Law and You >Procedural Laws > BNSS > Place of Trial in Case of Certain Offences (S. 201 BNSS)
List of Sub-Topics:
- Introduction
- Dacoity, Dacoity with Murder, Gang of Dacoits and Escaping from Custody (S. 201(1))
- Kidnapping or Abduction (S. 201(2))
- Theft, Extortion or Robbery (S. 201(3))
- Criminal Misappropriation or Criminal Breach of Trust (S. 201(4))
- Offences Involving Possession of Stolen Property (S. 201(5))
- Conclusion
- Related Topics
Trial in Case of Certain Offences (S. 201 BNSS)
The Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) establishes the procedural framework governing criminal investigations, inquiries and trials in India. While the general rule is that an offence should ordinarily be tried by a court within whose local jurisdiction it was committed, certain offences require special rules because their commission may involve multiple places or circumstances extending beyond the location of the initial act.
Section 201 of the BNSS addresses such situations by providing special rules concerning the place of inquiry or trial for particular offences. It covers offences such as dacoity, kidnapping or abduction, theft, extortion, robbery, criminal misappropriation, criminal breach of trust, and offences involving possession of stolen property. The provision identifies alternative places where a court may exercise jurisdiction, depending upon the nature of the offence and the circumstances in which it was committed.
Dacoity, Dacoity with Murder, Gang of Dacoits and Escaping from Custody:
Under Section 201(1) BNSS, any offence of dacoity, or of dacoity with murder, of belonging to a gang of dacoits, or of escaping from custody, may be inquired into or tried by a Court within whose local jurisdiction the offence was committed or the accused person is found.
Thus, offences relating to dacoity, dacoity with murder, belonging to a gang of dacoits, or escaping from custody may be tried by a court where the offence was committed; or the accused person is found. This rule recognises that persons accused of serious offences such as dacoity may be apprehended in a place different from the place where the offence occurred.
For example, A, B and three others commit dacoity in Pune and then flee to Mumbai, where A is apprehended. The offence was committed in Pune, but the accused is found in Mumbai. Therefore, subject to the other requirements of law, a court in Pune or Mumbai may inquire into or try the offence.
Kidnapping or Abduction:
Under Section 201(2) BNSS, any offence of kidnapping or abduction of a person may be inquired into or tried by a Court within whose local jurisdiction the person was kidnapped or abducted or was conveyed or concealed or detained.
Thus, provision provides several possible places of jurisdiction for an offence of kidnapping or abduction. The case may be tried by a court within whose jurisdiction the person was kidnapped or abducted; was conveyed; was concealed; or was detained. Kidnapping and abduction can involve movement through several places. The provision therefore recognises each significant location connected with the offence.
For example, A kidnaps B in Nashik and takes B to Mumbai, where B is kept in a house for several days before being taken to Pune and detained there. Depending on the facts, the offence may be inquired into or tried by a court having jurisdiction over at Nashik, where B was kidnapped; at Mumbai, where B was conveyed or concealed; or at Pune, where B was detained.
Theft, Extortion or Robbery:
Under Section 201(3) BNSS, any offence of theft, extortion or robbery may be inquired into or tried by a Court within whose local jurisdiction the offence was committed or the stolen property which is the subject of the offence was possessed by any person committing it or by any person who received or retained such property knowing or having reason to believe it to be stolen property.
Thus, the provision provides jurisdiction in two situations. The offence may be tried where the theft, extortion or robbery was committed; or the stolen property was possessed by the person who committed the offence; or a person who received or retained it knowing, or having reason to believe, that it was stolen property. The rule prevents an offender from defeating territorial jurisdiction simply by moving stolen property from one place to another.
For example, A steals a laptop in Delhi and carries it to Jaipur. A continues to possess the laptop in Jaipur. The theft occurred in Delhi, while the stolen property was possessed by the offender in Jaipur. Therefore, a court in Delhi or Jaipur may have jurisdiction under this provision.
Another example, A steals jewellery in Mumbai and sells it to B in Pune. B receives the jewellery knowing that it is stolen. The offence of theft occurred in Mumbai, while the stolen property was received and retained in Pune by a person who knew it was stolen. Thus, the provision recognises a jurisdictional connection with both places.
Criminal Misappropriation or Criminal Breach of Trust:
Under Section 201(4) BNSS, any offence of criminal misappropriation or of criminal breach of trust may be inquired into or tried by a Court within whose local jurisdiction the offence was committed or any part of the property which is the subject of the offence was received or retained, or was required to be returned or accounted for, by the accused person.
Thus, the provision applies to criminal misappropriation and criminal breach of trust. The offence may be tried by a court where the offence was committed; any part of the property was received by the accused; any part of the property was retained by the accused; or the property was required to be returned or accounted for by the accused. Criminal breach of trust commonly involves property being entrusted in one place and misappropriated, retained, or required to be accounted for somewhere else. The provision accommodates these circumstances.
For example, A entrusts ₹10 lakh to B in Mumbai for a particular business purpose. B dishonestly misappropriates the money in Pune. The property was received in Mumbai, while the alleged misappropriation occurred in Pune. Therefore, the provision permits the relevant proceedings to be instituted before a court having jurisdiction over Mumbai or Pune, subject to the facts and other applicable provisions.
Another example, A company entrusts goods to its employee B in Delhi, requiring B to return or account for them in Jaipur. B dishonestly converts the goods for his own use. The relevant jurisdiction may arise in Delhi, where the property was received, or Jaipur, where it was required to be returned or accounted for.
Offences Involving Possession of Stolen Property:
Under Section 201(4) BNSS, any offence which includes the possession of stolen property may be inquired into or tried by a Court within whose local jurisdiction the offence was committed or the stolen property was possessed by any person who received or retained it knowing or having reason to believe it to be stolen property.
Thus, the provision deals with offences that include possession of stolen property. Such an offence may be tried where the offence was committed; or the stolen property was possessed by a person who received or retained it knowing or having reason to believe that it was stolen property.
For example, A steals a television in Ahmedabad and sells it to B in Surat. B receives the television knowing that it was stolen. The theft occurred in Ahmedabad, while the stolen property was knowingly received and possessed in Surat. The provision therefore allows jurisdiction to be considered in relation to both locations.
Conclusion:
The significance of Section 201 lies in its recognition that criminal conduct does not always remain confined to a single territorial jurisdiction. An accused may commit an offence in one place and subsequently be found in another; a kidnapped person may be conveyed or detained at different locations; or stolen property may be moved, received or retained in another jurisdiction. Section 201 seeks to address these practical situations by providing appropriate territorial links for determining the competent court.
A proper understanding of Section 201 is therefore essential for appreciating how the BNSS deals with territorial jurisdiction in offences involving multiple locations, movement of persons, or movement and possession of property. The provision seeks to facilitate the effective administration of criminal justice while providing clear statutory grounds for determining the place of inquiry or trial.