattatraya the Supreme Court held that the month begins only after those fifteen days. The court may still take a late complaint if the complainant shows sufficient cause for the delay.

The cheque must be presented to the bank within six months from the date on which it was drawn, or within its period of validity, whichever is earlier, for Section 138 to apply. Presentation within that period is the first of three conditions in the proviso, followed by the written notice and the fifteen day payment period.

A court presumes under Section 139, unless the contrary is proved, that the holder received the cheque to discharge a debt or other liability in whole or in part. Rangappa v. Sri Mohan holds the presumption includes a legally enforceable debt. The drawer rebuts it on a preponderance of probabilities, and Basalingappa v. Mudibasappa allows reliance on the record without giving evidence.

Giving a cheque as security does not by itself defeat a Section 138 complaint. Sripati Singh v. State of Jharkhand restored a complaint on cheques given as security for a loan that had fallen due. The test is whether the cheque represents an existing enforceable debt or an advance payment with no subsisting liability, which depends on the facts.

Partly. The first proviso to Section 141(1) says a person in charge of a company's business is not liable if he proves the offence was committed without his knowledge, or that he exercised all due diligence to prevent it. The burden is on that person. Section 141(2) separately reaches an officer whose consent, connivance or neglect led to the offence.

Section 141(1) makes every person in charge of, and responsible to, the company for its business at the time of the offence liable along with the company. S.M.S. Pharmaceuticals v. Neeta Bhalla holds that being called a director is not enough. The complaint must contain averments bringing that person within Section 141.

A holder in due course may also complain. Section 142(1)(a) bars a court from taking cognizance of a Section 138 offence except on a written complaint made by the payee or, as the case may be, the holder in due course of the cheque. Whether a particular person qualifies as a holder in due course depends on the facts.

If the cheque was delivered for collection through the payee's account at a Chennai branch, a court with local jurisdiction over that branch can try the case under Section 142(2)(a). Delivery at any branch of the payee's bank is treated as delivery to the branch holding the account. Only a Metropolitan Magistrate or first class Judicial Magistrate may try it.

Summary trial applies. Section 143 provides for summary trial of Section 138 offences by a first class Judicial Magistrate or Metropolitan Magistrate, who may impose up to one year's imprisonment. The magistrate may switch to a regular trial if a longer sentence may be needed. The trial should continue from day to day, and an endeavour is to be made to finish within six months of filing.

It can be ordered, but it is not automatic. Section 143A lets the trying court direct the drawer to pay interim compensation up to twenty per cent of the cheque amount once the drawer pleads not guilty in a summary trial or summons case. Rakesh Ranjan Shrivastava holds the power discretionary, needing a prima facie view of both sides and brief reasons.

Interim compensation must be paid within sixty days of the order, and the court may extend that by up to thirty days for sufficient cause. If the drawer is acquitted, the court directs the complainant to repay the amount with interest at the Reserve Bank bank rate within sixty days, extendable by up to thirty days for sufficient cause.

In an appeal by the drawer against conviction under Section 138, the appellate court may order a deposit of at least twenty per cent of the fine or compensation awarded by the trial court. It is payable within sixty days, extendable by thirty. Muskan Enterprises says the deposit is normally imposed, with an exception for recorded reasons where it would be unjust.

Yes. Section 147 makes every offence punishable under the Negotiable Instruments Act compoundable. Raj Reddy Kallem v. State of Haryana confirms there is no bar to compounding at later stages, including after conviction. Costs may be imposed for late settlement under the scale revised in Sanjabij Tari v. Kishore S. Borcar (2025).

Section 138 makes the offence arise when the drawer fails to pay within fifteen days of the notice, and nothing in it ends the case on a later payment. The parties can settle and compound the case under Section 147. Under Sanjabij Tari, no cost applies if compounded before defence evidence, and 5 per cent of the cheque amount applies after defence evidence but before judgment.

Yes, prima facie. Section 146 requires the court, in every proceeding under this Chapter, to presume the fact of dishonour on production of the bank's slip or memo bearing the official mark denoting dishonour. The presumption holds unless and until the fact of dishonour is disproved, so the accused can challenge it with evidence.

A firm counts as a company here. The Explanation to Section 141 defines company to include a firm or other association of individuals, and director, in relation to a firm, to mean a partner. A partner in charge of and responsible for the firm's business at the time of the offence can therefore be proceeded against, subject to the proviso on lack of knowledge.

It depends on whether the case was pending on 1 July 2024, when the BNSS replaced the CrPC. Under BNSS Section 531(2)(a), a trial, inquiry or application pending immediately before that date continues under the CrPC. A complaint filed after that date would proceed under the BNSS. Section 143 of the NI Act itself refers to CrPC summary trial provisions.

Yes. The proviso to Section 148(1) says the deposit ordered in an appeal is in addition to any interim compensation the appellant paid under Section 143A. Section 143A(6) also reduces the final fine or compensation by the interim amount paid or recovered. Both orders are discretionary at the stage where each arises.

Under Section 142(1), no court inferior to a Metropolitan Magistrate or a Judicial Magistrate of the first class can try a Section 138 offence. The court acts only on a written complaint by the payee or holder in due course. Section 143 adds that these offences are tried by the same magistrates, ordinarily in a summary trial.

No. In Sri Dattatraya v. Sharanappa the Supreme Court said courts should be liberal about the accused's attendance in Section 138 cases and should avoid issuing a non-bailable warrant at the first instance. Section 143 treats these as summary trials meant to move quickly, so attendance practice still depends on the court and the facts.

Yes. Section 145(1) allows the complainant's evidence to be given on affidavit and read in any enquiry or trial, subject to just exceptions. Under Section 145(2), the court shall summon and examine the person who gave the affidavit on the application of the prosecution or the accused, so the accused can require the deponent to be examined.

Fraud involving at least ten lakh rupees or one per cent of turnover, whichever is lower, carries imprisonment of six months to ten years and a fine of one to three times the amount involved (Section 447). If public interest is involved, the minimum is three years. Smaller frauds without public interest carry up to five years, or a fine up to fifty lakh rupees, or both.

No. Section 447 punishes a person found guilty of fraud, which the Explanation defines as an act, omission, concealment or abuse of position with intent to deceive or injure. A default alone is not that. In Sunil Bharti Mittal (2015) 4 SCC 609, the Supreme Court held that vicarious liability needs a statute providing for it, or evidence of the director's active role.

Both sections extend the word officer to any person on whose directions or instructions the directors have been accustomed to act, so a person who controls the board from outside can be reached. Section 336 applies to a person who is or has been an officer of a company that is being wound up by the Tribunal. Section 339 uses the same wording.

Section 212(8) lets an SFIO officer not below Assistant Director, authorised by the Central Government, arrest a person for a Section 447 offence. The officer must have reason to believe the person is guilty, record that reason in writing and tell the person the grounds. Section 212(8) does not mention an FIR. The arrested person must be produced within 24 hours (Section 212(10)).

If the Public Prosecutor opposes bail, the court must be satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing the accused is not guilty of the offence and is not likely to commit any offence while on bail (Section 212(6)). A person under sixteen, a woman, or a sick or infirm person may be released if the Special Court so directs.

Section 212(1) applies when the Central Government considers an SFIO investigation necessary on one of four grounds: a report of the Registrar or an inspector under Section 208, a special resolution of the company, the public interest, or a request from a Central or State Government department. Once assigned, no other agency may proceed with an investigation of Companies Act offences in that case (Section 212(2)).

Under Section 213 the Tribunal orders the investigation after hearing the parties, on an application by members meeting a threshold or on other circumstances suggesting fraud or oppression, and the Central Government then appoints inspectors. Under Section 212 the Central Government itself assigns the case to the SFIO on listed grounds, and no hearing of the company is required by the text.

Yes, for most offences. Section 439(2) bars cognizance of an offence by a company or its officer except on a written complaint of the Registrar, a shareholder or member, or a person authorised by the Central Government. A company's own prosecution of its officers is excepted. For Section 447 offences, Section 212(6) allows a complaint only by the SFIO Director or an authorised Central Government officer.

Section 439(1) deems every offence under the Act non-cognizable, except the offences referred to in Section 212(6). Section 212(6) makes a Section 447 fraud offence cognizable. So fraud under Section 447 is the cognizable exception, and every other offence under the Act is non-cognizable. Under Section 439(2), a court takes cognizance of an offence by a company or its officer only on a written complaint by the listed persons.

Section 447 does not say so. The section operates without prejudice to any liability, including repayment of any debt, under the Act or any other law, so repayment sits alongside the criminal punishment. The Explanation says fraud exists whether or not there is any wrongful gain or wrongful loss, so a repayment does not remove the elements it describes.

Yes. Section 448 makes a person liable under Section 447 if a return, report, certificate, financial statement, prospectus or other document required under the Act contains a statement that is false in a material particular, knowing it to be false, or omits a material fact, knowing it to be material. Knowledge is the deciding element, so an honest mistake does not meet the text.

Where an interim or final report states that fraud took place and a director, key managerial personnel, other officer or any other person or entity took undue advantage or benefit, Section 212(14A) lets the Central Government apply to the Tribunal. It can seek disgorgement of the asset, property or cash and an order holding that person personally liable without limit.

Yes, if the company is being wound up by the Tribunal. Section 336(1)(d) covers concealing company property worth one thousand rupees or more, or a debt, within twelve months before winding up or afterwards. The punishment is three to five years and a fine of one to three lakh rupees. Proving no intent to defraud or conceal the true state of affairs is a defence.

Section 337 covers an officer of a company later ordered wound up by the Tribunal who induced credit to the company by false pretences, made a gift, transfer or charge over its property with intent to defraud creditors, or concealed or removed property to defraud creditors around an unsatisfied judgment. The punishment is one to three years and a fine of one to three lakh rupees.

Yes. If, during winding up, it appears that business was carried on with intent to defraud creditors or for any fraudulent purpose, the Tribunal may declare a director, manager or officer, or anyone knowingly a party, personally responsible without limit for the company's debts (Section 339(1)). Section 339(3) also makes those persons liable for action under Section 447. The Tribunal acts on an application and has discretion.

Section 452 applies on the complaint of the company or of a member, creditor or contributory. The court trying the offence may order the officer or employee to deliver up or refund the property or cash, and any benefits derived, within a fixed time, failing which imprisonment of up to two years follows (Section 452(2)). The offence itself carries a fine of one to five lakh rupees.

Adjudicating officers appointed by the Central Government, not below the rank of Registrar, adjudge penalties after giving the company, officer or other person a reasonable opportunity of being heard (Section 454(1) and (4)). An aggrieved person may appeal to the Regional Director having jurisdiction within sixty days of receiving the order (Section 454(5) and (6)).

Section 3 bans Unregulated Deposit Schemes outright. It also bars any deposit taker from directly or indirectly promoting or operating such a scheme, issuing an advertisement soliciting participation or enrolment in it, or accepting deposits under it. Section 21 sets the punishments for a breach: one to five years for soliciting deposits, and higher terms for accepting them.

Section 41 says the Act does not apply to deposits taken in the ordinary course of business. The section carries no other listed exclusion in its text. Whether a particular deposit was taken in the ordinary course of business depends on the facts, and the ban on Unregulated Deposit Schemes in Section 3 applies to everything else the Act covers.

Soliciting deposits in contravention of Section 3 carries one to five years and a fine of two to ten lakh rupees. Accepting deposits carries two to seven years and a fine of three to ten lakh rupees. Accepting deposits and fraudulently defaulting on repayment or a promised service carries three to ten years and a fine of five lakh rupees up to twice the funds collected.

Yes. A person who fails to pay a penalty imposed by the adjudicating officer or the Board, or fails to comply with directions or orders, is punishable under Section 24(2) with imprisonment of at least one month, extending to ten years, or with a fine up to twenty-five crore rupees, or with both. Section 24(1) separately covers contravening the Act, rules or regulations.

Yes. Section 111(6) of the BNS punishes whoever possesses property derived or obtained from organised crime, its proceeds, or property acquired through it, with three years to life imprisonment and a fine of at least two lakh rupees. Section 111(7) separately covers property held on behalf of a syndicate member that the person cannot satisfactorily account for, with three to ten years.

An insider who deals in listed securities on unpublished price sensitive information, communicates it, or counsels or procures another to deal on it is liable under Section 15G to a penalty of at least ten lakh rupees. The maximum is twenty-five crore rupees or three times the profits made from insider trading, whichever is higher.

Yes, through Section 24(1). Anyone who contravenes, attempts to contravene or abets a contravention of the Act, rules or regulations is punishable with imprisonment up to ten years, or a fine up to twenty-five crore rupees, or both, without prejudice to any penalty. Section 12A(d) prohibits insider trading, so a contravention of it falls within that wording.

Section 12A bars using manipulative or deceptive devices, employing any scheme or artifice to defraud, and engaging in any practice that operates as fraud or deceit, in connection with listed or proposed-to-be-listed securities. It also prohibits insider trading, dealing while in possession of material non-public information, communicating it, and acquiring control of a listed company above the regulated percentage.

Section 111(1) applies to a syndicate of two or more persons engaged in continuing unlawful activity, which includes economic offences such as criminal breach of trust, forgery and mass-marketing fraud. The activity must be a cognizable offence punishable with three years or more, with more than one charge sheet taken cognizance of in ten years, and benefit obtained by unlawful means. The penalty is at least five years.

Section 344 of the BNS (earlier Section 477A of the IPC) applies only to a clerk, officer or servant who wilfully and with intent to defraud falsifies or makes false entries in the employer's books, records or accounts. The punishment is up to seven years, or fine, or both. A charge may allege a general intent to defraud without naming a person or sum.

A first class Magistrate takes cognizance under Section 210(1)(a) BNSS on receiving a complaint of facts that constitute an offence. A second class Magistrate can do so only if the Chief Judicial Magistrate has specially empowered him. In a complaint case the Magistrate then examines the complainant on oath under Section 223 before deciding whether to proceed.

A Magistrate can. Section 210(1)(a) BNSS lets him take cognizance of any offence on a complaint of facts that constitute it, and the section does not exclude non-cognizable offences. Police cannot investigate a non-cognizable case without a Magistrate's order under Section 174(2), so the informant is referred to the Magistrate, who may then act on a complaint.

An FIR is information recorded by the police under Section 173 BNSS, after which the police investigate. A private complaint goes to the Magistrate under Section 210, who examines the complainant on oath under Section 223 and decides whether to issue process. The Magistrate can also direct police investigation under Section 175(3), on an affidavit-supported application after approaching the Superintendent of Police.

Under Section 223(1) BNSS (Section 200 CrPC), a Magistrate taking cognizance on a complaint examines the complainant and any witnesses present on oath. The substance of the examination is written down and signed by the complainant, the witnesses and the Magistrate. For a written complaint, no examination is needed if a public servant acting officially or a Court made it.

The accused does. The first proviso to Section 223(1) BNSS says no cognizance of an offence may be taken without giving the accused an opportunity of being heard. This has no counterpart in Section 200 CrPC. In Parvinder Singh v. Directorate of Enforcement (2026 INSC 519) the Supreme Court held the proviso mandatory and cognizance without it void.

A Magistrate empowered under Section 210 may order investigation under Section 175(3) BNSS after considering an application supported by an affidavit under Section 173(4), making such inquiry as he thinks necessary, and hearing the police officer's submission. In Om Prakash Ambadkar (2025) the Supreme Court read this as requiring a prior application to the Superintendent of Police.

Reasons must be recorded. Section 226 BNSS (Section 203 CrPC) says that when the Magistrate dismisses a complaint, he shall in every such case briefly record his reasons for doing so. The dismissal follows his consideration of the sworn statements and the result of any inquiry or investigation under Section 225.

The only ground in Section 226 BNSS is that there is no sufficient ground for proceeding. The Magistrate forms that opinion after considering the sworn statements of the complainant and witnesses, if any, and the result of any inquiry or investigation under Section 225.

Revision is one remedy. Under Section 438 BNSS (Section 397 CrPC) the High Court or the Sessions Judge may examine the correctness, legality or propriety of a Magistrate's order. Under Section 440(3), a decision of the Sessions Judge on a person's application is final as to that person, and the High Court will not entertain a further revision from him.

If there is sufficient ground for proceeding, Section 227(1) BNSS requires a summons in a summons-case. In a warrant-case the Magistrate may issue a warrant or, if he thinks fit, a summons. Process may be issued electronically. No process issues until the list of prosecution witnesses is filed, and a summons or warrant on a written complaint carries a copy of it.

No. Under Section 227(1) BNSS a summons issues when, in the Magistrate's opinion, there is sufficient ground for proceeding. That is a view on whether the case should go forward and secures the accused's attendance. It is not a finding of guilt, which can come only after trial. The Supreme Court has said Magistrates must take care at this stage.

Only in a warrant-case. Section 227(1)(b) BNSS lets the Magistrate issue a warrant or, if he thinks fit, a summons, to bring the accused before him or another Magistrate with jurisdiction. In a summons-case, Section 227(1)(a) requires a summons. Before either issues, the list of prosecution witnesses must be filed under Section 227(2).

Yes. Under Section 225(1) BNSS the Magistrate may postpone issue of process and inquire himself or direct investigation by a police officer or another person. He must postpone where the accused lives outside his area. He cannot direct investigation for an offence triable only by the Court of Session, or before examining the complainant on oath unless a Court made the complaint.

Section 223(2) BNSS bars cognizance of a complaint against a public servant for acts in the discharge of official functions unless two things happen: the public servant is given an opportunity to state the situation that led to the incident, and a report of facts and circumstances is received from his superior officer. Section 218 may separately require previous sanction.

A cheque dishonour complaint can be compounded. Section 147 of the Negotiable Instruments Act says every offence punishable under that Act is compoundable, despite anything in the Code of Criminal Procedure. A Section 138 prosecution runs on a written complaint by the payee or holder in due course under Section 142, and the Act's own compounding rule applies to it.

Yes, for the offences in Section 514(2) BNSS: six months if punishable with fine only, one year if punishable with imprisonment up to one year, and three years if the imprisonment is more than one year and up to three years. Where offences are tried together, the most severely punishable offence decides the period. The bar does not cover offences carrying more than three years.

The Explanation to Section 514(3) BNSS fixes the relevant date as the date of filing the complaint under Section 223 or the date of recording the information under Section 173. The date the Magistrate takes cognizance is not the reference point. Section 514 does not say whether time spent with the police is excluded.

Wife's complaint is required. Section 221 BNSS says no Court shall take cognizance of an offence under Section 67 BNS where the persons are in a marital relationship, except upon prima facie satisfaction of the facts, on a complaint filed or made by the wife against the husband. Section 67 covers sexual intercourse by a husband with his wife living separately, without her consent.

Often yes. Section 218(1) BNSS bars cognizance of an offence alleged against a Judge, Magistrate or public servant not removable without government sanction, committed while acting or purporting to act in official duty, without previous sanction of the Central or State Government. The Government must decide within 120 days of receiving the request. Section 223(2) adds a separate requirement.

The BNSS procedure applies to a complaint filed after 1 July 2024. Section 531(2)(a) BNSS continues the CrPC only for appeals, applications, trials, inquiries or investigations pending immediately before the BNSS began, and a later complaint was not pending. The offence itself remains an offence under the IPC for conduct before that date.

Under Section 201 BNSS, theft, extortion or robbery may be tried where the offence occurred or the stolen property was possessed by the offender. Criminal breach of trust may be tried where the offence occurred or any part of the property was received, retained or had to be accounted for. Dacoity may be tried where it occurred or the accused is found.

Revision is available. Under Section 438 BNSS (Section 397 CrPC) the High Court or Sessions Judge may call for the record of an inferior criminal court to examine the correctness, legality or propriety of an order. Under Section 442, no order can prejudice the accused without a hearing, and a party who could have appealed cannot seek revision. Interlocutory orders are barred.

Yes, if the facts show someone fraudulently or dishonestly used your password. Section 66C of the IT Act punishes that with up to three years and a fine up to one lakh rupees. Under Section 77B the offence is cognizable, so the police can register an FIR, and an officer of Inspector rank or above must investigate it under Section 78.

Section 43 lists acts done without the owner's permission, such as accessing a system, copying data, introducing a virus or deleting information, and makes the person liable to pay compensation. Section 66 makes the same acts an offence when done dishonestly or fraudulently, punishable with up to three years, or a fine up to five lakh rupees, or both.

No. The Supreme Court struck down Section 66A in Shreya Singhal v. Union of India, (2015) 5 SCC 1, and the statute now shows it as omitted. In Rini Johar v. State of M.P., (2016) 11 SCC 703, the Court refused to apply it. A charge under Section 66A today can be challenged, and other charges are examined separately.

Cheating by personation through a communication device or computer resource is punishable under Section 66D with imprisonment of either description for up to three years and a fine up to one lakh rupees. The prosecution must show that the accused cheated by pretending to be someone else, so the actual sentence depends on the facts proved.

Only if the image shows a private area, which Section 66E defines as the naked or undergarment-clad genitals, pubic area, buttocks or female breast, captured, published or transmitted without consent in circumstances violating privacy. The punishment is up to three years, or a fine up to two lakh rupees, or both. BNS Section 77 on voyeurism may also apply.

The maximum under Section 66F is imprisonment for life for whoever commits or conspires to commit cyber terrorism. The offence needs intent to threaten the unity, integrity, security or sovereignty of India or to strike terror, combined with conduct such as denying access, unauthorised access or introducing a computer contaminant, with the harm the section lists.

Yes. Section 67 punishes publishing or transmitting in electronic form material that is lascivious, appeals to the prurient interest or tends to deprave and corrupt, and a first conviction carries up to three years and a fine up to five lakh rupees. A second conviction carries up to five years and ten lakh rupees. Whether the material meets that test depends on the facts.

Publishing or transmitting material containing a sexually explicit act or conduct is punishable under Section 67A with up to five years and a fine up to ten lakh rupees on a first conviction. A second or later conviction carries up to seven years and the same fine. The proviso in Section 67B excludes material justified as being for the public good.

It covers more than sharing. Section 67B also reaches anyone who creates, collects, seeks, browses, downloads, advertises, exchanges or distributes electronic material depicting children in a sexually explicit or obscene manner. A child is a person under 18. A first conviction carries up to five years and ten lakh rupees, and a later one up to seven years.

Section 69A does not require a court order. The Central Government, or an officer it specially authorises, may direct an agency or intermediary to block public access to information, for reasons recorded in writing, on grounds such as sovereignty, security of the State or public order. An intermediary that does not comply faces up to seven years and a fine.

Under Section 69, the Central Government, a State Government or an officer specially authorised by either may direct an agency to intercept, monitor or decrypt information in a computer resource. The order must record reasons and rest on grounds such as the security of the State, public order or investigation of an offence, and prescribed procedure and safeguards apply.

It can. Section 79(1) exempts an intermediary from liability for third party content, but under Section 79(3)(b) the exemption does not apply if, on actual knowledge or on notification by the appropriate Government or its agency, the intermediary fails to expeditiously remove or disable access to the unlawful material. The exemption also requires due diligence under Section 79(2)(c).

No. Section 77B makes bailable only an offence punishable with imprisonment of three years, and makes an offence punishable with three years and above cognizable. Sections 67A and 67B carry up to five years on a first conviction and up to seven on a later one, so they are cognizable and Section 77B does not make them bailable.

Under Section 77B an offence punishable with imprisonment of three years and above is cognizable, and an offence punishable with three years is bailable. Most offences in Sections 66 to 66E carry a maximum of three years, so they are cognizable and bailable. Offences with longer terms, such as Sections 67A and 67B, are cognizable but not made bailable by this section.

A sub-inspector cannot investigate on his own. Section 78 of the IT Act says that a police officer not below the rank of Inspector shall investigate any offence under the Act, notwithstanding the CrPC. A charge sheet filed after investigation by a junior officer can be questioned on that ground, though the result in a given case depends on its facts.

Section 318(2) of the BNS punishes cheating with up to three years, or a fine, or both. Where the person deceived is induced to deliver property, such as a fee paid to a fake job portal, Section 318(4) (old IPC 420) applies, with up to seven years and a fine. The applicable sub-section depends on what the victim was induced to do.

Not by itself. Section 319 of the BNS applies when a person cheats by pretending to be another person, and cheating under Section 318 needs a person deceived who is induced to part with property or act to their harm. A fake profile that deceives no one may not qualify. Cheating by personation carries up to five years, or a fine, or both.

Online frauds are often charged under the IT Act together with BNS cheating, so both can appear in one FIR. Section 66D requires cheating by personation through a communication device or computer resource, while Section 318 requires deception that induces the victim to deliver property or act to their harm. Which charges survive at the framing stage depends on the facts.

Yes, if the email or statement is a false electronic record or document made with intent to cause damage or injury, to cause a person to part with property or to commit fraud. Section 336(2) of the BNS punishes forgery with up to two years, and Section 336(3) with up to seven years where it is meant for cheating. Section 340 covers fraudulent use.

Generally not. Section 63 of the BSA (old Evidence Act 65B) requires a certificate to be submitted with the electronic record each time it is offered in evidence, signed by the person in charge of the device and an expert. Under the old law, Arjun Panditrao Khotkar (2020) held the certificate is a condition precedent and oral evidence cannot replace it.

BNSS Section 106 (old CrPC 102) lets a police officer seize property alleged or suspected to be stolen, or found in circumstances that create suspicion of an offence, and the officer must report the seizure forthwith to the Magistrate. In Shento Varghese (2024), the Supreme Court held that delay in reporting does not by itself vitiate the seizure.

IPC sections apply. The BNS took effect on 1 July 2024, and Section 358 of the BNS preserves proceedings for offences under the repealed IPC, which may be continued or enforced as if the Code had not been repealed. A March 2024 fraud is therefore charged under the IPC even if the FIR is filed now.

No. Section 43 lists accessing a system, copying data, damaging or disrupting it without the owner's permission, and the section text contains no exception for retaliation or for a person who was defamed. Doing those acts dishonestly or fraudulently is an offence under Section 66, punishable with up to three years, or a fine up to five lakh rupees, or both.

Section 72A makes the person liable to a penalty which may extend to twenty-five lakh rupees. The heading says Punishment, but the section sets no imprisonment term. It reaches a person, including an intermediary, who gained access to personal information under a lawful contract and, intending or knowing it likely to cause wrongful loss or gain, discloses it without consent.

Only when the computer source code is required by law to be kept or maintained. Section 65 punishes knowingly or intentionally concealing, destroying or altering such code, or causing another to do so, with up to three years, or a fine up to two lakh rupees, or both. Other deletion may fall under Sections 43 and 66.

Not by the purchase alone. Section 66B punishes dishonestly receiving or retaining a stolen computer resource or communication device, knowing or having reason to believe it is stolen, with up to three years, or a fine up to one lakh rupees, or both. BNS Section 317(2) similarly covers dishonestly receiving stolen property, with up to three years, or a fine, or both.

Dowry means any property or valuable security given or agreed to be given, directly or indirectly, by one party to a marriage to the other, or by a parent or any other person to either party or anyone else. It must be given at, before or any time after the marriage, in connection with it. Dower or mahr is excluded for persons governed by Muslim Personal Law (Shariat).

No. Section 2 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 excludes dower or mahr from the definition of dowry for persons to whom the Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) applies. Mahr is therefore outside the Act where that law governs the parties. Other property given in connection with the marriage can still fall within the definition of dowry.

Giving, taking or abetting the giving or taking of dowry is punishable with imprisonment of at least five years and a fine of at least fifteen thousand rupees or the value of the dowry, whichever is more, under Section 3 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. The Court may go below five years only for adequate and special reasons recorded in the judgment.

Yes. Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 applies to any person who demands dowry, directly or indirectly, from the parents, relatives or guardian of a bride or bridegroom, so it is not limited to the husband. The punishment is imprisonment of six months to two years and a fine up to ten thousand rupees. Less than six months is possible only for adequate and special reasons recorded.

A promise to pay dowry is void. Section 5 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 declares any agreement for the giving or taking of dowry void, so it gives no enforceable right. The agreement being void does not remove criminal liability: giving or taking dowry is punishable under Section 3 and demanding it under Section 4.

Three months. Under Section 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, whoever receives dowry for a woman must transfer it to her within three months of the marriage if received before it, within three months of receipt if received at or after it, or within three months of her turning eighteen if she was a minor. Failure is punishable with six months to two years, a fine, or both.

No court lower than a Metropolitan Magistrate or a Judicial Magistrate of the first class may try an offence under the Act. Under Section 7 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, a court takes cognizance only on its own knowledge, a police report, or a complaint by the aggrieved person, a parent or other relative, or a recognised welfare institution or organisation.

The accused bears it. Under Section 8A of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, a person prosecuted for taking or abetting dowry under Section 3, or demanding it under Section 4, must prove that he did not commit the offence. For dowry death under Section 80 of the BNS, the prosecution must first prove the ingredients, including the link to a dowry demand.

A Section 4 case cannot end by private compromise alone, because Section 8(2) of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 makes every offence under the Act non-compoundable. The High Court can still quash proceedings arising from a matrimonial dowry dispute after a genuine settlement, under its inherent power (BNSS s.528, earlier CrPC s.482), as the Supreme Court has recognised, if conviction is remote.

The State Government appoints Dowry Prohibition Officers under Section 8B of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, as many as it thinks fit, and specifies their areas. Each officer sees that the Act is complied with, works to prevent taking, abetting or demanding dowry, and collects evidence for prosecutions. The State may also confer specified police powers on the officer by notification.

Section 80 of the BNS (earlier Section 304B of the IPC) treats a woman's death as a dowry death when it is caused by burns or bodily injury, or occurs otherwise than under normal circumstances, within seven years of marriage, and soon before it she was subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or his relative for, or in connection with, a demand for dowry.

Yes. Section 80(2) of the BNS (earlier Section 304B of the IPC) provides imprisonment for a term of not less than seven years, which may extend to imprisonment for life. Once the conditions in Section 80(1) are shown, the husband or relative is deemed to have caused the death, so the minimum applies to a conviction under that section.

Section 118 of the BSA (earlier Section 113B of the Evidence Act) states no seven-year limit itself, but it applies to dowry death as defined in Section 80 of the BNS, and that definition requires the death within seven years of marriage. The presumption also needs proof that soon before her death the woman was subjected to cruelty or harassment for dowry.

For a death in 2019, the charge lies under Section 304B of the IPC. The BNS replaced the IPC on 1 July 2024, and acts committed before that date are still charged under the IPC. Section 80 of the BNS is the corresponding provision for later acts, and the official old-to-new map records Section 304B as mapping to Section 80.

Section 108 of the BNS (earlier Section 306 of the IPC) applies where a person commits suicide and the accused abetted it, with imprisonment up to ten years and fine. Section 80 applies to a woman's death within seven years of marriage after dowry-related cruelty, with a minimum of seven years, and deems the husband or relative to have caused the death.

Incidents before 1 July 2024 fall under Section 498A of the IPC. The BNS took effect on that date, and acts committed before it are still charged under the IPC. Section 498A became Sections 85 and 86 of the BNS: Section 85 punishes cruelty by a husband or his relative with up to three years and fine, and Section 86 defines cruelty.

Section 85 of the BNS (earlier Section 498A of the IPC) punishes a husband or his relative for cruelty with up to three years and fine, and no death is needed. Section 80 (earlier 304B) applies only to a woman's death within seven years of marriage after dowry-related cruelty, with a minimum of seven years. Section 86 defines cruelty for Section 85.

Domestic violence under Section 3 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 covers conduct of the respondent that harms or endangers the health, safety, life, limb or well-being of the aggrieved person, mental or physical, including physical, sexual, verbal, emotional and economic abuse. It also covers harassment to coerce an unlawful demand for dowry or property, and threats of such conduct.

The respondent is an adult male person who is or has been in a domestic relationship with the aggrieved person and against whom relief is sought. The proviso to Section 2(q) of the Domestic Violence Act, 2005 lets an aggrieved wife, or a woman in a relationship in the nature of marriage, also file a complaint against a relative of the husband or male partner.

A woman in a live-in relationship can seek relief if the relationship is in the nature of marriage. Section 2(f) of the Domestic Violence Act, 2005 includes in a domestic relationship persons who live or have lived together in a shared household and are related through a relationship in the nature of marriage. Whether a given relationship qualifies depends on the facts.

A shared household under Section 2(s) of the Domestic Violence Act, 2005 is a household where the aggrieved person lives or has at any stage lived in a domestic relationship, alone or with the respondent. It includes one owned or tenanted jointly or by either of them, and one belonging to the respondent's joint family, whether or not the respondent or the woman has any title in it.

No. Section 17 of the Domestic Violence Act, 2005 gives every woman in a domestic relationship the right to reside in the shared household whether or not she has any right, title or beneficial interest in it, and she cannot be evicted or excluded except by procedure established by law. Nothing in Section 17 makes that right depend on whether she files a case.

On being satisfied that domestic violence has taken place, the Magistrate may pass a residence order under Section 19 of the Domestic Violence Act, 2005 restraining dispossession, directing the respondent to remove himself, barring entry into her portion, restraining alienation of the household, or directing alternate accommodation or rent. No removal order may be passed against a woman.

Under Section 20 of the Domestic Violence Act, 2005, the Magistrate may direct monetary relief for expenses incurred and losses suffered by the aggrieved person and her child, including loss of earnings, medical expenses, loss from destroyed or removed property, and maintenance including under CrPC s.125. The relief must be adequate, fair and reasonable, and a lump sum or monthly payments may be ordered.

Yes. Section 23(2) of the Domestic Violence Act, 2005 lets the Magistrate grant an ex parte order under Sections 18 to 22 on the aggrieved person's affidavit, if the application prima facie shows that the respondent is committing, has committed or may commit domestic violence. Section 23(1) separately allows interim orders in any proceeding as the Magistrate thinks just and proper.

Under Section 25(1) of the Domestic Violence Act, 2005, a protection order made under Section 18 stays in force until the aggrieved person applies for discharge. It has no fixed term. Under Section 25(2), the Magistrate may alter, modify or revoke any order on an application by either side if circumstances have changed, giving reasons in writing.

Breach of a protection order or interim protection order is an offence under Section 31 of the Domestic Violence Act, 2005, punishable with imprisonment up to one year, a fine up to twenty thousand rupees, or both. The order-passing Magistrate should try it where practicable and may also frame charges under Section 498A of the IPC or the Dowry Prohibition Act where the facts disclose them.

Sixty days from the first hearing is the target. Under Section 12 of the Domestic Violence Act, 2005, the Magistrate fixes the first hearing ordinarily within three days of the court receiving the application, and shall endeavour to dispose of it within sixty days of that first hearing. The section words this as an endeavour, so it is not an absolute deadline.

No. Section 32 of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 limits prosecutions under Chapter IV to an Inspector, an authorised gazetted officer, the person aggrieved or a recognised consumer association. In Union of India v. Ashok Kumar Sharma (2021) 12 SCC 674, the Supreme Court held that the police cannot register an FIR or investigate Chapter IV offences. Police can still act on an offence under another law (Section 32(3)).

Under Section 32(1), a prosecution under Chapter IV can also be instituted by a gazetted officer of the Central or State Government authorised in writing, by the person aggrieved, or by a recognised consumer association, whether or not the person is a member of it. Section 26 explains that such an association is a voluntary body registered under the Companies Act, 1956 or another law.

Section 17A deems a drug adulterated if it contains filthy or decomposed matter, was prepared under insanitary conditions, has a poisonous container, has a non-prescribed colour, contains a harmful substance, or was mixed to reduce quality or strength. Section 17B deems a drug spurious if it is passed off as another drug, imitates it, names a fictitious maker, or is substituted.

The term depends on the clause. Under Section 27(a), a spurious drug likely to cause death or grievous hurt carries not less than ten years and up to life. Under Section 27(c), other spurious drugs carry not less than seven years and up to life, and the court may record special reasons and impose a shorter term, but not below three years. A fine also applies.

Yes. Section 27(b)(ii) punishes manufacturing for sale, selling, stocking or distributing a drug without the licence that Section 18(c) requires. The punishment is imprisonment of three to five years and a fine of at least one lakh rupees or three times the value of the drugs confiscated, whichever is more. For adequate and special reasons recorded in the judgment, the court may impose less.

Yes. Under Section 23, the Inspector tenders a fair price, gives written intimation and divides the sample into four sealed portions (three at manufacturing premises), and one portion is returned to the person sampled. Section 22 gives the Inspector the power to take samples, subject to Section 23.

Twenty-eight days from receiving a copy of the Government Analyst's report. Under Section 25(3), the person sampled, or the person whose details were disclosed under Section 18A, must notify the Inspector or the court in writing within that period of an intention to adduce evidence contrary to the report. Without that notice, the report is conclusive evidence of the facts it states.

No. Under Section 25(3), a Government Analyst's report is evidence of the facts stated in it, and it is conclusive only if the person sampled does not notify the Inspector or court, within twenty-eight days of receiving the copy, that contrary evidence will be led. After timely notice, the court may send its sample portion to the Central Drugs Laboratory under Section 25(4), and that laboratory's report is conclusive.

The case can be quashed. Section 25(4) lets the court send its sample portion to the Central Drugs Laboratory once notice is given under Section 25(3). In Medicamen Biotech Ltd. v. Rubina Bose (2008) 7 SCC 196, the manufacturer disputed the report in time, no retest happened before expiry, and the case was quashed. The dates decide the point.

No. Section 34(1) deems every person in charge of and responsible to the company for its business guilty with the company, but that person can prove the offence happened without their knowledge or that they used all due diligence. State of Haryana v. Brij Lal Mittal (1998) 5 SCC 343 held that holding the post of director alone does not make a person liable.

A Court of Session designated as a Special Court under Section 36AB tries adulterated and spurious drug offences. Under Section 32(2), no court inferior to a Court of Session may try a Chapter IV offence unless the Act provides otherwise. A Magistrate holds only summary trials under Section 36A, for offences punishable with up to three years.

Yes, an appeal lies to the High Court. A Special Court under Section 36AB is a designated Court of Session, and Section 415(2) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 lets a person convicted on a trial by a Sessions Judge appeal to the High Court. Section 415(2) also covers a conviction in any other court where a sentence above seven years was passed.

Section 27A(i) punishes manufacturing for sale, selling, stocking or exhibiting spurious or adulterated cosmetics with imprisonment up to three years and a fine of at least fifty thousand rupees or three times the value of the cosmetics confiscated, whichever is more. Any other contravention under Section 27A(ii) carries imprisonment up to one year, or a fine up to twenty thousand rupees, or both.

Section 51 imposes a money penalty of up to five lakh rupees for sub-standard food, imposed through adjudication. Section 59 makes unsafe food a criminal offence, with imprisonment up to three months where there is no injury, rising to not less than seven years where death results, plus a fine. The classification of the food therefore decides whether the seller faces a penalty or a prosecution.

Section 59 gives imprisonment up to six years and a fine up to five lakh rupees where unsafe food results in grievous injury. Where it results in death, the punishment is imprisonment of not less than seven years, extendable to life, and a fine of not less than ten lakh rupees. The provision covers anyone who manufactures for sale, stores, sells, distributes or imports unsafe food.

Not under Sections 51 and 52 alone. Section 51 sets a penalty of up to five lakh rupees for sub-standard food, and Section 52 a penalty of up to three lakh rupees for misbranded food. Both are money penalties imposed on adjudication. Imprisonment applies to offences such as unsafe food under Section 59, so the finding on the sample decides the exposure.

Yes, through a second analysis. Under Section 47(1), the Food Safety Officer gives written notice and divides the sample into four sealed parts: one to the Food Analyst, two to the Designated Officer for custody, and one to an accredited laboratory if the food business operator asks. If the two reports differ, a part goes to a referral laboratory, whose decision is final.

The Food Analyst must send the report within fourteen days of receiving the sample under Section 46(3), and must give reasons and a time to the Designated Officer and the Commissioner if more time is needed. An appeal against the report lies before the Designated Officer under Section 46(4), who may refer the matter to the referral food laboratory for opinion.

The Designated Officer decides first. Under Section 42(3), after scrutinising the Food Analyst's report, the Designated Officer decides whether the contravention is punishable with imprisonment or with fine only. For imprisonment cases, the Commissioner of Food Safety decides under Section 42(4) whether the matter goes to a court of ordinary jurisdiction or a Special Court. Penalty cases go to an Adjudicating Officer under Section 68.

A court cannot take cognizance of an offence under the Food Safety and Standards Act after one year from the date the offence was committed. Under the proviso to Section 77, the Commissioner of Food Safety may, for reasons recorded in writing, approve prosecution within an extended period of up to three years. Without that approval, a complaint filed after one year is barred.

It can be, depending on the facts. Section 66(1) deems every person in charge of and responsible to the company for its business guilty with the company; for a branch, the nominated head responsible for food safety is liable. Proof of no knowledge or due diligence avoids punishment. A director whose consent, connivance or neglect led to the offence is also liable under Section 66(2).

Only in limited cases. Under Section 69, the Commissioner of Food Safety may authorise the Designated Officer to accept up to one lakh rupees in composition from petty manufacturers who sell their own food, retailers, hawkers, itinerant vendors and temporary stall holders. No offence for which imprisonment is prescribed can be compounded, so unsafe food under Section 59 cannot be compounded.

A joint prosecution is doubtful. Section 274 of the BNS (earlier Section 272 of the IPC) carries up to six months, a fine up to five thousand rupees, or both. In Ram Nath v. State of Uttar Pradesh [2024] 2 S.C.R. 743, the Supreme Court held that Section 59 of the FSSA overrides the IPC provisions and quashed the parallel IPC prosecution. Sayyed Hassan barred only double punishment.

Section 63 imposes a penalty of up to ten lakh rupees on a person who manufactures, sells, stores, distributes or imports food without a licence that is required, with effect from 7 November 2023. Persons exempt from licensing under Section 31(2) are outside it. The Adjudicating Officer fixes the amount with regard to the factors in Section 49.

The State Government notifies an officer not below the rank of Additional District Magistrate of the district where the alleged offence took place as the Adjudicating Officer under Section 68. Before imposing a penalty, that officer must give the person a reasonable opportunity to make a representation and must follow the Section 49 guidelines on gain, loss, repetition and knowledge. The officer has civil court powers.

A forest officer can arrest without a warrant under Section 50(1)(c) of the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972, but only when he has reasonable grounds to believe an offence was committed, has seized the animal, trophy or tool involved, and is not satisfied the person will appear and answer a charge. The detained person must be taken before a Magistrate forthwith under Section 50(4).

Hunting a Schedule I animal draws imprisonment of not less than three years and up to seven years, with a fine of at least twenty-five thousand rupees, under the first proviso to Section 51(1). A second or subsequent offence carries the same term with a fine of at least one lakh rupees. Section 9 bars hunting except as Sections 11 and 12 allow.

Section 9 prohibits hunting any wild animal specified in Schedules I and II, except as provided under Sections 11 and 12. Those two sections are the only exceptions the provision names. The conditions for those exceptions sit in Sections 11 and 12 themselves and the species sit in the Schedules, so read both for any particular animal before relying on an exception.

On conviction, Section 51(2) lets the court forfeit to the State Government the animal, trophy or meat concerned and any trap, tool, vehicle, vessel or weapon used, and cancel licences or permits held under the Act. Under Section 51(4) it may also cancel an Arms Act licence for the weapon and bar a new one for five years.

In part. Section 54 lets the Director of Wild Life Preservation or an officer not below Assistant Director (Central), or the Chief Wild Life Warden or an officer not below Deputy Conservator of Forests (State), accept a composition sum of up to five lakh rupees. An offence with a minimum prison term under Section 51 cannot be compounded.

A complaint under Section 55 may come from the Director of Wild Life Preservation or another officer the Central Government authorises, the Chief Wild Life Warden or an officer the State Government authorises, and the other authorities and officers it lists. A private person may complain only after giving at least sixty days' notice of the offence and of the intention to complain.

Once the prosecution establishes that a person is in possession, custody or control of a wild animal, captive animal, animal article, meat, trophy, uncured trophy, specified plant, or part or derivative of one, Section 57 presumes the possession, custody or control is unlawful until the contrary is proved. The burden of proving otherwise lies on the accused.

No. Section 40(2A) allows a Schedule I captive animal, animal article or trophy to be held by inheritance, but Section 40(2B) requires the heir to declare it to the Chief Wild Life Warden or authorised officer within ninety days. The live elephant is excluded. Section 39(2) also requires a report within forty-eight hours of obtaining possession of Government property.

Yes. Section 44(1) bars carrying on business as a manufacturer of or dealer in animal articles, a taxidermist, or a dealer in trophies, uncured trophies, captive animals or meat, except under a licence from the Chief Wild Life Warden or authorised officer. The licence is valid for one year, cannot be transferred, and specifies the premises. Dealers in peacock tail feathers are exempt.

The CrPC still governs if the matter was pending on 1 July 2024. Section 531(2)(a) of the BNSS says any appeal, application, trial, inquiry or investigation pending immediately before commencement continues under the CrPC, 1973 as if the BNSS had not come into force. Proceedings begun after that date follow the BNSS.

The penalty under Section 15(1) is at least ten thousand rupees and up to fifteen lakh rupees for each contravention of the Act or of rules, orders or directions under it, where no other penalty is provided. If the contravention continues, Section 15(2) adds ten thousand rupees for every day it continues.

Yes, where no other penalty is provided for that default. Section 15(1) covers non-compliance with orders or directions issued under the Act, with a penalty of ten thousand to fifteen lakh rupees per contravention and ten thousand rupees a day while it continues.

The Head of the Department is deemed guilty and liable to punishment under Section 17(1), unless he proves the offence happened without his knowledge or that he used all due diligence to prevent it. Under Section 17(2), any other officer through whose consent, connivance or neglect the offence occurred is also deemed guilty.

A citizen must give notice of not less than sixty days, in the prescribed manner, of the alleged offence and the intention to complain, to the Central Government or the authority or officer it has authorised. Without that notice, Section 19 allows a court to act only on a complaint by the Central Government, an authorised officer, or the adjudicating officer.

Yes. Section 25(1) bars establishing an industry likely to discharge sewage or trade effluent, bringing a new or altered outlet into use, or starting a new discharge, without the State Board's previous consent. Under Section 25(7), consent is deemed given unconditionally if the Board neither grants nor refuses it within four months of a complete application.

Under Section 43 of the Water Act, 1974, a person who contravenes Section 24 is liable to a penalty of at least ten thousand rupees and up to fifteen lakh rupees. The penalty carries an additional ten thousand rupees for every day the contravention continues.

No. Section 47 of the Water Act, 1974, which dealt with offences by companies, was omitted by the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Amendment Act, 2024 (Act 5 of 2024), with effect from 15 February 2024. Offences by a company's officers after that date cannot rest on this section.

No. Section 49(1) allows a complaint by a Board or an officer it authorises, by the adjudicating officer or an officer authorised by him, or by any person who gave the Board at least sixty days' notice of the offence and of the intention to complain. The offence is triable only by a Metropolitan Magistrate or Judicial Magistrate of the first class, or higher.

Section 21(1) bars establishing or operating an industrial plant in an air pollution control area without the State Board's previous consent, and Section 37(1) punishes the failure with imprisonment of one year and six months to six years plus fine, and a daily fine up to five thousand rupees after conviction. Continuing beyond a year after conviction raises the minimum to two years.

For most orders under Section 3, Section 7(1)(a)(ii) prescribes imprisonment of three months to seven years and fine; for orders under Section 3(2)(h) or (i), up to one year and fine. The court may give less than three months for adequate and special reasons recorded in the judgment, and the property concerned is forfeited under Section 7(1)(b).

Yes. Under Section 10A, notwithstanding the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, every offence punishable under the Essential Commodities Act is cognizable. The section applies to the whole Act, not to selected offences, and it overrides the Code on that point.

In a prosecution for an offence needing a culpable mental state, Section 10C(1) makes the court presume that state, which covers intention, motive, knowledge and belief or reason to believe a fact. The accused may rebut it by proving the absence of that mental state, and Section 10C(2) sets the standard as proof beyond reasonable doubt.

Section 4(1) punishes a person over eighteen who knowingly lives, wholly or in part, on the earnings of another person's prostitution, with imprisonment up to two years, fine up to one thousand rupees, or both. Where the earnings relate to a child or minor, the term is seven to ten years. Section 4(2) presumes knowledge in listed situations, such as acting as a tout.

A special police officer is the officer the State Government appoints for each specified area to deal with offences under the Act, and must hold at least the rank of Inspector of Police. Under Section 13(2A), the District Magistrate may confer the powers on a qualifying retired police or military officer. Section 13(4) provides for trafficking police officers with India-wide powers.

The special police officer or trafficking police officer may do so under Section 15(1), if there are reasonable grounds to believe an offence is being committed and a warrant search would cause undue delay. The grounds must be recorded first. Two or more respectable inhabitants, at least one a woman, must witness the search, and at least two women police officers must accompany the officer.

Section 8 punishes tempting, attracting, soliciting or loitering for the purpose of prostitution in or within sight of a public place. A first conviction carries up to six months or fine up to five hundred rupees, or both; a later one up to one year and fine. A man convicted gets at least seven days and up to three months.

Generally no. Section 181(1) of the BNSS bars the use of a statement made to police during investigation for any purpose at the inquiry or trial of that offence. The exception is contradiction: if the person is a prosecution witness, the accused can use the proved part to contradict him, and the prosecution can do so with the Court's permission.

No. Section 181(1) of the BNSS provides that a statement made to a police officer in the course of an investigation shall not be signed by the person making it, even if the officer reduces it to writing. Section 180(3) lets the officer record each person's statement separately, and audio-video recording is also permitted.

A Magistrate of the district where the information was registered may record a confession during investigation or afterwards, before the inquiry or trial begins. Section 183 of the BNSS requires the Magistrate to explain that the person need not confess and to be satisfied it is voluntary. If the person says he is unwilling, the Magistrate cannot authorise police custody.

Generally no. Section 23(1) of the BSA (old Evidence Act section 25) says no confession made to a police officer shall be proved against a person accused of any offence. Section 23(2) adds that a confession made in police custody cannot be proved unless it was made in the immediate presence of a Magistrate.

Yes, but only the part that relates distinctly to the discovery. The proviso to Section 23(2) of the BSA allows proof of so much of information received from an accused in police custody as relates distinctly to the fact discovered, whether or not it amounts to a confession. The rest of the statement stays inadmissible.

The confession is irrelevant in a criminal proceeding. Section 22 of the BSA applies where the Court finds it was caused by inducement, threat, coercion or promise from a person in authority, about the charge. It becomes relevant if the Court finds the impression was fully removed before the confession was made.

Section 26(a) of the BSA makes relevant a statement by a person about the cause of his death, or the circumstances of the transaction that resulted in his death, where the cause of death is in question. It applies whether or not he expected to die when he spoke.

Yes. Section 26(a) of the BSA makes relevant a statement by a person about the cause of his death or the circumstances of the transaction that resulted in his death, where the cause of death is in question. It is relevant whether or not he expected to die when he made it, and in any kind of proceeding.

The Supreme Court in Arjun Panditrao Khotkar (2020) 7 SCC 1 held that the certificate under old Section 65B(4) is a condition precedent to admitting an electronic record, and oral evidence cannot replace it. Section 63 of the BSA now governs, so a WhatsApp chat is ordinarily proved with a certificate submitted along with the record.

Under Section 63 of the BSA, the certificate identifies the electronic record and describes how it was produced. It is in the form given in the Schedule and signed by the person in charge of the computer or communication device, or of the relevant activities, and by an expert. It is submitted along with the record.

No. In Arjun Panditrao Khotkar (2020) 7 SCC 1 the Supreme Court held the certificate under old Section 65B(4), now Section 63 of the BSA, is a condition precedent to admissibility and oral evidence cannot take its place. In 2026 the Court held call detail records inadmissible because the certificate was not proved.

The certificate under Section 63(4) of the BSA must be submitted along with the electronic record each time the record is offered in evidence. Section 63 sets no separate stage for it, so the certificate should accompany the record when it is tendered.

The person who asks the Court to give judgment on facts he asserts must prove them. Section 104 of the BSA states this and illustrates it: where A wants B punished for a crime A says B committed, A must prove that B committed it. In a criminal trial that is the prosecution.

The burden under Section 104 of the BSA lies on the person asserting the facts, so the prosecution must prove the accused committed the crime. The accused is not required to prove innocence. Particular provisions can allow the Court to presume facts, such as Section 119, and then the accused may need to answer them.

Section 119(1) of the BSA lets the Court presume any fact it thinks likely to have happened, given the common course of events, human conduct and business. One example is possession of stolen goods soon after a theft, unless the person can account for it. Rebuttal depends on the facts and the explanation offered.

When a prosecution witness's police statement has been reduced to writing, Section 181(1) of the BNSS lets the prosecution use any part of it, if duly proved, to contradict that witness, but only with the Court's permission and in the manner provided by Section 148 of the BSA. The accused may use it without that permission.

Yes. Section 148 of the BSA allows cross-examination on previous statements made in writing, without showing or proving the writing first. To contradict the witness with it, his attention must be drawn to the parts to be used before the writing is proved. Section 181(1) of the BNSS applies to police statements.

Under Section 143 of the BSA, a witness is first examined-in-chief, then cross-examined if the adverse party wishes, then re-examined if the calling party wishes. Re-examination is directed to explaining matters raised in cross-examination, and new matter raised with the Court's permission allows further cross-examination.

Section 26 of the BSA makes relevant statements of relevant facts by a person who is dead, cannot be found, has become incapable of giving evidence, or whose attendance cannot be procured without delay or expense the Court finds unreasonable. It applies only in the listed cases, such as a statement about the cause of his death.

Section 39(1) of the BSA makes relevant the opinions of persons specially skilled in foreign law, science, art or any other field, and in identity of handwriting or finger impressions. Under Section 39(2), the Examiner of Electronic Evidence under Section 79A of the IT Act is an expert on electronic information.

Section 6(1) of the BSA makes relevant any fact that shows or constitutes a motive or preparation for a fact in issue. Section 6(2) covers conduct that influences or is influenced by such a fact, such as absconding after the alleged crime. Whether motive proves anything depends on the evidence.

Under Section 351 of the BNSS (old CrPC 313), the Court may question the accused at any stage, and must question him generally after the prosecution witnesses are examined and before he is called on for his defence. No oath is given, and refusing to answer or answering falsely carries no punishment. Answers may be considered in the trial.

Yes, in limited conditions. Section 335(1) of the BNSS allows the Court to examine prosecution witnesses in the absence of an accused proved to have absconded with no immediate prospect of arrest. Their depositions may be used against him on arrest if the deponent is dead, incapable, cannot be found, or cannot be produced without unreasonable delay.

Electronic filing is allowed. Section 173(1) BNSS allows information about a cognizable offence to be given by electronic communication to an officer in charge of a police station. The officer takes it on record once the person giving it signs within three days. The substance is then entered in the book the State Government prescribes for the station.

No, the BNSS does not allow it. Section 173(1) BNSS covers information about a cognizable offence irrespective of the area where the offence is committed. If an officer refuses to record it, Section 173(4) lets the person send the substance by post to the Superintendent of Police. Section 175(2) bars challenging a police proceeding because the officer was not empowered to investigate that case.

Send the substance of the information in writing, by post, to the Superintendent of Police under Section 173(4) BNSS (old Section 154(3) CrPC). If the Superintendent is satisfied that a cognizable offence is disclosed, he must investigate himself or direct a subordinate officer to do so. Failing that, the aggrieved person may apply to the Magistrate under Section 175(3), supported by an affidavit.

Yes. Section 175(3) BNSS (old Section 156(3) CrPC) lets a Magistrate empowered under Section 210 order the police to investigate. In Om Prakash Ambadkar (2025) the Supreme Court said the Magistrate must consider the affidavit-supported application made to the Superintendent of Police under Section 173(4), may hold an enquiry, and must consider the police officer's submissions.

The informant does. Section 173(2) BNSS (old Section 154 CrPC) requires a copy of the information as recorded under sub-section (1) to be given forthwith, free of cost, to the informant or the victim. Under Section 173(1), information given orally is reduced to writing, read over to the informant and signed by the person giving it.

Police have fourteen days for a preliminary enquiry under Section 173(3) BNSS, held to ascertain whether a prima facie case exists. It applies to offences punishable with three years or more but less than seven years, and the station officer needs prior permission of an officer not below the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police before holding it.

A woman police officer or any woman officer must record it. Under the first proviso to Section 173(1) BNSS, information from a woman against whom an offence under BNS sections 64 to 71, 74 to 79 or 124 is alleged is recorded by a woman officer. If she is disabled, it is recorded at her residence or chosen place with an interpreter or special educator, and videographed.

For a cognizable offence, the officer records the information under Section 173 and may investigate without a Magistrate's order (Section 175(1)). For a non-cognizable offence, Section 174 BNSS requires him to enter the substance in a book, refer the informant to the Magistrate and forward the daily diary report fortnightly. He cannot investigate without a Magistrate's order. A mixed case is treated as cognizable.

A Magistrate's order is needed. Section 174(2) BNSS says no police officer shall investigate a non-cognizable case without the order of a Magistrate having power to try the case or commit it for trial. An officer who receives that order has the powers of an officer in charge of a police station in a cognizable case, except arrest without warrant (Section 174(3)).

No. Section 175(1) BNSS (old Section 156(1) CrPC) lets an officer in charge investigate a cognizable case within his station's local jurisdiction without the order of a Magistrate. Under Section 176(1) he sends a report to the Magistrate forthwith and proceeds to the spot. A Magistrate's order under Section 175(3) is the route when the police do not act.

The officer in charge must forthwith send a report to the Magistrate empowered to take cognizance on a police report. He then goes to the spot, or sends a subordinate of the prescribed rank, to investigate and if necessary arrest the offender (Section 176(1) BNSS). He may stay away if a named person is accused in a non-serious case, and must not investigate if grounds are insufficient.

Offences punishable for seven years or more. Under Section 176(3) BNSS, on receipt of information about such an offence the officer in charge must cause a forensic expert to visit the crime scene to collect evidence, with the process videographed. The duty applies from a date the State Government notifies within five years. Where a forensic facility is unavailable, the State notifies another State's facility.

Not as a matter of compulsion. Under Section 179 BNSS (old Section 160 CrPC), a written order from the investigating officer can require a person acquainted with the facts to attend, within the limits of his own or an adjoining station. A woman cannot be required to attend anywhere other than where she resides, though she may choose to attend the police station.

A witness statement can be recorded that way. The first proviso to Section 180(3) BNSS says a statement made to the examining police officer may also be recorded by audio-video electronic means. The officer may also reduce it to writing, with a separate record for each person. A woman against whom a listed BNS offence is alleged has her statement recorded by a woman officer.

No. Section 181(1) BNSS says a statement made to a police officer during investigation, if reduced to writing, shall not be signed by the person making it. Such a statement cannot generally be used at the inquiry or trial, except that the accused, or the prosecution with the Court's permission, may use a part to contradict a witness.

A Magistrate of the district where the information was registered may record a confession or statement under Section 183(1) BNSS, whether or not he has jurisdiction. It can be made during the investigation or afterwards, but before the inquiry or trial begins. Before recording a confession he must explain that the person need not confess and must believe it is voluntary.

Arrest without warrant is governed by Section 35 BNSS (old Sections 41 and 41A CrPC). Where arrest is not required, the officer shall issue a notice directing the person to appear. The person must comply and, while he does, cannot be arrested for that offence unless the officer records reasons. Arnesh Kumar requires the notice within two weeks for offences up to seven years.

Police can ask. Under Section 94(1) BNSS, an officer in charge of a police station who considers that producing a document, an electronic communication including communication devices likely to contain digital evidence, or another thing is necessary or desirable for an investigation may require it by written order. A person asked only to produce it complies by having it produced (Section 94(2)).

Yes, on the wording of the section. Section 105 BNSS says the search of a place or taking possession of property, including the seizure list and its signing by witnesses, shall be recorded through audio-video electronic means, preferably a mobile phone. The officer must forward the recording without delay to the District Magistrate, Sub-divisional Magistrate or Judicial Magistrate of the first class.

A Magistrate may under Section 187(2) BNSS (old Section 167(2) CrPC) authorise detention for not more than fifteen days in the whole or in parts, during the initial forty or sixty days of the detention period. The overall period is capped by Section 187(3) at ninety days for the most serious offences and sixty days for others.

Ninety days is the outer limit under Section 187(3) BNSS (old Section 167(2) CrPC) where the offence is punishable with death, life imprisonment or ten years or more; it is sixty days otherwise. If no charge sheet is filed by then, the accused shall be released on bail if prepared to furnish it. A later charge sheet does not defeat an application already made (M. Ravindran).

Section 193(3) BNSS requires the report, in the State's prescribed form, to state the names of the parties, the nature of the information, the persons acquainted with the case, whether an offence appears committed and by whom, and whether the accused was arrested, released on bond or bail bond, or forwarded in custody. It also covers the custody sequence for electronic devices.

Yes. Section 193(3)(ii) BNSS requires the police officer, within a period of ninety days, to inform the informant or the victim of the progress of the investigation, by any means including electronic communication. The officer must also communicate the action taken to the person who first gave the information, in the manner State rules provide. Section 193(3)(ii) sets ninety days without saying when they start to run.

Yes. Section 193(9) BNSS says nothing in the section precludes further investigation after the report has gone to the Magistrate. If more evidence is obtained, the officer forwards a further report in the State's form. Further investigation during the trial needs the trial Court's permission and is to be completed within ninety days, which may be extended with permission.

Not as of right. Section 192(5) BNSS says neither the accused nor his agents may call for the case diaries, or see them merely because the Court refers to them. If the police officer uses a diary to refresh his memory, or the Court uses it to contradict him, sections 148 or 164 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam apply.

The IPC applies. An offence committed before 1 July 2024 remains an offence under the IPC even if the FIR is registered afterwards. Section 531(2)(a) BNSS provides that an investigation, inquiry or trial pending immediately before commencement continues under the CrPC. Which procedural code governs an investigation that begins after that date depends on the facts.

Yes, Section 35 of the BNS gives a right to defend property against criminal trespass, and Section 41 extends it to causing death where the offence is house-breaking after sunset and before sunrise. Section 37 still limits the force to what is necessary, and the right does not apply where there is time to approach the public authorities.

Private defence is barred by Section 37 of the BNS against certain good faith acts of public servants that do not reasonably cause fear of death or grievous hurt, and where there is time to seek help from public authorities. In every case the right stops at the harm necessary for defence. Whether those limits were crossed depends on the facts.

Under Section 40 of the BNS, the right of private defence of the body begins as soon as a reasonable apprehension of danger to the body arises from an attempt or threat to commit an offence, even if the offence has not yet been committed. It continues for as long as that apprehension of danger continues.

Yes, in one situation. Section 44 of the BNS applies when the assault reasonably causes apprehension of death and the defender cannot defend effectively without risk of harm to an innocent person. The right then extends to running that risk. The illustration is a man firing on a murderous mob that has children mingled in it.

No. Section 45 of the BNS names three ways of abetting: instigating the act, joining a conspiracy where an act or illegal omission follows in pursuance of it, or intentionally aiding the act by an act or illegal omission. Knowledge alone appears in none of them. Whether silence amounts to intentional aid by omission depends on the facts.

Yes. Under Section 61(1) of the BNS, an agreement between two or more persons to commit an offence is itself a criminal conspiracy, with no further act needed. An agreement to do an illegal act that is not an offence needs some act besides the agreement. Section 61(2)(a) punishes conspiring to commit an offence punishable with death, life or two years' rigorous imprisonment or more as abetment would be punished.

Abetment of suicide is punished under Section 108 of the BNS with imprisonment of either description up to ten years and fine. Under Section 117 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, if a married woman dies by suicide within seven years of marriage after cruelty by her husband or his relative, the court may presume abetment, having regard to all the circumstances.

Conspiracy under Section 61 of the BNS is the agreement itself between two or more persons, and for an agreement to commit an offence nothing more is needed. Abetment by conspiracy under Section 45(b) needs an act or illegal omission in pursuance of the conspiracy. Abetment also covers instigation and intentional aid, which need no agreement.

Cognizance of a conspiracy to commit specified offences against the State is barred by Section 217 of the BNSS without previous sanction of the Central or State Government, or of the District Magistrate for some of them. For a conspiracy under Section 61(2) of the BNS that is not to commit a serious offence, the State Government or District Magistrate must consent in writing.

Only if the person was a member of the same assembly when the offence was committed. Section 190 of the BNS makes every such member guilty of an offence committed by any member in prosecution of the common object, or one the members knew was likely to be committed in prosecuting it.

Under Section 189(2) of the BNS, a person is a member of an unlawful assembly if, aware of facts that make the assembly unlawful, he intentionally joins it or continues in it. The punishment is imprisonment up to six months, or fine, or both. Joining after a lawful order to disperse carries up to two years under Section 189(3).

Under Section 62 of the BNS, the line is crossed when a person attempts an offence punishable with imprisonment and does an act towards its commission. The illustrations treat breaking open a box to steal, and thrusting a hand into a pocket, as such acts even though nothing was taken. Where the line falls in a given case depends on the facts.

Yes. Section 356(3) of the BNS punishes whoever prints or engraves matter knowing, or having good reason to believe, that it is defamatory of any person. The punishment is simple imprisonment up to two years, or fine, or both. Whether a particular online post falls within the section depends on its words and the surrounding facts.

Defamation is punished under Section 356(2) of the BNS with simple imprisonment up to two years, or with fine, or with both, or with community service. Printing or engraving matter known or believed to be defamatory is separately punishable under Section 356(3) with simple imprisonment up to two years, or fine, or both.

It can. Section 351(1) of the BNS covers a threat by any means of injury to a person, reputation or property, made with intent to cause alarm or to make the person do or omit an act. A call to your wife threatening her qualifies if those elements are met. The punishment is up to two years, rising to seven for threats of death or grievous hurt.

Where criminal intimidation is made by an anonymous communication, or with precautions taken to hide the sender's name or abode, Section 351(4) of the BNS adds imprisonment of either description up to two years to the punishment already provided for the intimidation itself.

Under Section 148(1) of the BNSS, any Executive Magistrate or the officer in charge of a police station can command an unlawful assembly, or an assembly of five or more persons likely to disturb the public peace, to disperse. In the absence of that officer, any police officer not below the rank of sub-inspector can do so.

Only when force or violence is used. Under Section 191(1) of the BNS, rioting arises when the assembly, or any member, uses force or violence in prosecution of its common object, and then every member is guilty. Punishment is up to two years, or up to five years if armed with a deadly weapon.

Section 111(1) of the BNS lists kidnapping, robbery, vehicle theft, extortion, land grabbing, contract killing, economic offences, cyber crimes, trafficking, and dealing in drugs, weapons or illicit goods. The activity must be by a syndicate using violence, threat, intimidation or coercion for material benefit, and must be continuing: more than one charge sheet within ten years.

Under Section 111(4) of the BNS, a member of an organised crime syndicate faces imprisonment of not less than five years, which may extend to life, and a fine of not less than five lakh rupees. Section 111(3) sets the same range for abetting, attempting, conspiring or facilitating organised crime. Section 111(7) covers unexplained property held for a syndicate member.

Section 113(1) of the BNS covers acts done with intent to threaten India's unity, integrity, sovereignty or security, or to strike terror. They include using explosives, firearms or hazardous substances to cause death, injury or property damage, overawing a public functionary by criminal force, and detaining or kidnapping a person to compel a government to act. Death results in death or life imprisonment.

Section 113(3) of the BNS punishes conspiring or attempting to commit, abetting, inciting or knowingly facilitating a terrorist act with imprisonment of not less than five years, which may extend to life, and fine. Section 113(4) sets the same range for organising training camps or recruiting people for a terrorist act.

The IPC applies. The BNS replaced the IPC from 1 July 2024, and Section 358 of the BNS preserves liability and punishment incurred under the repealed Code, so proceedings may continue as if it had not been repealed. Procedure may differ, as covered in Section 531 of the BNSS.

The CrPC governs it. Section 531(2)(a) of the BNSS provides that any appeal, application, trial, inquiry or investigation pending immediately before the BNSS came into force on 1 July 2024 is disposed of or continued under the CrPC as if the BNSS had not come into force.

Issuing an invoice without any supply is an offence under Section 132(1)(b) of the CGST Act when it leads to wrongful input tax credit or refund. Tax above five hundred lakh rupees carries up to five years and fine. Above two hundred lakh the term is up to three years, and above one hundred lakh up to one year, each with fine. Six months is the usual minimum.

Yes. Under Section 70 of the CGST Act, the proper officer can summon any person to give evidence or produce documents in an inquiry. The person must attend, in person or through an authorised representative, and state the truth. The inquiry is a judicial proceeding for Sections 193 and 228 of the IPC. A statement given on summons is relevant in a prosecution only in the situations Section 136 lists.

Customs officers can provisionally attach a bank account, but only on conditions. Under Section 110(5) of the Customs Act, the proper officer may do so for up to six months by written order, with the approval of the Principal Commissioner or Commissioner, where needed to protect revenue or prevent smuggling. Section 110A allows the account to be released to its holder on a bond while adjudication is pending.

Section 134 of the CGST Act bars every court from taking cognizance of an offence under the Act or its rules without the previous sanction of the Commissioner. It also provides that no court inferior to a Magistrate of the First Class may try the offence. Section 132(6) repeats the sanction requirement for prosecutions under Section 132. Whether sanction was validly given depends on the facts of the case.

No. Paying the tax, interest and penalty does not by itself end a prosecution under Section 132 of the CGST Act. Section 138 lets the Commissioner compound an offence, and payment of tax, interest and penalty is a condition for compounding. Proceedings abate only after the compounding amount is paid. Compounding is barred for some persons, including anyone accused under Section 132(1)(b).

Under Section 138 of the CGST Act, the Commissioner may compound an offence before or after prosecution on payment of a compounding amount between twenty-five and one hundred per cent of the tax involved. Tax, interest and penalty must be paid first. Compounding is barred for a person accused under Section 132(1)(b), a person already convicted, and a person who has compounded certain offences once before.

In a Customs Act prosecution that requires a culpable mental state, Section 138A makes the court presume that state exists. The accused can defend by proving the absence of that mental state, and the court must believe the fact beyond reasonable doubt, a higher standard than probability. Culpable mental state includes intention, motive, knowledge of a fact, and belief or reason to believe a fact.

Yes, in some situations. Section 132(1) of the CGST Act reaches a person who causes an offence and retains its benefits, one who transports, conceals or deals in goods he knows or has reason to believe are liable to confiscation, and one who attempts or abets the listed offences. Those clauses turn on knowledge or reason to believe, and prosecution needs the Commissioner's sanction.

Goods and conveyance detained in transit can be released under Section 129(1) of the CGST Act on payment of penalty or security. The penalty is two hundred per cent of the tax if the owner comes forward, otherwise the higher of fifty per cent of value or two hundred per cent of tax. The officer must issue a notice within seven days and decide after a hearing.

In Radhika Agarwal v. Union of India (2025), the Supreme Court upheld the arrest and summons provisions of the GST Acts and the Customs Act. It held that the CrPC applies unless excluded and that these officers are not police officers, because they cannot file a charge sheet. Arrest must rest on reasons to believe supported by material, with grounds communicated and judicial review available.

Section 69(1) of the CGST Act already requires the Commissioner to authorise an arrest by order, on reasons to believe a listed offence was committed. In Union of India v. Sunil Biyani (2026), the Supreme Court held that this order must be communicated to the person before arrest, as it is the basis for seeking anticipatory bail. Radhika Agarwal (2025) requires reasons to believe supported by material.

Section 135 of the Customs Act punishes misdeclaration, fraudulent evasion of duty or a prohibition, and dealing in goods liable to confiscation. Where goods exceed one crore rupees, duty evaded or drawback exceeds fifty lakh rupees, or goods are notified prohibited goods, the term is up to seven years and fine, at least one year without special reasons. Other cases carry up to three years, or fine, or both.

Yes. Under Section 108 of the Customs Act, a gazetted officer of customs can summon any person to give evidence or produce documents in an inquiry. The person must attend, in person or through an authorised agent, state the truth and produce the documents required. The inquiry is a judicial proceeding for Sections 193 and 228 of the IPC.

Not automatically. Under Section 138B of the Customs Act, a statement signed before a gazetted officer proves its contents in a prosecution in two situations. One is where the maker is dead, cannot be found, is incapable of giving evidence, or cannot be produced without unreasonable delay. The other is where the maker is examined as a witness and the court admits it in the interests of justice.

A customs officer empowered by general or special order of the Principal Commissioner or Commissioner may arrest a person under Section 104(1) of the Customs Act if he has reason to believe the person committed an offence under Section 132, 133, 135, 135A or 136. The officer must inform the person of the grounds as soon as may be and take him to a Magistrate without unnecessary delay.

Seized goods must be returned if no notice under Section 124(a) of the Customs Act is given within six months of seizure. Under Section 110(2), the Principal Commissioner or Commissioner may extend this by up to a further six months, for reasons recorded in writing, and must inform the person before the first period ends. The six-month period does not apply once provisional release is ordered under Section 110A.

Release is possible but discretionary. Section 110A of the Customs Act allows seized goods, documents or things to be released to the owner pending the adjudicating authority's order, on a bond in the proper form with the security and conditions the authority requires. Whether release is allowed, and on what security, depends on the facts and the adjudicating authority's decision.

Section 137(1) of the Customs Act bars a court from taking cognizance of an offence under Section 132, 133, 134, 135, 135A or 135AA without the previous sanction of the Principal Commissioner of Customs or Commissioner of Customs. For Section 136 offences by customs officers, sanction comes from the Central Government for Assistant Commissioner rank and above, and otherwise from the Principal Commissioner or Commissioner.

Often yes, but the power is in Section 137(3) of the Customs Act. Section 138 only allows summary trial of some offences. The Principal Chief Commissioner or Chief Commissioner may compound before or after prosecution, on payment of the amount set by rules. Repeat compounders under Sections 135 and 135A, persons also accused under the NDPS, Arms or Wild Life Acts, and persons convicted since 30 December 2005 are excluded.

Mostly a civil matter, with one criminal exception. Under Section 13(1) of FEMA, a contravention leads, upon adjudication, to a penalty up to thrice the sum involved, or up to two lakh rupees where the amount cannot be quantified, plus up to five thousand rupees a day if it continues. Section 13(1C) adds up to five years and fine for acquiring foreign assets above the Section 37A threshold.

Section 3 of FEMA bars dealing in or transferring foreign exchange or foreign security to anyone who is not an authorised person, paying a person resident outside India, and receiving payment on behalf of such a person otherwise than through an authorised person. It also bars certain financial transactions linked to acquiring assets abroad. Each bar yields to contrary provisions or Reserve Bank permission.

Under Section 37 of FEMA, the Director of Enforcement and Enforcement officers not below the rank of Assistant Director investigate contraventions under Section 13. The Central Government may also authorise officers of the Central Government, a State Government or the Reserve Bank, not below the rank of Under Secretary, to investigate. Enforcement officers have the like powers of income-tax authorities under the Income-tax Act, 1961, subject to its limits.

Under Section 16 of FEMA, the Central Government appoints officers as Adjudicating Authorities, each with a specified jurisdiction, to inquire into contraventions under Section 13. An inquiry starts only on a written complaint by an authorised officer. The person may appear personally or take the help of a legal practitioner or chartered accountant, and the authority is to try to decide within one year.

A case moves from adjudication to prosecution when an offence under Section 132 of the CGST Act or Section 135 of the Customs Act is alleged and a senior officer sanctions it. GST needs the Commissioner's previous sanction, customs that of the Principal Commissioner or Commissioner, before a court takes cognizance. Penalty orders come from the proper officer. The route depends on the facts.

A first drunken driving offence under Section 185 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 is punishable with imprisonment up to six months, or a fine of ten thousand rupees, or both. The section covers driving or attempting to drive with blood alcohol above the limit, or while under the influence of a drug to the point of lacking proper control of the vehicle.

Alcohol exceeding 30 mg per 100 ml of blood counts as drunken driving under Section 185(a) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. The excess must be detected in a breath analyser test or in any other test, including a laboratory test. The offence applies to a person driving or attempting to drive a motor vehicle.

No. Section 185(a) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 refers to alcohol above 30 mg per 100 ml of blood detected in a breath analyser test or in any other test, including a laboratory test. A laboratory test can therefore support the charge. Section 185(b) separately covers a driver under the influence of a drug.

Yes. For a second or subsequent offence, Section 185 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 allows imprisonment up to two years, or a fine of fifteen thousand rupees, or both. Jail is therefore possible but the court may impose a fine alone. Section 185 sets no three year window; that period appears in Section 184.

Yes, and on a Section 185 conviction the court must do so. Section 20(2) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 requires the convicting court to order disqualification for an offence under Section 185, for not less than six months. Section 20(1) lets a court disqualify for other offences under the Act for a period it specifies.

Misconduct in public by an intoxicated person is punished by Section 355 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. It applies to one who appears in a public place in a state of intoxication and causes annoyance to anyone. The punishment is simple imprisonment up to twenty-four hours, or a fine up to one thousand rupees, or both, or community service.

Rash driving or riding on a public way after 1 July 2024 falls under Section 281 of the BNS, which replaced the IPC on that date. Conduct before it stays under the IPC. Section 281 requires driving so rash or negligent as to endanger human life or be likely to cause hurt, and carries up to six months, a fine up to one thousand rupees, or both.

The IPC applies, not Section 106 of the BNS. The Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 replaced the IPC on 1 July 2024, and an accident in February 2024 falls before that date. Section 106 of the BNS governs only deaths caused on or after 1 July 2024. The offence is Section 304A of the IPC, which Section 106 of the BNS replaced.

Escaping without reporting to a police officer or a Magistrate soon after the incident is the added element in Section 106(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, which applies to death caused by rash and negligent driving. It carries up to ten years and a fine, against up to five years and a fine under Section 106(1).

A driver who causes death by rash and negligent driving and escapes without reporting it to a police officer or a Magistrate soon after the incident faces imprisonment up to ten years and a fine under Section 106(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. The death must not amount to culpable homicide.

Imprisonment up to five years and a fine is the punishment under Section 106(1) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 for causing death by a rash or negligent act not amounting to culpable homicide. If a registered medical practitioner does the act while performing a medical procedure, the term is up to two years and a fine.

No. Under Section 200(2) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, compounding discharges a driver in custody and stops further proceedings for that offence. The offence still counts as a previous commission for later offences. Compounding also does not remove proceedings under Section 206(4), a refresher training course, or community service where ordered.

A driver involved in an accident must take all reasonable steps to get the injured person medical attention, usually by taking him to the nearest doctor or hospital, unless mob fury or similar causes prevent it. Section 134 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 also requires giving information to police on demand, or reporting at the nearest police station within twenty-four hours, and informing the insurer in writing.

Not for negligence while helping. Section 134A(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 protects a Good Samaritan from civil or criminal liability for injury or death of an accident victim resulting from negligence while giving emergency care. A Good Samaritan acts in good faith, voluntarily, and without expecting reward. Central rules may govern how such a person is questioned.

Section 206 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 lets a police officer seize a document that he has reason to believe is false. He may seize a licence if the driver may abscond. He must seize it if he believes an offence under Section 183, 184, 185, 189 or 190 and others listed in Section 206(4) was committed.

A police officer or authorised person may seize and detain a vehicle used in contravention of Section 3, 4 or 39, or without a permit required by Section 66(1), under Section 207 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. The owner may apply to the transport authority with the relevant documents for release, which the authority may order on conditions.

Section 200 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 permits compounding of listed offences, including those under Sections 177, 181, 183(1) and (2), 196 and 198. The officers or authorities who accept the amount, and the amount itself, are fixed by the State Government through a notification. Compounding may happen before or after prosecution starts.

No. Section 181 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 punishes driving in contravention of Section 3 or Section 4, including driving without a licence, with imprisonment up to three months, or a fine of five thousand rupees, or both. The court may therefore impose jail, though it can choose a fine alone.

Section 129 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 requires every person above four years of age driving, riding or carried on a motorcycle in a public place to wear protective headgear meeting prescribed standards. A Sikh wearing a turban is exempt. The helmet must be securely fastened to the head by straps.

Under Section 183(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, exceeding the Section 112 speed limit draws a fine of one thousand to two thousand rupees for a light motor vehicle and two thousand to four thousand rupees for medium or heavy vehicles. A second or later offence leads to licence impounding under Section 206(4).

No. Section 184 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and Section 281 of the BNS are separate offences with different punishments. Section 184 carries six months to one year, or a fine of one to five thousand rupees, or both, for a first offence. Section 281 carries up to six months, a fine up to one thousand rupees, or both.

Yes, in many cases. Under Section 199A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 the guardian or owner is deemed guilty of an offence committed by a juvenile, unless he proves it happened without his knowledge or that he exercised all due diligence. Section 199A(2) adds imprisonment up to three years and a fine of twenty-five thousand rupees.

Jail is possible. Section 196 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 punishes driving, or causing or allowing driving, without the insurance Section 146 requires. A first offence carries imprisonment up to three months, or a fine of two thousand rupees, or both. A later offence carries up to three months, or four thousand rupees, or both.

Section 177 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 is the general penalty for contravening any provision of the Act or its rules where no penalty is provided. The fine may extend to five hundred rupees for a first offence and to one thousand five hundred rupees for a second or later offence.

It depends on the ground. Where a licence is seized under Section 206(2) because the driver may abscond, the temporary acknowledgment authorises driving until the licence is returned or the date it specifies. Where it is seized under Section 206(4) for offences such as drunken driving, the acknowledgement does not authorise driving.

No. Section 42 of the NDPS Act lets an authorised officer above the rank of constable enter and search a building, conveyance or enclosed place without a warrant between sunrise and sunset, on personal knowledge or information taken down in writing. A search between sunset and sunrise needs recorded grounds for believing a warrant cannot be obtained without risking evidence or escape.

Within seventy-two hours, under Section 42(2) of the NDPS Act. The officer must send a copy of the information taken down in writing, or of the grounds recorded for a night search, to his immediate official superior. Section 50(6) sets the same seventy-two hours for reasons recorded when a person is searched without being taken before a Gazetted Officer or Magistrate.

Yes. Under Section 50 of the NDPS Act, a person about to be searched can require the officer to take him without unnecessary delay to the nearest Gazetted Officer of the departments named in Section 42 or to the nearest Magistrate, and may be detained until then. Vijaysinh Chandubha Jadeja (2011) 1 SCC 609 held that the officer must inform the person of this right.

When an officer is about to search a person, Section 50 applies. Vijaysinh Chandubha Jadeja v. State of Gujarat (2011) 1 SCC 609 held that the officer must inform the suspect of the right to be taken before a Gazetted Officer or Magistrate, and that substantial compliance is not enough. A conviction based only on recovery from the person in such a search is vitiated.

Yes, within limits. Section 43 of the NDPS Act lets an officer of the departments named in Section 42 seize drugs in a public place or in transit, and detain and search a person he has reason to believe committed an offence. He may arrest that person and anyone in his company if the possession appears unlawful. Public place includes a public conveyance, hotel or shop.

An officer authorised under Section 42 may do so under Section 49 of the NDPS Act when he has reason to suspect that the conveyance is, or is about to be, used to transport a narcotic drug, psychotropic substance or controlled substance. He may rummage the conveyance, search goods in it and use lawful means to stop it. The section does not mention a warrant.

The officer prepares an inventory of the seized drugs, covering description, quantity, packing, marks and other identifying details, and applies to a Magistrate. The Magistrate certifies the inventory, has photographs taken and certified, and allows representative samples to be drawn in his presence. Courts treat these as primary evidence. Union of India v. Mohanlal (2016) requires the application without undue delay.

The officer-in-charge of the police station takes charge of seized articles delivered to him and keeps them in safe custody pending the Magistrate's orders, under Section 55 of the NDPS Act. He allows any accompanying or deputed officer to affix a seal or take samples, and samples taken are also sealed with the station officer's own seal.

Small and commercial quantities are fixed for each drug by Central Government notification; intermediate lies between. Under Section 21, a small quantity carries up to one year or a fine up to ten thousand rupees, an intermediate quantity up to ten years and a fine up to one lakh rupees, and a commercial quantity ten to twenty years. Commercial quantity also brings the Section 37 bail limits.

Section 20(b)(ii)(A) of the NDPS Act punishes possession of a small quantity of cannabis, which includes ganja, with rigorous imprisonment up to one year, or a fine up to ten thousand rupees, or both. Whether a quantity is small depends on the Central Government notification for ganja, and the whole weight of a mixture counts under Hira Singh (2020) 20 SCC 272.

Ten years. For a commercial quantity of ganja, Section 20 provides rigorous imprisonment of not less than ten years and up to twenty years, with a fine of not less than one lakh rupees and up to two lakh rupees. The court may impose a larger fine for reasons recorded in the judgment. Commercial quantity also brings the Section 37 bail limits.

Yes. Consumption is punished under Section 27 of a narcotic drug, separate from possession under Section 20. Cocaine, morphine, diacetylmorphine and notified substances carry up to one year, a fine up to twenty thousand rupees, or both. Other substances carry up to six months, a fine up to ten thousand rupees, or both. Ganja is not named in the first group.

Only in a limited case. Section 64A of the NDPS Act protects an addict charged under Section 27 or with an offence involving a small quantity, if he voluntarily seeks and undergoes de-addiction treatment at a hospital or institution maintained or recognised by the Government or a local authority. The immunity may be withdrawn if he does not complete the treatment.

It is, if done in contravention of the Act, a rule, an order or a licence condition. Section 20(b) of the NDPS Act punishes anyone who transports, imports inter-State or exports inter-State cannabis, which includes ganja. For a small quantity the punishment is rigorous imprisonment up to one year, or a fine up to ten thousand rupees, or both.

Punishment under Section 21 of the NDPS Act depends on quantity. A small quantity carries rigorous imprisonment up to one year, or a fine up to ten thousand rupees, or both. A quantity above small but below commercial carries up to ten years and a fine up to one lakh rupees. A commercial quantity carries ten to twenty years and a fine of one to two lakh rupees.

Psychotropic substances are covered by Section 22 of the NDPS Act, which punishes manufacturing, possessing, selling, purchasing, transporting, inter-State import or export, or using one in contravention of the Act. Punishment follows quantity: small, up to one year or a fine up to ten thousand rupees; intermediate, up to ten years and a fine; commercial, ten to twenty years and a fine of one to two lakh rupees.

Anyone who finances, directly or indirectly, illicit traffic, or harbours a person engaged in it is punished under Section 27A. Illicit traffic covers cultivating coca, opium poppy or cannabis, producing, possessing, selling or transporting drugs, dealing in them, and handling or letting out premises for those activities. The punishment is rigorous imprisonment of ten to twenty years and a fine of one to two lakh rupees.

Yes, but only as a presumption the accused may rebut. Section 54 of the NDPS Act provides that in trials under the Act it may be presumed, unless and until the contrary is proved, that the accused committed an offence in respect of a narcotic drug, psychotropic substance or controlled substance for the possession of which he fails to account satisfactorily.

In a prosecution that requires a culpable mental state, the court must presume it exists under Section 35 of the NDPS Act. That state includes intention, motive, knowledge and belief. The accused may defend by proving he had no such mental state, and a fact counts as proved only when the court believes it beyond reasonable doubt, not on a preponderance of probability.

The Public Prosecutor must first have had an opportunity to oppose under Section 37 of the NDPS Act. If he opposes, the court must be satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing the accused is not guilty and is not likely to commit an offence on bail. Lalrintluanga Sailo (2024) held both conditions are cumulative and that reasonable grounds means more than a prima facie case.

Such offences are triable only by the Special Court for the area where the offence was committed, under Section 36A of the NDPS Act. Section 36B gives the High Court the appeal and revision powers of Chapters XXIX and XXX of the CrPC, treating the Special Court as a Court of Session within its local limits. Offences punishable with up to three years may be tried summarily.

No. Tofan Singh v. State of Tamil Nadu (2021) 4 SCC 1 held that officers with powers under Section 53 of the NDPS Act are police officers for Section 25 of the Evidence Act (now Section 23(1) of the BSA), so a confession to them cannot be used to convict. It also held that a statement recorded under Section 67 cannot be used as a confessional statement at trial.

It can, unless the owner proves the exception. Section 60(3) of the NDPS Act makes a conveyance used to carry drugs liable to confiscation unless the owner proves it was used without the knowledge or connivance of himself, his agent and the person in charge, and that each had taken all reasonable precautions against such use. The burden is on the owner, so ignorance alone may not suffice.

Under Section 63 of the NDPS Act, the court decides at trial, whatever the verdict, whether seized articles are liable to confiscation under Sections 60 to 62 and may order it. Where the offender is unknown, no order may issue within one month of seizure or without hearing claimants. An owner who proves the Section 60(3) conditions escapes liability.

Chapter VA, under Section 68A, applies only to persons convicted of an offence punishable with ten years or more or of a similar foreign offence, persons detained under the PITNDPS Act, and persons arrested or under warrant for such an offence. It also reaches their relatives, associates and holders of property they once held, unless a transferee in good faith for adequate consideration.

Only where the source of just part of the property is unproved. Under Section 68K of the NDPS Act, once forfeiture is declared under Section 68-I, the authority gives the person an option to pay a fine equal to the market value of that part. The person must be heard first. If the fine is paid, the authority may revoke the declaration, and the property is then released.

Murder is punished with death or imprisonment for life, and the offender is also liable to fine, under BNS Section 103(1). Section 103(2) separately covers a group of five or more persons acting in concert who commit murder on grounds such as race, caste or community, sex, place of birth, language or personal belief. Each member faces death or life imprisonment and fine.

BNS Section 100 defines culpable homicide as causing death with the intention of causing death, the intention of causing bodily injury likely to cause death, or the knowledge that death is likely. Section 101 makes culpable homicide murder where the intention or knowledge reaches a higher degree, subject to exceptions such as grave and sudden provocation.

Culpable homicide not amounting to murder is punished under BNS Section 105 in two bands. Where death or injury likely to cause death was intended, the sentence is imprisonment for life or a term of five to ten years, with fine. Where the act was done only with knowledge that death is likely, the term may extend to ten years, with fine.

Death caused by a rash or negligent act is punished under BNS Section 106(1) with imprisonment of up to five years and fine. Under Section 106(2), a driver who causes death by rash and negligent driving and escapes without reporting to a police officer or Magistrate soon after the incident faces up to ten years and fine.

A registered medical practitioner can be prosecuted under BNS Section 106(1) if a death results from a rash or negligent act done while performing a medical procedure. The punishment for such a practitioner is imprisonment of up to two years and fine, against five years for others. Whether the treatment was rash or negligent is a question of fact for the court.

A shot that missed can still be charged under BNS Section 109(1). The section applies to an act done with such intention or knowledge, and in such circumstances, that death would have made the offender guilty of murder. Its first illustration is a person who shoots at another with intent to kill. Punishment is up to ten years, and up to life if hurt is caused.

Hurt under BNS Section 114 is causing bodily pain, disease or infirmity. Section 116 treats only listed kinds of hurt as grievous, among them fracture or dislocation of a bone or tooth, permanent disfiguration of the head or face, and any hurt that endangers life or leaves the sufferer in severe bodily pain or unable to follow ordinary pursuits for fifteen days.

Voluntarily causing grievous hurt is punished under BNS Section 117(2) with imprisonment of up to seven years and fine. Section 117(1) prescribes a heavier sentence of rigorous imprisonment for ten years up to life, meaning the remainder of natural life, where the hurt causes permanent disability or a persistent vegetative state. The section applied depends on the injury found.

BNS Section 118 applies when hurt is caused by an instrument for shooting, stabbing or cutting, fire, a heated substance, poison, a corrosive or explosive substance, or an animal. Hurt is punished with up to three years, or fine up to twenty thousand rupees, or both. Grievous hurt by these means draws life imprisonment or one to ten years, with fine.

Grave and sudden provocation does reduce the punishment. BNS Section 122 punishes hurt on such provocation with up to one month or fine up to five thousand rupees, and grievous hurt with up to five years or fine up to ten thousand. Exception 1 to Section 101 and its provisos apply, and whether provocation was grave and sudden is a question of fact.

BNS Section 120 punishes voluntarily causing hurt to extort a confession, or information leading to detection of an offence, with imprisonment of up to seven years and fine. If grievous hurt is caused for that purpose, the term may extend to ten years and fine. The section's first illustration is a police officer who tortures a person to induce a confession.

BNS Section 103(2) provides that when a group of five or more persons acting in concert commits murder on the ground of race, caste or community, sex, place of birth, language, personal belief or any similar ground, each member of the group is punished with death or imprisonment for life, and is also liable to fine. The section does not use the word lynching.

The right can extend to that situation. BNS Section 44 says that where an assault reasonably causes apprehension of death and the defender cannot exercise private defence effectually without risk of harm to an innocent person, the right extends to running that risk. The illustration is firing at a mob with children mingled in it.

Wrongful restraint under BNS Section 126 is voluntarily obstructing a person from going in a direction in which that person has a right to go, and carries simple imprisonment up to one month or fine up to five thousand rupees. Wrongful confinement under Section 127 is restraint that prevents going beyond certain circumscribing limits, and is punished more heavily.

Yes. Under BNS Section 127(3), confinement for three days or more is punished with up to three years, or fine up to ten thousand rupees, or both, against up to one year or fine up to five thousand rupees for ordinary confinement under Section 127(2). Confinement for ten days or more under Section 127(4) carries up to five years and fine of at least ten thousand rupees.

Kidnapping or abducting a person, or keeping the person in detention, and threatening death or hurt to compel the Government, a foreign State or any other person to act or to pay a ransom is punishable under BNS Section 140(2) with death or imprisonment for life, and fine. The section requires a threat, a reasonable apprehension of death or hurt, or actual hurt or death.

Kidnapping under BNS Section 137 is of two kinds: conveying a person beyond India without consent, and taking or enticing a child or person of unsound mind out of lawful guardianship. Abduction under Section 138 is compelling a person by force, or inducing by deceitful means, to go from any place. Kidnapping carries up to seven years and fine.

Snatching under BNS Section 304 is theft by suddenly or forcibly seizing movable property from a person, punished with up to three years and fine. Robbery under Section 309 is theft or extortion accompanied by causing or attempting death, hurt or wrongful restraint, or fear of instant harm. It carries rigorous imprisonment up to ten years, or fourteen on a highway at night.

Under BNSS Section 201(1), dacoity, including dacoity with murder, may be tried by a Court within whose local jurisdiction the offence was committed or the accused person is found. Under Section 201(2), kidnapping or abduction may be tried where the person was kidnapped or abducted, or was conveyed, concealed or detained. More than one court can therefore have jurisdiction.

Under BNSS Section 232, where the offence is triable exclusively by the Court of Session, the Magistrate commits the case to that Court after complying with Section 230 or 231. The Magistrate remands the accused to custody subject to bail provisions, sends the record and exhibits, and notifies the Public Prosecutor. Commitment must be completed within ninety days of cognizance, extendable to one hundred and eighty days with reasons.

Yes. BNSS Section 359(1) lists voluntarily causing grievous hurt on grave and sudden provocation (BNS Section 122) as compoundable by the person to whom the hurt is caused. Settlement of an offence outside the table is a separate matter, because the Supreme Court treats quashing on settlement as different from compounding and does not quash serious offences such as murder on that ground.

BNS Section 101 defines murder by the offender's intention or knowledge when the act is done and does not list motive as an ingredient. BSA Section 6(1) makes relevant any fact that shows or constitutes a motive or preparation for a fact in issue, so motive can be proved as evidence. Its weight, and the effect of its absence, depend on the facts and the rest of the evidence.

Yes. BSA Section 6(2) makes the conduct of a party relevant if it influences or is influenced by a fact in issue, whether previous or subsequent to it. The illustration to the section lists absconding after the crime, possession of its proceeds, and concealing things used in it. Statements count as conduct only when they accompany and explain acts. The court weighs the conduct, since relevance is not proof.

The IPC applies. BNS Section 358(1) repeals the IPC, but Section 358(2) preserves any penalty incurred for offences committed against the Code and allows proceedings to be instituted, continued or enforced as if the Code had not been repealed. The BNS took effect on 1 July 2024, so a murder committed before that date is charged under the IPC.

Under BNSS Section 407, when a Court of Session passes a sentence of death, the proceedings must forthwith be submitted to the High Court, and the sentence cannot be executed unless the High Court confirms it. The Court of Session commits the convicted person to jail custody under a warrant while the confirmation is pending.

Yes. The proviso to BNSS Section 413 (earlier CrPC Section 372) gives the victim a right to appeal against an order acquitting the accused, convicting for a lesser offence or imposing inadequate compensation. The BNSS defines victim to include the guardian or legal heir, so a family member may qualify depending on the relationship. Mallikarjun Kodagali confirms the right and Celestium Financial holds that no special leave is needed.

Cruelty under Section 86 of the BNS (earlier Section 498A of the IPC) has two limbs. One is wilful conduct likely to drive the woman to suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to her life, limb or health, mental or physical. The other is harassment to coerce her or her relatives to meet an unlawful demand for property, or because such a demand was not met.

Section 85 of the BNS (earlier Section 498A of the IPC) applies to a husband or a relative of the husband who subjects a woman to cruelty. Cruelty is defined in Section 86. The punishment is imprisonment up to three years and fine. A person who is neither the husband nor his relative falls outside Section 85, whatever the conduct alleged.

Arrest is not automatic when a cruelty case under Section 85 of the BNS (earlier Section 498A) is registered. In Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar (2014) the Supreme Court directed police to satisfy themselves that arrest is necessary and to record reasons. A notice of appearance under Section 35 of the BNSS (earlier Section 41A of the CrPC) may be issued instead.

Cruelty under Section 86 of the BNS (earlier Section 498A of the IPC) does not require physical violence. Wilful conduct that endangers the woman's mental health is enough, as is harassment to coerce an unlawful demand for property or valuable security. Which limb applies depends on the facts alleged.

The High Court can quash a Section 85 BNS (earlier Section 498A) case after a genuine settlement between husband and wife. In Gian Singh v. State of Punjab (2012) the Supreme Court recognised this for matrimonial offences that are private in nature, if conviction is unlikely. The power comes from Section 528 of the BNSS (earlier Section 482 of the CrPC). Grave offences are treated differently.

Relatives of the husband can be named under Section 85 of the BNS (earlier Section 498A) only if the complaint attributes specific acts to them. Section 85 covers any relative of the husband and says nothing about where the relative lives. In Dara Lakshmi Narayana (2024) and Kahkashan Kausar v. State of Bihar (2022) the Supreme Court said general and omnibus allegations against in-laws do not warrant prosecution.

A Domestic Violence Act application under Section 12 leads to civil orders such as protection, residence and monetary relief, with no imprisonment or fine for the respondent. A case under Section 85 of the BNS is a criminal prosecution punishable with up to three years and fine. Breach of a protection order is a separate offence under Section 31 of the 2005 Act.

The limitation period for taking cognizance of a Section 85 BNS offence is three years under Section 514 of the BNSS, because the offence carries up to three years' imprisonment. For computing it, the relevant date is the date the complaint is filed under Section 223 or the information is recorded under Section 173. When the period starts running depends on the facts.

The minimum sentence for dowry death under Section 80(2) of the BNS (earlier Section 304B of the IPC) is imprisonment for seven years. The sentence may extend to imprisonment for life. The section sets no fine and no lower option, so a court cannot go below seven years on a conviction under it.

A woman's death is treated as dowry death under Section 80(1) of the BNS (earlier Section 304B) only if it occurs within seven years of her marriage. The death must be caused by burns or bodily injury, or occur otherwise than under normal circumstances. It must also be shown that soon before death she suffered cruelty or harassment for dowry.

Section 118 of the BSA (earlier Section 113B of the Evidence Act) requires the court to presume that the accused caused the dowry death once it is shown that soon before her death the woman was subjected to cruelty or harassment for dowry. In Shoor Singh v. State of Uttarakhand (2024) the Court held the prosecution must first prove the ingredients of dowry death.

No. Section 80 of the BNS (earlier Section 304B) covers only a death within seven years of marriage that is caused by burns or injury or occurs otherwise than in normal circumstances, where soon before death she suffered cruelty or harassment for or in connection with a dowry demand. In Shoor Singh (2024) the demand tied to a child's birth did not qualify.

Yes. Section 3 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 punishes giving, taking or abetting the giving or taking of dowry whether or not anyone dies. The punishment is imprisonment of not less than five years and fine of not less than fifteen thousand rupees or the dowry's value, whichever is more. The court may give a shorter term for adequate and special reasons recorded.

Under Section 117 of the BSA, a court may presume abetment of suicide when a married woman died by suicide within seven years of marriage and her husband or his relative had subjected her to cruelty, as defined in Section 86 of the BNS. The presumption is discretionary and depends on all the other circumstances.

Rape under Section 64(1) of the BNS is punished with rigorous imprisonment of not less than ten years, which may extend to imprisonment for life, and fine. Sub-section (1) applies except in the cases listed in sub-section (2), which include rape by a police officer.

No. Under Section 63 of the BNS, sexual intercourse with a woman under eighteen years of age is rape with or without her consent. Her consent therefore does not work as a defence. The age of the girl at the time of the act is the fact that decides the point.

Yes, if she is living separately and has not consented. Section 67 of the BNS punishes a husband who has sexual intercourse with his wife without her consent while she lives separately, under a decree of separation or otherwise. The punishment is imprisonment of two to seven years and fine.

Assault or criminal force to a woman with intent to outrage her modesty, or knowing it likely, is punishable under Section 74 of the BNS with imprisonment of one to five years and fine. The minimum term of one year is mandatory. Whether the act meets the intent requirement depends on the facts.

Section 75 of the BNS treats four acts by a man as sexual harassment: unwelcome physical contact and explicit sexual advances, a demand or request for sexual favours, showing pornography against a woman's will, and sexually coloured remarks. The first three carry up to three years or fine. Remarks carry up to one year or fine.

Yes. Section 77 of the BNS punishes watching or capturing the image of a woman engaged in a private act where she expects not to be observed, and spreading that image. First conviction carries one to three years and fine. A later conviction carries three to seven years. Consent to capture does not cover sharing it.

Section 78 of the BNS makes it stalking when a man repeatedly follows and contacts a woman despite clear disinterest, or monitors her internet, email or other electronic communication. First conviction carries up to three years and fine. A later one up to five years. Crime prevention duties, legal requirements or justified conduct are defences.

It can, depending on intent and delivery. Section 79 of the BNS covers words, sounds, gestures or objects meant to insult a woman's modesty and intended to be heard or seen by her, and also intrusion on her privacy. The punishment is simple imprisonment up to three years and fine. Public setting is not a stated element.

Abetting a woman's suicide is punishable under Section 108 of the BNS with imprisonment of either description up to ten years and fine. Where a married woman dies by suicide within seven years of marriage after cruelty by her husband or his relative, Section 117 of the BSA lets the court presume abetment, having regard to all the circumstances.

Marrying again while a husband or wife is living is punishable under Section 82(1) of the BNS with up to seven years and fine, where the second marriage is void for that reason. If the earlier marriage was concealed from the new spouse, Section 82(2) raises the maximum to ten years and fine.

No. Under Explanation 2 to Section 143 of the BNS, the consent of the victim is immaterial in determining the offence of trafficking. The offence is made out by recruiting, transporting or receiving a person for exploitation through threats, force, fraud, abuse of power or inducement. Punishment starts at seven years.

Under Section 124(1) of the BNS, causing permanent or partial damage, burns or disfigurement by acid carries imprisonment of not less than ten years, extending to life, with a fine paid to the victim. Under Section 124(2), throwing or attempting to throw acid carries five to seven years and fine.

Section 3 PMLA makes a person guilty who directly or indirectly attempts to indulge, knowingly assists, knowingly is a party to, or is actually involved in any process connected with proceeds of crime. The Explanation lists concealment, possession, acquisition, use, and projecting or claiming the property as untainted. Possession is one listed activity, but the person must knowingly be involved.

Yes. Explanation (ii) to Section 3 PMLA says the process or activity connected with proceeds of crime is a continuing activity. It continues until the person is directly or indirectly enjoying the proceeds by concealment, possession, acquisition, use, or by projecting or claiming them as untainted property, in any manner. Whether a given act amounts to enjoyment depends on the facts.

Yes. In Pavana Dibbur v. Directorate of Enforcement (2023) the Supreme Court held that a person against whom a Section 3 PMLA offence is alleged need not be shown as an accused in the scheduled offence. That person still benefits if all the accused in the scheduled offence are acquitted or discharged, or if that case is quashed.

Yes. The first proviso to Section 8(1) PMLA says that where the notice specifies property as held by a person on behalf of any other person, a copy must also be served on that other person. Where property is held jointly by several persons, the notice must be served on all of them. The notice itself must give at least thirty days.

Section 4 PMLA punishes money laundering with rigorous imprisonment of not less than three years, extendable to seven years, and the person is also liable to fine. Where the proceeds of crime relate to an offence in paragraph 2 of Part A of the Schedule, the maximum rises from seven years to ten years.

A police officer cannot investigate an offence under the PMLA unless the Central Government specifically authorises that officer by a general or special order, on prescribed conditions. Section 45(1A) PMLA says so. The Special Court takes cognizance of a Section 4 offence only on a written complaint by the Director or an officer of the Central or a State Government authorised in writing by the Central Government.

Under Section 17 PMLA the Director or an officer not below Deputy Director, after recording in writing the reason to believe, may authorise a subordinate officer to enter and search a place, break open locks, seize records or property, mark and inventory them, and examine on oath anyone in possession. Immediately after the search, the reasons and material go to the Adjudicating Authority in a sealed envelope.

Yes. Section 19(1) PMLA allows arrest only on material in the officer's possession, with the reason to believe recorded in writing, and the person must be told the grounds as soon as may be. Pankaj Bansal (2023) requires a written copy of the grounds to be given. Ram Kishor Arora accepts oral grounds at arrest if a written copy follows within twenty-four hours.

A person summoned under Section 50(2) PMLA must, under Section 50(3), attend in person or through an authorised agent, state the truth and produce the documents required. The proceeding is deemed a judicial proceeding for Sections 193 and 228 of the IPC. In Prem Prakash (2024) the Supreme Court held that a Section 50 statement made in custody to the same agency is inadmissible against its maker.

Under Section 5(1) PMLA the Director or an officer not below Deputy Director must have reason to believe, recorded in writing and based on material, that a person holds proceeds of crime likely to be concealed or dealt with so as to frustrate confiscation. The officer then attaches the property by written order, and must send the order and material to the Adjudicating Authority.

A provisional attachment under Section 5(1) PMLA can run for no more than one hundred and eighty days from the date of the order. It ends earlier if the Adjudicating Authority makes an order under Section 8(3). Any period during which the High Court has stayed the proceedings is excluded, with up to thirty more days after the stay is vacated.

A Section 8(1) PMLA notice asks the person to indicate the sources of income, earnings or assets used to acquire the attached or seized property, the evidence relied on, and to show cause why the property should not be declared involved in money-laundering and confiscated. The notice must allow not less than thirty days. The Authority decides after hearing both sides under Section 8(2).

Yes, in the terms Section 8(3) PMLA sets. A confirmed attachment continues during investigation for a period not exceeding three hundred and sixty-five days, or during the pendency of proceedings for an offence under the Act before a court. It becomes final once the Special Court passes an order of confiscation. Time when a court stays the investigation is excluded.

A claimant can seek restoration of property that stands confiscated under Section 8(5) PMLA. The Special Court may direct the Central Government to restore it to a claimant with a legitimate interest who suffered a quantifiable loss from the offence. The claimant must have acted in good faith, taken reasonable precautions and not been involved. The Court may consider the claim during the trial.

For a person charged under Section 3 PMLA, Section 24(a) requires the Authority or Court to presume, unless the contrary is proved, that the proceeds of crime are involved in money-laundering. The accused therefore carries that burden. For any other person, Section 24(b) says the Authority or Court may presume the same. Both presumptions apply in any proceeding relating to proceeds of crime under the Act.

Under Section 44(1)(c) PMLA, if the court that took cognizance of the scheduled offence is not the Special Court that took cognizance of the money laundering complaint, it must commit the scheduled offence case to the Special Court on an application by the authorised authority. The Special Court then continues from the stage at which the case is committed.

A Special Court constituted for the area where the offence was committed tries an offence under Section 4 PMLA and any connected scheduled offence, under Section 44(1)(a). It follows Sessions trial procedure and takes cognizance of the Section 3 offence on a complaint without committal. Trying both offences in one court is not a joint trial, and its jurisdiction does not depend on orders in the scheduled case.

Not automatically. The twin conditions in Section 45(1) PMLA apply to every accused, but the first proviso says a person under sixteen, a woman, a sick or infirm person, or a person accused of laundering less than one crore rupees may be released on bail if the Special Court so directs. The release is at the Court's discretion, not a right.

Under Pavana Dibbur (2023) the PMLA accused benefits when all the accused in the scheduled offence are acquitted or discharged, or when that case is quashed. The money laundering charge depends on the proceeds of crime that the scheduled offence produced. The Supreme Court applied this even to a PMLA accused who was not an accused in the scheduled case.

An appeal to the Appellate Tribunal under Section 26 PMLA must be filed within forty-five days from the date on which the person receives a copy of the Adjudicating Authority's order. The Tribunal can condone delay for sufficient cause. It is to endeavour to dispose of the appeal finally within six months.

Yes. Section 44(2) PMLA says nothing in the section affects the special powers of the High Court regarding bail under Section 439 of the CrPC, and the High Court may use them as if the reference to a Magistrate included a Special Court. Section 439 CrPC corresponds to Section 483 BNSS for proceedings under the BNSS.

Yes. Section 70(1) PMLA deems the company and every person in charge of and responsible for its business at the time of the contravention to be guilty, unless that person proves lack of knowledge or due diligence. Under Section 70(2), a director or officer is also liable if the contravention occurred with consent, connivance or neglect. A company may be prosecuted regardless of any individual's prosecution.

Under Section 12(3) PMLA a reporting entity must keep transaction records for five years from the date of the transaction between the client and the entity. Under Section 12(4), records of client and beneficial owner identity documents, account files and business correspondence are kept for five years after the business relationship ends or the account is closed, whichever is later.

Section 8 PMLA adjudication is before the Adjudicating Authority, which serves a notice and decides whether attached or seized property is involved in money-laundering, and so confirms or refuses the attachment. Section 44 is the criminal trial before the Special Court on a complaint, which decides guilt and orders confiscation or release under Section 8(5) and 8(6). Confirmation becomes final only after confiscation.

Yes. POCSO section 4 punishes penetrative sexual assault on a child with at least ten years, extendable to life, and fine. If the child is below sixteen, the term is at least twenty years up to life for the remainder of natural life. BNS section 63 defines rape, and clause (vi) covers a girl under eighteen with or without her consent.

Section 5 makes penetrative sexual assault aggravated by the offender's position, such as police officer, public servant or staff of a hospital or school, and by the facts, such as gang assault, a child below twelve, repeated assault, grievous hurt or pregnancy. Section 6 prescribes at least twenty years up to life for the remainder of natural life, with fine, or death.

Section 7 sexual assault is an act done with sexual intent that involves physical contact without penetration, such as touching the private parts or breast of a child. Section 3 requires penetration, to any extent, of the vagina, mouth, urethra or anus. Section 8 punishes sexual assault with three to five years and fine, which is lower than section 4.

Any person, including the child, who apprehends that a POCSO offence is likely to be committed or knows one has been committed must report it under section 19(1). The report goes to the Special Juvenile Police Unit or the local police. The police must record it in writing with an entry number and read it over to the informant.

Yes. Under POCSO section 21(2), a person in charge of a company or institution who fails to report an offence in respect of a subordinate under his control faces imprisonment up to one year and fine. Section 21(1) separately punishes any person who fails to report or record an offence with up to six months, a fine or both. It does not apply to a child.

Yes. Section 19(7) provides that no person incurs any liability, civil or criminal, for giving information in good faith for the purpose of section 19(1). That sub-section covers anyone, including the child, who fears an offence is likely or knows one occurred. The protection depends on the information being given in good faith, which turns on the facts.

Yes. Section 22(1) punishes a false complaint or false information about an offence under sections 3, 5, 7 and 9, made solely to humiliate, extort, threaten or defame, with up to six months, a fine or both. Section 22(2) bars any punishment on a child. Section 22(3) punishes an adult who knowingly makes a false complaint against a child with up to one year.

Section 29 says that where a person is prosecuted for committing, abetting or attempting an offence under sections 3, 5, 7 or 9, the Special Court shall presume the offence unless the contrary is proved. The section does not describe a preliminary showing by the prosecution, so what must be established first is for the court to decide on the facts.

Yes. Section 33(1) of POCSO lets a Special Court take cognizance of any offence without the accused being committed to it for trial, on receiving a complaint of facts that constitute the offence or on a police report of such facts.

Yes. Section 24 requires the statement to be recorded at the child's residence, the place where the child usually lives or a place of the child's choice, as far as practicable by a woman police officer not below sub-inspector rank. The officer must not be in uniform, and the child must not come into contact with the accused.

The Special Court puts the questions to the child. Under section 33(2), the Special Public Prosecutor or the accused's counsel communicates the questions to the Special Court during examination-in-chief, cross-examination or re-examination, and the court in turn puts them to the child. Section 33(6) bars aggressive questioning and character assassination of the child.

Section 33 lets the Special Court allow frequent breaks and create a child-friendly atmosphere by permitting a trusted family member, guardian, friend or relative to be present. The court must ensure the child is not called repeatedly to testify, must not permit aggressive questioning, and must not disclose the child's identity, except for reasons recorded in writing in the child's interest.

Yes. Section 37 requires the Special Court to try cases in camera, in the presence of the child's parents or any other person in whom the child has trust or confidence. Where the child needs to be examined at a place other than the court, the court issues a commission under section 284 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

The child's evidence must be recorded within thirty days of the Special Court taking cognizance, and the court must record reasons for any delay. Under section 35(2) the court shall complete the trial, as far as possible, within one year from the date of taking cognizance. The phrase as far as possible qualifies only the one year period.

No. Section 23(2) bars media reports from disclosing a child's identity, including name, address, photograph, family details, school or neighbourhood. The only exception is that the Special Court may permit disclosure, for reasons recorded in writing, if it is in the child's interest. Contravention is punishable with six months to one year, a fine or both.

Where the Board has reasonable grounds for doubt, section 94(2) takes the school date of birth certificate or matriculation certificate first. Only if that is unavailable does it use the birth certificate from a corporation, municipal authority or panchayat. A medical or ossification test is allowed only when neither exists, and must be completed within fifteen days of the order.

Yes. Section 2(12) defines a child as a person who has not completed eighteen years, and section 2(13) fixes the age on the date of the offence for a child in conflict with law. For a heinous offence by a child who has completed sixteen, section 15 requires a preliminary assessment, and section 18(3) allows transfer for trial as an adult.

For a heinous offence by a child who has completed sixteen, the Board assesses mental and physical capacity to commit the offence, ability to understand its consequences and the circumstances. It may take expert help. If the Board keeps the matter, it follows summons case procedure; otherwise section 18(3) allows transfer to the Children's Court. Section 15 says the assessment is not a trial.

Section 18(1) lets the Board allow the child to go home after advice, order group counselling, community service or a fine, or release the child on probation with a parent, guardian or fit person for up to three years. It may also send the child to a special home for up to three years. Section 18(2) allows added orders such as school attendance or de-addiction.

Under section 14(5)(f)(i), inquiry into a heinous offence by a child below sixteen on the date of the offence is disposed of by the Board under clause (e), which follows the procedure for trial in summons cases. The preliminary assessment under section 15 applies to a child who has completed sixteen, so it does not apply to this younger group.

Under section 14(5), the Board disposes of petty offences through summary proceedings under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, and inquires into serious offences by following the procedure for trial in summons cases. The Board must also satisfy itself that the child has not been ill-treated, keep a child-friendly atmosphere and give the child a chance to be heard.

The Board must complete the inquiry within four months from the first production of the child, and may extend this by up to two more months after recording reasons in writing. A preliminary assessment for a heinous offence must be disposed of within three months. If a petty offence inquiry stays inconclusive after the extension, the proceedings stand terminated.

Section 2(13) counts the age on the date of commission of the offence. A child in conflict with law is a child alleged or found to have committed an offence who had not completed eighteen years of age on that date. Section 2(12) separately defines a child as a person who has not completed eighteen years of age.

Under section 101(1), a person aggrieved by a Board order may appeal to the Children's Court within thirty days of the order. The Court of Session may hear a late appeal if the appellant had sufficient cause, and must decide it within thirty days. An order after a section 15 preliminary assessment is appealed before the Court of Session under section 101(2).

A public servant who takes a bribe is punished under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 with imprisonment of three to seven years and a fine. It covers obtaining, accepting or attempting to obtain an undue advantage to perform a public duty improperly, or as a reward for doing so, and performing a duty improperly in anticipation of the advantage.

Yes. Section 7 makes obtaining, accepting or attempting to obtain an undue advantage an offence even where the public duty was not performed improperly (Explanation 1). The Act's own illustration is an official who asks for five thousand rupees to process a routine ration card application on time. Payment to move a file falls within the same reasoning.

It can be, depending on the facts. Section 8 punishes a person who gives or promises an undue advantage intending to induce a public servant to perform a duty improperly or to reward improper performance. A person compelled to pay falls outside the section but must report to the law enforcement authority within seven days of paying.

Imprisonment of up to seven years, or fine, or both, under Section 8(1) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The section sets no minimum term. Where a commercial organisation commits the offence, the third proviso makes it punishable with fine. The giver must have intended to induce or reward improper performance of a public duty.

Reporting protects only a person who was compelled to pay. The first proviso to Section 8(1) takes a compelled giver outside the section, and the second requires that person to report to the law enforcement authority or investigating agency within seven days of giving the advantage. A voluntary payer gets no such protection, and what counts as compulsion depends on the facts.

Yes. Under Section 9, a commercial organisation is punishable with fine if a person associated with it gives or promises an undue advantage to a public servant to obtain or retain business or an advantage in conducting it. An employee, agent or subsidiary can be an associated person. The organisation has a defence if it proves it had adequate procedures in place.

Only if consent or connivance is proved. Section 10 makes a director, manager, secretary or other officer guilty where a Section 9 offence by the organisation is proved to have been committed with his consent or connivance. The punishment is three to seven years and a fine. A managing director with no such involvement is not liable under this section.

An organisation may defend itself under Section 9(1) by proving it had adequate procedures, in compliance with guidelines as may be prescribed, to prevent persons associated with it from giving such advantages to public servants. The burden is on the organisation. What counts as adequate depends on the prescribed guidelines, which the Act text itself does not set out.

Yes, if he accepts, obtains or attempts to obtain an undue advantage. Section 7A punishes whoever does so as a motive or reward to induce a public servant, by corrupt or illegal means or personal influence, to perform or forbear a public duty improperly. The punishment is three to seven years and a fine. A bare promise without taking or seeking the advantage is not the offence described.

An offence under Section 7 requires an undue advantage taken with the intention that a public duty be performed improperly, or as a reward for that, and carries three to seven years. Section 11 covers accepting an advantage without consideration, or for inadequate consideration, from a person concerned in the public servant's business. It carries six months to five years and a fine.

No. Under Section 13(1)(b) the offence is intentionally enriching oneself illicitly during office. Explanation 1 presumes this where the public servant or someone on his behalf holds resources or property disproportionate to known lawful income that he cannot satisfactorily account for. So unexplained excess matters, not excess alone. The punishment is four to ten years and a fine.

No. In Neeraj Dutta v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) ((2023) 4 SCC 731), a Constitution Bench held that demand or offer must be proved as a fact and mere receipt of money is not an offence under Section 7. If the complainant turns hostile, demand can still be proved by other witnesses or circumstances. Without proved demand the Section 20 presumption does not operate.

Yes, where the alleged offence is relatable to a recommendation made or decision taken by the public servant in discharge of official functions or duties. Section 17A bars any enquiry, inquiry or investigation by a police officer without previous approval of the Union or State Government for its employees, or of the authority competent to remove any other person. The test is whether the allegation links to an official decision.

No. The first proviso to Section 17A says no approval is necessary in cases involving arrest of a person on the spot on the charge of accepting or attempting to accept an undue advantage for himself or for any other person. A trap arrest of that kind therefore needs no prior approval under this section.

The authority must convey its decision within three months under the second proviso to Section 17A. That period can be extended by a further month, for reasons recorded in writing by the authority. The Act does not say what follows if the authority stays silent, so the facts of a given delay decide the next step.

Yes. Section 19(1) bars any court from taking cognizance of an offence under Section 7, 11, 13 or 15 alleged against a public servant without previous sanction. For a serving officer the sanction comes from the Central or State Government, or from the authority competent to remove him, depending on his employment.

Yes. The Explanation to Section 19(1) states that the expression public servant includes a person who has ceased to hold the office during which the offence is alleged to have been committed. Sanction is therefore still required before a court takes cognizance against a retired officer, for the offences in Sections 7, 11, 13 and 15.

Section 19 of the Act is the Act's own sanction rule and applies to offences under Sections 7, 11, 13 and 15. Section 218 BNSS is the general rule for offences alleged against Judges, Magistrates and public servants in official duty, and it deems sanction given if the Government does not decide within 120 days. Section 19 only asks the authority to endeavour to decide within three months.

The competent authority should endeavour to convey its decision within three months of receiving the proposal, under the third proviso to Section 19(1). Where legal consultation is required, that period may be extended by one further month, with reasons recorded in writing. The Act uses the word endeavour, so the three months is framed as a target.

Courts presume, unless the contrary is proved, that the advantage was accepted as a motive or reward for performing a public duty improperly under Section 7 or, for Section 11, without consideration or for inadequate consideration. This arises only once acceptance, obtaining or attempt to obtain is proved. Where demand is not proved, the presumption does not operate.

A Special Judge. Section 4(1) provides that the offences specified in Section 3(1) are tried by Special Judges only, notwithstanding the Criminal Procedure Code. Under Section 4(2) the case goes to the Special Judge for the area where the offence was committed. A Special Judge may also try any other offence charged against the accused at the same trial.

Under Section 4(4), trial is to be held, as far as practicable on a day to day basis, with an endeavour to conclude it within two years. If it is not concluded, the Special Judge must record reasons. The period may be extended by up to six months at a time, ordinarily not beyond four years in total.

No officer below a set rank may investigate without a Magistrate's order. Under Section 17 that rank is Inspector for the Delhi Special Police Establishment, Assistant Commissioner of Police in metropolitan areas including Madras, and Deputy Superintendent of Police elsewhere. A State-authorised Inspector may also investigate. A Section 13(1)(b) offence needs an order from an officer of Superintendent rank.

Attachment and confiscation of property procured by an offence under the Act is governed by Section 18A, which applies the Criminal Law Amendment Ordinance, 1944 to attachment, administration and execution of those orders, subject to the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002. References to District Judge in the Ordinance are read as Special Judge.

The High Court hears it. Section 27 gives the High Court the powers of appeal and revision that the Code of Criminal Procedure gives it, as if the Special Judge's court were a Court of Session trying cases within the High Court's local limits. These powers are subject to the provisions of the Act, including Section 19(3) on errors in sanction.

No. The Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 is a separate statute and was not renumbered when the BNS, BNSS and BSA replaced the IPC, CrPC and Evidence Act on 1 July 2024. Section 7 still deals with a public servant taking a bribe and Section 13 with criminal misconduct. Only the Code references, such as sanction and procedure, now read through the BNSS.

The person is committed to prison, or kept in prison if already there, until the period of the security ends or the security is given (BNSS 141(1)(a)). Imprisonment for failing to give security for keeping the peace is simple. If the security was ordered for over one year, the Sessions Judge reviews the case, and the jail term cannot exceed three years.

Yes. Under BNSS 125 (old CrPC 106), a Court of Session or a first class Magistrate convicting a person of an offence listed in sub-section (2) may, when passing sentence, order a bond or bail bond for keeping the peace for up to three years. The bond becomes void if the conviction is set aside. An appellate or revisional court can also make the order.

Under BNSS 126(2) (old CrPC 107), any Executive Magistrate may take proceedings where the apprehended breach of the peace is within his local jurisdiction, or where a person likely to commit a breach beyond it lives within his jurisdiction. The section text reviewed names no appeal route, so no forum for challenge is stated. Where the security exceeds one year, BNSS 141(2) sends the proceedings to the Sessions Judge.

No. BNSS 126 (old CrPC 107) proceedings begin with a written show-cause order under BNSS 130 and end, if the magistrate finds security necessary, in an order under BNSS 136 to execute a bond. A bond under BNSS 125 (old CrPC 106) follows a conviction. Imprisonment follows only if the security is not given or a bond is breached (BNSS 141), and it is simple imprisonment for a peace bond.

Police may use force once an assembly has been commanded to disperse and does not, or shows a determination not to disperse without a command (BNSS 148(2), old CrPC 129). The command can come from an Executive Magistrate or an officer in charge of a police station, or in his absence a police officer of at least sub-inspector rank.

Yes, in defined cases. BNS 189(5) punishes anyone who knowingly joins or continues in an assembly of five or more persons likely to disturb the public peace after it has been lawfully commanded to disperse, with up to six months, a fine, or both. BNS 189(3) allows up to two years where the assembly was commanded to disperse as prescribed by law.

No. An order under BNSS 163 (old CrPC 144) cannot stay in force for more than two months from the date it is made. The State Government may, by notification, extend it for up to six months more, to prevent danger to human life, health or safety, or a riot or affray. A magistrate may rescind or alter the order on application.

A District Magistrate, Sub-divisional Magistrate or specially empowered Executive Magistrate may pass a conditional order under BNSS 152 (old CrPC 133) on a police report or other information. The grounds include an unlawful obstruction in a public place or way, a trade harmful to community health, an unsafe building or tree, an unfenced tank or well, or a dangerous animal.

No civil court can review it. BNSS 152(2) (old CrPC 133) states that no order duly made by a Magistrate under that section may be called in question in any Civil Court. The section also deals with public places, public ways and the health or comfort of the community, so a purely private nuisance may fall outside it. The section text names no other remedy.

The section text shows the magistrate attaches the disputed property until a competent Court decides who is entitled to possession (BNSS 165(1) (old CrPC 146)). The attachment holds the position while that court decides, and it can be withdrawn once there is no likelihood of a breach of the peace. Nothing in the section text shows ownership being decided.

Yes, in set circumstances. Under BNSS 165(1) (old CrPC 146), the magistrate may attach the subject of dispute in an emergency, if no party was in possession as required by BNSS 164, or if he cannot tell who was. Under 165(2) he may appoint a receiver where no civil court receiver exists, and must hand over to a later civil receiver.

Yes, the section provides for it. BNSS 144(2) (old CrPC 125) refers to maintenance or interim maintenance and expenses of proceeding, payable from the date of the order or, if so ordered, from the date of the application. The section covers wives, children and parents by its heading. Whether interim relief is granted in a given petition is for the magistrate.

BNSS 144(2) (old CrPC 125) provides that the allowance, including interim maintenance and expenses of proceeding, is payable from the date of the order or, if the court so orders, from the date of the application. The date applied to a given petition is for the court to decide in its order.

It continues under the CrPC, under BNSS 531(2)(a) (old CrPC 484). An application pending immediately before the Sanhita came into force is to be disposed of under the CrPC as in force then, as if the Sanhita had not come into force. The Sanhita took effect on 1 July 2024, so a maintenance petition still pending then stays under the CrPC, not BNSS 144 (old CrPC 125).

BNSS 497(1) (old CrPC 451) lets the court or magistrate order the proper custody of property produced before it until the investigation, inquiry or trial ends, and order sale if it will decay. The court must prepare a statement within 14 days, take photographs or video, and within 30 days order disposal, destruction, confiscation or delivery.

On BNSS 498 (old CrPC 452), the court may order destruction, confiscation or delivery to the person entitled, with or without a bond. The order is not carried out for two months, or until an appeal is decided. Under BNSS 503, property seized by police but never produced in court is disposed of or delivered by the magistrate, with six months' notice if the owner is unknown.

Yes. Under BNSS 395(1), the court may apply the whole or part of a fine to compensation for loss or injury caused by the offence. Under 395(3), where the sentence has no fine, it may order the accused to pay compensation to the person who suffered loss. Appellate and revisional courts can also order it (BNSS 395, old CrPC 357).

Where the trial court finds at the end of trial that BNSS 395 compensation is not adequate for rehabilitation, or the case ends in acquittal or discharge, it may recommend compensation (BNSS 396(3)). The State or District Legal Services Authority then decides the amount, and must complete the enquiry within two months (BNSS 396, old CrPC 357A).

Yes, if the victim is identified and no trial takes place. Under BNSS 396(4), the victim or dependents may apply to the State or District Legal Services Authority, which must award adequate compensation after due enquiry, completed within two months (BNSS 396(5)). The scheme may also order free first-aid or medical benefits.

BNSS 398 requires every State Government to prepare and notify a Witness Protection Scheme for its State to ensure the protection of witnesses. The section does not list the protective measures itself, so what a threatened witness receives depends on the notified scheme of that State.

Theft of a mobile phone is punishable under Section 303(2) of the BNS with imprisonment of up to three years, or fine, or both. A second or later conviction carries rigorous imprisonment of one to five years and fine. Where the phone is worth under five thousand rupees, a first offender who returns it or its value gets community service.

Snatching under Section 304 of the BNS is theft committed by suddenly, quickly or forcibly seizing movable property from a person, and carries up to three years. Robbery under Section 309 is theft or extortion accompanied by causing or attempting death, hurt or wrongful restraint, or fear of instant harm, and carries up to ten years.

Snatching under Section 304(2) of the BNS carries imprisonment of up to three years and liability to fine. Under Section 304(1), theft is snatching when the offender, to commit theft, suddenly, quickly or forcibly seizes, grabs or takes movable property from a person or from his possession. Theft without that sudden or forcible taking from the person is punished under Section 303.

Robbery under Section 309(4) of the BNS is punished with rigorous imprisonment of up to ten years and fine. If it is committed on a highway between sunset and sunrise, the term can extend to fourteen years. Attempted robbery carries up to seven years. Where hurt is voluntarily caused, Section 309(6) provides life imprisonment or up to ten years.

Five or more persons make a dacoity under Section 310(1) of the BNS. They must conjointly commit or attempt a robbery, or the persons committing it together with those present and aiding must number five or more. Dacoity is punishable under Section 310(2) with life imprisonment or rigorous imprisonment of up to ten years, and fine.

Yes. Under Section 310(3) of the BNS, if any one of five or more persons conjointly committing dacoity commits murder in doing so, every one of them is punishable with death, life imprisonment, or rigorous imprisonment of not less than ten years, and fine. The text applies to every member of the group, whoever caused the death.

Section 311 of the BNS sets a minimum. If the offender uses a deadly weapon, causes grievous hurt, or attempts to cause death or grievous hurt while committing robbery or dacoity, the imprisonment shall not be less than seven years. The upper limit comes from the offence itself, under Section 309 for robbery or Section 310 for dacoity.

Using entrusted money for personal purposes is criminal breach of trust under Section 316(1) of the BNS (Section 405 of the IPC) when the person was entrusted with the property, or with dominion over it, and dishonestly misappropriates or converts it to his own use. Dishonest intention decides the point. The basic punishment under Section 316(2) is up to five years, or fine, or both.

A failure to pay is a civil matter unless the elements of an offence are present. Criminal breach of trust under Section 316 of the BNS needs entrustment of property followed by dishonest misappropriation. In Delhi Race Club (1940) Ltd. v. State of Uttar Pradesh ((2024) 10 SCC 690), the Supreme Court said breach of contract is not cheating without dishonest intention from the start, and quashed the case.

A person entrusted with property as a carrier, wharfinger or warehouse-keeper who commits criminal breach of trust in respect of it is punishable under Section 316(3) of the BNS with imprisonment of up to seven years and fine. Ordinary criminal breach of trust under Section 316(2) carries up to five years, or fine, or both.

A shopkeeper who dishonestly receives or retains goods knowing or having reason to believe they are stolen commits the offence in Section 317(2) of the BNS, punishable with up to three years, or fine, or both. If he habitually deals in such goods, Section 317(4) applies, with life imprisonment or up to ten years, and fine.

Simple cheating is punished under Section 318(2) of the BNS with imprisonment of up to three years, or fine, or both. Cheating means deceiving a person and fraudulently or dishonestly inducing him to deliver property, or to do or omit something he would not otherwise do, causing or likely to cause harm. Where property is delivered, Section 318(4) applies.

Section 318(4) of the BNS replaced Section 420 of the IPC for cheating that dishonestly induces delivery of property. The punishment is imprisonment of up to seven years and fine. Simple cheating under Section 318(2) carries up to three years. Section 318(1) defines the offence, so deception and dishonest inducement must be shown in either case.

An unpaid advance is cheating under Section 318(4) of the BNS only if the builder had a dishonest intention when he took the money. Illustration (g) to Section 318 says a person who meant to deliver at that time and later broke the contract is liable only in a civil action. Failure to deliver alone is generally civil, so intent at the start decides it.

Pretending to be a bank officer to obtain money is cheating under Section 318 of the BNS, as in illustration (a) of falsely pretending to be in the Civil Service. Section 319 applies where the offender cheats by pretending to be some other person, real or imaginary. Whether a false claim of office amounts to personation depends on the facts. Personation carries up to five years, or fine, or both.

Forgery under Section 336(2) of the BNS is punishable with imprisonment of up to two years, or fine, or both. Section 336(1) defines it as making a false document or electronic record with intent to cause damage, support a claim, cause a person to part with property, or commit fraud. Forgery intended for cheating carries up to seven years and fine under Section 336(3).

Yes. Section 340(2) of the BNS (Section 471 of the IPC) makes it an offence to fraudulently or dishonestly use as genuine a document or electronic record that the person knows or has reason to believe is forged, and that knowledge or belief is the element to prove. The user is punished in the same manner as if he had forged it.

Mischief under Section 324(2) of the BNS is punishable with imprisonment of up to six months, or fine, or both. Under Section 324(3), mischief that causes loss or damage to any property, including property of the Government or a local authority, carries up to one year, or fine, or both. The graver forms, such as mischief by fire, are in Section 326.

Setting fire to a neighbour's house is punished far more heavily than ordinary mischief. Under Section 326(g) of the BNS, mischief by fire intending to destroy, or knowing it likely to destroy, a building used as a human dwelling carries life imprisonment or up to ten years, and fine. Ordinary mischief under Section 324(2) carries up to six months, or fine, or both.

Entering property in another's possession is criminal trespass under Section 329(1) of the BNS when done with intent to commit an offence, or to intimidate, insult or annoy the person in possession. Lawful entry becomes trespass if the person unlawfully remains with that intent. Section 329(3) punishes it with up to three months, or fine up to five thousand rupees, or both.

Section 41 of the BNS extends private defence of property to causing death only against robbery, house-breaking after sunset and before sunrise, mischief by fire on a dwelling or a building used to keep property, and theft, mischief or house-trespass that reasonably causes fear of death or grievous hurt. The restrictions in Section 37 apply.

Under Section 201(3) of the BNSS, theft, extortion or robbery may be tried where the offence was committed or where the stolen property was possessed by the thief or a knowing receiver. Under Section 201(4), criminal breach of trust may be tried where the offence was committed or any of the property was received, retained, or had to be accounted for.

The limit depends on the punishment. Section 514 of the BNSS bars cognizance after three years where the offence carries more than one year but not more than three. Simple cheating under Section 318(2) of the BNS carries up to three years, so three years applies. Cheating under Section 318(4) carries seven years, which Section 514(2) does not cover.

A conviction by a Magistrate of the first or second class is appealed to the Court of Session under Section 415(3) of the BNSS (Section 374 of the CrPC). An appeal lies to the High Court under Section 415(2) where a Sessions Judge, or any other court, passed a sentence of imprisonment of more than seven years. A cheating conviction by a Magistrate therefore goes to the Sessions Court.

The IPC still governs a theft committed in 2023, so Section 303 of the BNS does not apply. Section 358 of the BNS repeals the IPC but preserves penalties and proceedings for earlier offences as if the Code had not been repealed. Under Section 531(2)(a) of the BNSS, a trial pending on 1 July 2024 continues under the CrPC.

The Madras High Court can quash it in Chennai, acting under Section 528 of the BNSS (earlier Section 482 of the CrPC) or under Article 226 of the Constitution. Section 528 saves the High Court's inherent power to prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice.

The High Court applies the categories listed in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal. They include allegations that disclose no offence even if accepted in full, uncontroverted material that discloses none, a legal bar to the proceeding, allegations too absurd to act on, and a manifestly mala fide proceeding. The source of power is Section 528 of the BNSS (earlier Section 482 of the CrPC), and the list is illustrative.

No. A pending petition under Section 528 of the BNSS (earlier Section 482 of the CrPC) does not halt the investigation by itself. The police have a statutory right and duty to investigate a cognizable offence, and Neeharika Infrastructure holds that a stay or a 'no coercive steps' order is for exceptional cases only. The accused has to obtain that order from the court.

No. A civil remedy or a pending civil dispute is not by itself a ground to quash a cheating case under Section 318 of the BNS (earlier Section 420 of the IPC). Under Indian Oil Corporation v. NEPC India, the High Court asks whether the complaint discloses an offence. A breach of contract amounts to cheating only if dishonest intention existed at the start of the transaction.

It can, depending on the facts. Under Section 528 of the BNSS (earlier Section 482 of the CrPC), Gian Singh v. State of Punjab lets the High Court quash cruelty proceedings under Section 85 of the BNS (earlier Section 498A of the IPC) after a full settlement of a matrimonial dispute, if the wrong is basically private and conviction is remote. The court still weighs the gravity of the offence.

Compounding under Section 359 of the BNSS (earlier Section 320 of the CrPC) works only for the offences that section lists. Quashing on settlement under Section 528 is a separate power. Gian Singh held that the High Court may use it even for a non-compoundable offence where continuing the case would be futile, but not for serious offences such as murder, rape and dacoity.

Yes. Section 147 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 makes every offence under the Act compoundable, including Section 138. Sanjabij Tari (2025) sets the cost: none before defence evidence is recorded, 5 per cent of the cheque amount before judgment, 7.5 per cent in revision or appeal before the Sessions Court or High Court, and 10 per cent before the Supreme Court. Compounding is possible even after conviction.

Yes, in some cases. A petition under Section 528 of the BNSS (earlier Section 482 of the CrPC) can seek to quash an FIR, a complaint or the whole criminal proceeding, and the file may include the charge sheet. One Bhajan Lal category covers cases where the uncontroverted allegations and the evidence collected disclose no offence.

A revision under Section 438 of the BNSS (earlier Section 397 of the CrPC) asks the High Court or a Sessions Judge to examine the correctness, legality or propriety of a finding, sentence or order of an inferior criminal court, and it does not lie against interlocutory orders. A Section 528 petition invokes the High Court's inherent power to prevent abuse of process and can seek to quash an FIR.

Yes, in an appropriate case. A petition under Section 528 of the BNSS (earlier Section 482 of the CrPC) can seek to quash a complaint as well as an FIR. After process issues on a private complaint, the summoning order can be tested for application of mind and for the hearing that the first proviso to Section 223(1) requires, and the remedy usually lies before the High Court.

Not as a matter of course. The High Court can stay an investigation or order 'no coercive steps' only in exceptional cases, as Neeharika Infrastructure held on petitions under Section 528 of the BNSS (earlier Section 482 of the CrPC). Any such order needs brief reasons and must say what 'no coercive steps' means. The accused may instead be directed to seek anticipatory bail under Section 482 of the BNSS.

Section 528 of the BNSS (earlier Section 482 of the CrPC) saves the High Court's inherent power to make orders needed to give effect to any order under the Sanhita, to prevent abuse of the process of any court, or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. Gian Singh v. State of Punjab describes the power as wide and to be used with great caution.

It can be, but the Supreme Court has asked High Courts to be slow. In Shaurabh Kumar Tripathi v. Vidhi Rawal (2025) it said that proceedings under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 should not readily be quashed, because the respondent cannot be sentenced to imprisonment or fine in them. Breach of a protection order is an offence under Section 31.

No, not on settlement alone. Gian Singh v. State of Punjab says settlement can have no legal sanction in serious offences such as murder, rape and dacoity, and in other offences of mental depravity. The High Court's power under Section 528 of the BNSS (earlier Section 482 of the CrPC) to quash on settlement is for offences that are predominantly civil or private in character.

A typical file for a quashing petition under Section 528 of the BNSS (earlier Section 482 of the CrPC) holds a certified or downloaded copy of the FIR, complaint or charge sheet. In a commercial dispute it adds contracts, invoices, correspondence and records of any civil suit or arbitration. If the parties settled, it adds the written terms and proof they were carried out, with any earlier bail orders.

Either can, depending on the order. Under Section 438 of the BNSS (earlier Section 397 of the CrPC), the High Court or a Sessions Judge may call for the record of an inferior criminal court to examine the legality or propriety of an order. The CrPC barred revision of interlocutory orders and a second revision by the same person before the other court.

The High Court can quash it under Section 528 of the BNSS (earlier Section 482 of the CrPC) when the dispute is essentially private and commercial and the complainant has settled, as Gian Singh v. State of Punjab allows for commercial offences like Section 316 of the BNS (earlier Section 406 of the IPC). Repayment alone does not decide it, since Parbatbhai Aahir treats economic offences with wider impact differently.

Section 3(1) of the SC/ST Act lists acts committed by a person who is not a member of a Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe against a member. They include forcing a member to eat an obnoxious substance, wrongful occupation of land, forced labour, manual scavenging, abuse by caste name in public view, and denying access to a place of public resort.

Both are offences if the accused is not a member of a Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe. Section 3(1)(s) covers abusing a member by caste name in any place within public view. Section 3(1)(r) separately covers intentionally insulting or intimidating a member with intent to humiliate in public view. Whether the place was within public view depends on the facts.

No, on the wording of the section. Section 3(1) begins with 'Whoever, not being a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe', so the offences it lists are committed by a person outside those groups against a member. A dispute between two members therefore falls outside Section 3(1) on that wording.

Knowledge is an element. Section 3(1)(w)(i) covers intentional touching of a sexual nature without consent, and (ii) covers words, acts or gestures of a sexual nature, in each case towards a woman 'knowing that she belongs' to a Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe. The provision also says lack of physical resistance is not consent, and her sexual history does not imply consent.

Clause (w) of Section 3(1). Sub-clause (i) covers intentionally touching a woman of a Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe in a sexual way without her consent. Sub-clause (ii) covers words, acts or gestures of a sexual nature towards her. Both require that the accused knew she belongs to such a caste or tribe, and the accused must not be a member.

A charge is possible. Section 4 punishes a public servant who is not a member of a Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe and wilfully neglects duties under the Act, with imprisonment of six months to one year. The duties include registering the FIR under the right sections and filing the charge sheet within sixty days. Charges are to be booked on the recommendation of an administrative enquiry.

Anyone convicted a second time, or any time after, of an offence under Chapter II of the Act faces a minimum of one year of imprisonment. The maximum is whatever punishment is provided for that offence. Section 5 applies only to someone already convicted of an offence under the same Chapter.

Clause (f) of Section 3(1) covers wrongfully occupying or cultivating land owned by, possessed by, or allotted to a member of a Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe, or getting that land transferred. Clause (g) covers wrongful dispossession and interference with rights over land, water or irrigation. 'Wrongfully' includes acting against the person's will or without consent.

A presumption arises in one situation. Under Section 8(c), if the accused had personal knowledge of the victim or the victim's family, the Court presumes the accused was aware of the victim's caste or tribal identity, unless the contrary is proved. The presumption can be rebutted, and it does not arise where no personal knowledge is shown.

A preliminary enquiry is not required. Section 18A(1)(a) states that a preliminary enquiry is not required for registration of a First Information Report against any person under the Act. The provision applies to offences under this Act only. Section 4 separately lists registering the FIR under the appropriate sections as a duty of the public servant.

No. Section 18A(1)(b) says the investigating officer does not need approval for the arrest, if necessary, of a person accused of an offence under the Act. It adds that no procedure other than the one in the Act or the Code applies. The words 'if necessary' leave the decision to arrest with the officer on the facts.

In general, yes. Section 18 says section 438 of the Code does not apply to a case involving arrest for an offence under the Act. Anticipatory bail is now BNSS s.482, which replaced CrPC s.438 from 1 July 2024. In Prathvi Raj Chauhan (2020) the Supreme Court held the bar gives way only where the complaint shows no prima facie case under the Act.

Section 18A(2) says that section 438 of the Code does not apply to a case under the Act, 'notwithstanding any judgment or order or direction of any Court'. The words are aimed at earlier judicial directions. The subsection does not itself refer to BNSS s.482, the present anticipatory bail provision.

Section 14 provides for an Exclusive Special Court for one or more districts, set up by the State Government with the concurrence of the Chief Justice of the High Court. In districts with fewer cases, a Court of Session is specified as the Special Court. Both courts have power to take cognizance of offences under the Act directly.

An appeal under Section 14A must be filed within ninety days of the judgment, sentence or order appealed from. The High Court may accept a late appeal if there is sufficient cause for the delay, but no appeal can be entertained after one hundred and eighty days. The appeal lies on facts and on law.

An appeal lies to the High Court. Section 14A(2) provides that an appeal lies to the High Court against an order of the Special Court or Exclusive Special Court granting or refusing bail, despite section 378(3) of the CrPC. Section 14A(1) separately allows appeals on facts and law from judgments, sentences and orders that are not interlocutory.

Under Section 15A a victim or dependent has the right to timely notice of any court proceeding, including bail proceedings, and to be heard on bail, discharge, release, parole, conviction or sentence. The victim is entitled to fair and dignified treatment and can apply to summon documents or witnesses. The State must also arrange protection.

The Act gives that right. Section 15A(12) makes it the right of atrocity victims or their dependents to take assistance from non-government organisations, social workers or advocates. Section 15A(11)(m) also requires the State to specify a scheme for case briefing, trial preparation and legal aid. The section does not describe an advocate's role beside the prosecutor.

For adults, probation is excluded. Section 19 provides that section 360 of the Code and the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 do not apply to any person above eighteen years found guilty of an offence under the Act. The wording is limited by age, so the section does not on its face remove those provisions for a person under eighteen.

A presumption arises. Under Section 8(b), if a group of persons committed an offence under Chapter II and the offence was a sequel to an existing dispute regarding land or any other matter, it is presumed to have been committed in furtherance of common intention or common object. The text frames this as a presumption, and the section does not say how it is rebutted.

Section 20 gives the Act effect over any inconsistent provision in any other law in force, any custom or usage, and any instrument having effect by virtue of such a law. The override starts with the words 'save as otherwise provided in this Act', so a rule inside the Act itself can still prevail over the general override.

Under Section 21 the State Government must take the measures needed for effective implementation, subject to central rules. The listed measures include legal aid, travel and maintenance expenses for witnesses, economic and social rehabilitation, officers to supervise prosecutions, committees, periodic surveys, and identifying areas where atrocities are likely. The Central Government coordinates and reports yearly to Parliament.

The Special Court may do so. Where the Special Court is satisfied, on a complaint or police report, that a person is likely to commit an offence under Chapter II in a Scheduled Area, tribal area or identified area, it may order that person in writing to leave the area and not return for up to three years. The grounds must be communicated with the order.

Under Section 10(3), the person directed to leave an area, or anyone acting on that person's behalf, may make a representation within thirty days of the order. The Special Court may then revoke or modify the order, for reasons recorded in writing. Section 10(2) separately requires the Court to communicate the grounds with the order.

The Act gives the State that power. Section 16 is headed as the State Government's power to impose collective fine. It applies section 10A of the Protection of Civil Rights Act, 1955, so far as may be, to the imposition and realisation of the fine and connected matters. The conditions for imposing the fine are those in that section 10A.

No. Section 358(2) of the BNS says the repeal of the Indian Penal Code does not affect the previous operation of the Code, or any liability or penalty incurred under it. Proceedings for such an offence may be instituted, continued or enforced as if the Code had not been repealed. The BNS commenced on 1 July 2024.

An appeal against a conviction by a Magistrate of the first or second class lies to the Court of Session under Section 415(3) of the BNSS (formerly Section 374 of the CrPC). A Sessions Judge's conviction goes to the High Court, as does an appeal against a sentence of more than seven years passed by any other court.

Yes. Under Section 415(2) of the BNSS (formerly Section 374 of the CrPC), a person convicted by a Sessions Judge or Additional Sessions Judge appeals to the High Court. The seven year threshold applies to convictions by other courts, where a sentence of more than seven years sends the appeal to the High Court. A Magistrate's conviction goes to the Court of Session.

Generally no. Section 416 of the BNSS bars an appeal where the accused pleaded guilty and was convicted on that plea. A conviction by a High Court admits no appeal. Where a Court of Session or a first or second class Magistrate convicted, an appeal remains only on the extent or legality of the sentence.

For an appeal to the High Court, yes. Under Section 419 of the BNSS (formerly Section 378 of the CrPC), the District Magistrate or State Government directs the Public Prosecutor to appeal, and sub-section (3) says no appeal to the High Court is entertained without its leave. A complainant needs the High Court's special leave under sub-section (4).

For an appeal against conviction, the period is sixty days if it lies to the High Court and thirty days if it lies to any other court, such as the Sessions Court, counted from the date of the sentence or order. Article 115 of the Limitation Act, 1963 sets these periods, with thirty days for a death sentence. Acquittal appeals follow different periods.

A victim may appeal against an order acquitting the accused, convicting for a lesser offence or imposing inadequate compensation. The right comes from the proviso to Section 413 of the BNSS (formerly Section 372 of the CrPC), and the appeal lies to the court that ordinarily hears appeals against conviction from the trial court. A light sentence is not listed in the proviso.

Section 420 of the BNSS (formerly Section 379 of the CrPC) gives an appeal to the Supreme Court where the High Court, on appeal, reversed an acquittal and convicted the accused, and sentenced him to death, to imprisonment for life or to imprisonment for ten years or more. A reversal with a shorter sentence falls outside this section.

No. Under Section 418(3) of the BNSS (formerly Section 377 of the CrPC), when an appeal is filed against a sentence as inadequate, the Court of Session or High Court cannot enhance the sentence without giving the accused a reasonable opportunity to show cause against enhancement. While showing cause, the accused may plead for acquittal or for a lower sentence.

No. Filing an appeal does not itself stop the sentence. Under Section 430 of the BNSS (formerly Section 389 of the CrPC), the appellate court may, for reasons recorded in writing, suspend the sentence and release the appellant on bail or bond. The imprisonment is deemed suspended only while the appellant stays on that bail.

The appellate court must record reasons in writing before it suspends the sentence and releases the appellant on bail or bond under Section 430 of the BNSS (formerly Section 389 of the CrPC). Where the offence carries death, life imprisonment or ten years or more, the Public Prosecutor must first get a chance to show cause in writing. A deposit condition must not defeat the appeal.

No. An appeal exists only where the BNSS or another law gives it (Section 413). Revision is a supervisory power: under Section 438 of the BNSS (formerly Section 397 of the CrPC), the High Court or a Sessions Judge calls for the record of a lower criminal court to examine the correctness, legality or propriety of a finding, sentence or order. Section 440 gives the Sessions Judge those powers.

Generally no. Section 442 of the BNSS (formerly Section 401 of the CrPC) bars revision by a party who could have appealed and did not. A revision filed in the mistaken belief that no appeal lay may be treated as an appeal. The High Court also cannot convert an acquittal into a conviction in revision, and cannot prejudice the accused without hearing him.

Section 443 of the BNSS gives the High Court a power to withdraw or transfer revision cases, as its title states. Under Section 443(2), once an application for revision is transferred to the High Court, the Court must deal with it as if it had been made directly before itself.

Largely, but not entirely. Section 434 of the BNSS makes an appellate court's judgment final, except in cases under Sections 418 and 419, Section 425(4) or Chapter XXXII. Even after an appeal against conviction is finally decided, the appellate court may still hear an acquittal appeal under Section 419 or an enhancement appeal under Section 418 from the same case.

It runs concurrently. Under Section 467(2) of the BNSS, when a person already undergoing imprisonment for life is sentenced on a later conviction to a term or to life imprisonment, the later sentence runs concurrently with the earlier one. Section 467(1) makes later sentences consecutive unless the court directs otherwise for other prior sentences.

Under Section 458 of the BNSS, the court passing a sentence of imprisonment forthwith forwards a warrant to the jail or place of confinement and sends the accused there unless he is already confined. If the accused is absent when sentenced, the court issues an arrest warrant and the sentence starts on the date of arrest.

In defined cases, yes. Under Section 430 of the BNSS, a convicted person who satisfies the trial court that he intends to appeal must be released on bail long enough to file it, if he was on bail and is sentenced to not more than three years or convicted of a bailable offence, unless there are special reasons to refuse. The sentence is deemed suspended during that bail.

Yes. Section 415(4) of the BNSS requires an appeal against a sentence passed under Section 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 70 or 71 of the BNS to be disposed of within six months from the date of filing. Section 418(4) sets the same six month period for a State appeal against such a sentence on the ground of inadequacy.

Yes. Under Section 473(1) of the BNSS, the appropriate Government may at any time suspend the execution of a sentence or remit the whole or any part of the punishment, with or without conditions the person accepts. If a condition is not fulfilled, the Government may cancel the remission and the person can be arrested and made to serve the unexpired portion.

The appropriate Government, which is the Central or State Government depending on the law behind the sentence, commutes under Section 474 of the BNSS, without the person's consent. Commutation replaces a punishment with a lesser one, such as death with life imprisonment. Remission under Section 473 remits the whole or part of the punishment, and may carry conditions the person accepts.

Section 5 of the BNS lets the appropriate Government commute any punishment under the Sanhita to another punishment without the offender's consent, in accordance with Section 474 of the BNSS. The appropriate Government is the Central Government where the offence is against a law on a matter of Union executive power, and the State Government within which the offender is sentenced where it concerns a State matter.

Yes. Section 475 of the BNSS overrides Section 473. Where life imprisonment is imposed for an offence that has death as one of its punishments, or a death sentence has been commuted to life, the person cannot be released from prison unless he has served at least fourteen years of imprisonment.

Section 104 of the BNS punishes a person who commits murder while under a sentence of imprisonment for life with death or with imprisonment for life. In this section, imprisonment for life means the remainder of that person's natural life. It is separate from Section 103, which is the general punishment for murder.

The CrPC governs it. Section 531(2)(a) of the BNSS provides that an appeal, application, trial, inquiry or investigation pending immediately before the Sanhita came into force on 1 July 2024 is disposed of under the CrPC as it stood then. The test is what was pending on that date, not when the offence happened.

Yes. Under Section 258 of the BNSS, if the accused is convicted in a sessions trial, the Judge must hear him on the question of sentence before passing sentence, unless the case is dealt with under Section 401. The same section requires judgment within thirty days of the end of arguments, extendable to forty-five days for reasons recorded in writing.

No. The police report under Section 193 BNSS only places the material before the court. The Judge decides the charge under Section 251 after considering the record and documents and hearing both sides. If there is not sufficient ground to proceed, the accused is discharged under Section 250. A charge follows only where there is ground for presuming that an offence was committed.

Yes, for an offence triable exclusively by the Court of Session. Section 251(1)(b) BNSS (earlier Section 228 CrPC) requires the Judge to frame the charge in writing within sixty days from the date of first hearing on charge. For a warrant-case before a Magistrate on a police report, Section 263 also allows sixty days from the first hearing on charge.

Yes. Section 250 BNSS (earlier Section 227 CrPC) lets the accused apply for discharge within sixty days from the date of commitment under Section 232. The Judge considers the record and documents and hears the accused and the prosecution. If there is not sufficient ground for proceeding, the Judge discharges the accused and records reasons. Otherwise the case moves to framing of charge under Section 251.

A Magistrate commits a case when the accused appears or is brought before him and the offence appears triable exclusively by the Court of Session. Under Section 232 BNSS (earlier Section 209 CrPC) he first complies with Section 230 or 231, then commits the case and sends the record. Committal must be completed within ninety days of cognizance, extendable to one hundred and eighty days for recorded reasons.

The Magistrate must give the accused, free of cost and within fourteen days of production or appearance, the police report, the FIR under Section 173, the statements of prosecution witnesses under Section 180(3), any confessions and statements under Section 183, and other documents forwarded with the report. Section 230 BNSS (earlier Section 207 CrPC) applies to cases begun on a police report. A represented victim also receives copies.

The Judge considers the record of the case and the documents sent with it, and hears the accused and the prosecution. Under Sections 250 and 251 BNSS (earlier Sections 227 and 228 CrPC), a charge follows only if the Judge is of opinion that there is ground for presuming that the accused committed an offence. Otherwise the accused is discharged and reasons are recorded.

A Public Prosecutor conducts it. Section 248 BNSS provides that in every trial before a Court of Session the prosecution shall be conducted by a Public Prosecutor. The section applies to sessions trials only. Its text speaks of the Public Prosecutor and does not itself deal with assistance by a private advocate for the victim or complainant.

A warrant-case relates to an offence punishable with death, life imprisonment or imprisonment above two years (Section 2 BNSS); every other case is a summons-case. In a summons-case the Magistrate states the particulars of the offence and asks for a plea, with no formal charge (Section 274). In a warrant-case on a police report a charge is framed within sixty days of the first hearing on charge (Section 263).

A Magistrate can do so when, during a summons-case for an offence punishable with imprisonment exceeding six months, it appears that the interests of justice require trial by the warrant-case procedure. Under Section 282 BNSS he may then re-hear the case in the manner provided for warrant-cases and may recall any witness already examined.

Under Section 283(1) BNSS, the Chief Judicial Magistrate and Magistrates of the first class must try summarily theft, receiving stolen property and assisting its concealment where the value is up to twenty thousand rupees, plus certain offences under Sections 331, 351 and 352 BNS and abetment or attempt of them. Section 283(2) lets a Magistrate try offences punishable with up to three years, for recorded reasons.

The High Court may confer on a second class Magistrate the power to try summarily any offence punishable only with fine, or with imprisonment up to six months with or without fine, and any abetment of or attempt to commit such an offence. Section 284 BNSS applies only if the High Court has conferred the power.

When the witness's examination is necessary for the ends of justice and attendance cannot be procured without unreasonable delay, expense or inconvenience, the court may dispense with attendance and issue a commission. Section 319 BNSS makes a commission mandatory for the President, Vice-President, a Governor or an Administrator. The court may direct the prosecution to meet the accused's expenses, including advocate's fees.

The defence. Section 142 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam defines cross-examination as the examination of a witness by the adverse party. Section 140 BSA leaves the order of examination to the law and practice of criminal procedure. Section 142 defines the stages only.

Yes. Section 348 BNSS lets any court, at any stage of an inquiry, trial or other proceeding, summon any person as a witness, examine any person in attendance though not summoned, or recall and re-examine a person already examined. The court must do so if the evidence appears essential to the just decision of the case.

A Court of Session or a first class Magistrate may try the witness summarily. Under Section 383 BNSS, this applies if, when delivering judgment or a final order, the court expresses the opinion that a witness knowingly gave or fabricated false evidence. The witness must first be allowed to show cause. The penalty is up to three months, a fine up to one thousand rupees, or both.

Yes. In a summons-case, Section 274 BNSS requires the Magistrate to state the particulars of the offence to the accused and ask whether he pleads guilty or has any defence. If the Magistrate considers the accusation groundless, he must record reasons and release the accused, and the release has the effect of a discharge.

An accused may apply within thirty days from the date of framing of charge, in the court where the case is pending. Section 290 BNSS requires a brief description of the case and an affidavit that the plea is voluntary and that the accused has not been convicted earlier of the same offence. The court then issues notice and examines the accused in camera.

Under Section 290(4) BNSS, the court examines the accused in camera to confirm the application is voluntary. If satisfied, it allows the Public Prosecutor or complainant and the accused up to sixty days to reach a mutually satisfactory disposition, which may include compensation to the victim. Otherwise, or if the accused was earlier convicted of the same offence, the case continues normally.

Section 289 BNSS excludes offences punishable with death, life imprisonment or imprisonment above seven years. It also excludes offences affecting the socio-economic condition of the country, as notified by the Central Government, and offences committed against a woman or a child. It covers cases on a police report or a complaint after process issues.

Yes. Section 335 BNSS allows this where an accused has absconded and there is no immediate prospect of arresting him. The court competent to try or commit him may examine the prosecution witnesses in his absence and record their depositions. After his arrest, a deposition can be used against him if the deponent is dead, incapable or cannot be found or produced without unreasonable delay or expense.

The court may declare you a proclaimed offender only where the offence is punishable with ten years or more, life or death and you fail to appear as the proclamation requires. Section 84(4) BNSS lets it do so after such inquiry as it thinks fit. The declaration is published like the proclamation. Trial in absence can then follow under Section 356.

Section 356 BNSS permits inquiry, trial or judgment in the absence of a proclaimed offender, but only after safeguards. The court must ensure, among other steps, two consecutive arrest warrants at least thirty days apart, newspaper publication giving thirty days to appear, and notice affixed at his home and displayed at the police station. An unrepresented proclaimed offender is given an advocate at State expense.

Yes, in some cases. Section 355 BNSS lets the Judge or Magistrate dispense with your attendance for recorded reasons if it is not necessary in the interests of justice, or if you persistently disturb the proceedings, but only if an advocate represents you. The court may direct your attendance later. Attendance includes audio-video means.

Section 398 BNSS requires every State Government to prepare and notify a Witness Protection Scheme for the State to ensure protection of witnesses. The section itself sets no eligibility test. Whether a particular witness qualifies depends on the terms of the scheme notified by the State concerned, which is not set out in the section.

Under Section 531(2)(a) BNSS, a trial, inquiry or investigation pending immediately before 1 July 2024 continues under the CrPC. The test is whether proceedings were pending on that date, not the offence date alone. Section 358 BNS preserves liability and punishment for offences committed under the IPC, so earlier offences remain punishable under that Code.

An association is unlawful under Section 2(1)(p) of the UAPA if its object is an unlawful activity, if it encourages or aids persons to undertake one, or if its members do so. It is also unlawful if its object is an activity punishable under section 153A or 153B of the Indian Penal Code. Unlawful activity covers secession, questioning India's sovereignty or territorial integrity, and causing disaffection against India.

Under Section 4(1) of the UAPA, the Central Government must refer a notification declaring an association unlawful to the Tribunal within thirty days from the date the notification is published. The Tribunal then decides whether sufficient cause exists for the declaration, as expeditiously as possible and within six months of the notification, and either confirms or cancels it.

A member of an association declared unlawful, whose notification has become effective, faces imprisonment up to two years and a fine under Section 10(a) of the UAPA. The same applies to anyone who attends its meetings, gives or solicits contributions or assists its operations. Section 10(b) imposes heavier terms where the person holds unlicensed arms or explosives and commits an act causing death, grievous injury or serious damage.

Yes, in one situation. Under Section 10(b)(i) of the UAPA, a member of a declared unlawful association, or a person who voluntarily aids its objects, who holds unlicensed firearms, explosives or other mass-destruction substances and commits an act resulting in death is punishable with death or life imprisonment and a fine. In other cases under clause (b) the term is five years to life.

Yes, Section 18 of the UAPA reaches conduct before a terrorist act is completed. It punishes whoever conspires or attempts to commit, or advocates, abets, advises, incites or directly or knowingly facilitates, a terrorist act or any act preparatory to a terrorist act. The term is not less than five years and may extend to life, with a fine.

Yes. Conspiring to commit a terrorist act is an offence under Section 18 of the UAPA. The section also covers advocating, abetting, advising, inciting, or directly or knowingly facilitating a terrorist act. The punishment is imprisonment of not less than five years, which may extend to life, and a fine.

Anticipatory bail is not available in a UAPA case. Section 43D(4) states that nothing in section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure applies to a case involving the arrest of a person accused of an offence punishable under the Act. Section 438 CrPC was replaced by Section 482 of the BNSS from 1 July 2024.

Section 20 of the UAPA punishes a member of a terrorist gang or terrorist organisation that is involved in a terrorist act with imprisonment up to life and a fine. Section 38 separately covers associating, or professing to associate, with a terrorist organisation with intent to further its activities.

Yes. Section 38(1) of the UAPA applies to a person who associates, or professes to be associated, with a terrorist organisation with intention to further its activities. The accused escapes liability by proving the organisation was not declared when he joined and that he took no part in its activities while it was listed. The penalty is up to ten years, a fine, or both.

Membership under Section 38 of the UAPA means associating, or professing to associate, with a terrorist organisation with intent to further its activities. Section 39 concerns support: inviting support beyond money or property covered by section 40, arranging or managing a meeting the person knows is to support or further the organisation, or addressing a meeting to encourage support. Each carries up to ten years, a fine, or both.

The Central Government adds an organisation to the First Schedule, or a person's name to the Fourth Schedule, by notification in the Official Gazette, and only if it believes the organisation or individual is involved in terrorism (Section 35 of the UAPA). Under Section 36 the organisation or an affected person applies to the Centre for removal. If it refuses, a review lies to the Review Committee within one month.

Section 43D(2) of the UAPA lets a court extend the investigation period from ninety days up to one hundred and eighty days. The court must be satisfied with the Public Prosecutor's report on the progress of the investigation and the specific reasons for detaining the accused beyond ninety days. The section also replaces the fifteen day period in section 167(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure with thirty days.

Under Section 43D(5) of the UAPA, an accused in custody for an offence under Chapters IV and VI cannot be released on bail if the court, on perusing the case diary or the police report under section 173 of the Code, finds reasonable grounds for believing the accusation is prima facie true. The Public Prosecutor must first be heard. These limits add to the Code's ordinary bail restrictions.

Under Section 45 of the UAPA, sanction is a precondition to cognisance. A court cannot take cognisance of an offence under Chapter III without the previous sanction of the Central Government or its authorised officer, or of an offence under Chapters IV and VI without the previous sanction of the Central or State Government. Sub-section (2) requires an independent review of the evidence and a recommendation before sanction is given.

In a section 15 prosecution, Section 43E of the UAPA lets the court presume the accused committed the offence in two situations. One is recovery of arms, explosives or other specified substances from the accused, with reason to believe similar substances were used. The other is expert evidence of his fingerprints or other definitive evidence of involvement at the site or on items used. The accused may rebut it.

Yes, an appeal lies to the High Court, within thirty days. Section 21 of the NIA Act, 2008 allows an appeal on facts and law from any judgment, sentence or order of a Special Court, other than an interlocutory order. The High Court may admit a late appeal for sufficient cause, but not after ninety days. A bench of two Judges hears it.

Every offence punishable under the UAPA is deemed cognizable, whatever the Code of Criminal Procedure or any other law says, under Section 43D(1). The Act then modifies other Code provisions for these cases, including the investigation periods in section 167(2) and bail under Section 43D(5).

No. The Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita came into force on 1 July 2024. Section 358 of the BNS preserves liability and penalties incurred under the Indian Penal Code and lets earlier proceedings continue as if that Code had not been repealed. An offence committed before that date therefore stays under the earlier law. Which provision applies depends on the date and facts of the alleged act.

The NIA can do so if the cheating offence is connected with the Scheduled Offence. Section 8 of the NIA Act, 2008 lets the Agency, while investigating a Scheduled Offence, also investigate any other offence the accused is alleged to have committed that is connected with it. Whether a cheating allegation is connected depends on the facts of the case.

The Central Government or a State Government makes the order under Section 3 of the National Security Act, 1980. Grounds are acts prejudicial to India's defence, foreign relations or security, or, for a foreigner, regulating presence in India. Sub-section (2) adds security of the State, public order and essential supplies and services. A State may authorise a District Magistrate or Commissioner of Police to use that power.

Under Section 8(1) of the National Security Act, 1980, the authority must communicate the grounds as soon as may be, ordinarily not later than five days from the date of detention. In exceptional circumstances, for reasons recorded in writing, the outer limit is fifteen days. The authority must also give the detainee the earliest opportunity to make a representation to the appropriate Government.

Under Section 10 of the National Security Act, 1980, the appropriate Government must place the case before the Advisory Board within three weeks from the date of detention. It places the grounds on which the order was made and any representation by the detainee. Where an officer under section 3(3) made the order, that officer's report under section 3(4) is placed too.

If the Advisory Board reports sufficient cause for the detention, Section 12(1) of the National Security Act, 1980 lets the appropriate Government confirm the order and continue the detention for such period as it thinks fit. If the Board reports no sufficient cause, Section 12(2) requires the Government to revoke the order and release the person forthwith.

Under Section 13 of the National Security Act, 1980, a detention confirmed under section 12 can last at most twelve months. The twelve months run from the date of detention, so confirmation by the Advisory Board does not restart the clock. The appropriate Government can still revoke or modify the detention order at any earlier time.