Law and You >Procedural Laws > BNSS > Deciding Jurisdiction for Inquiry and Trial (S. 197 to 200 BNSS)
One of the foundational pillars of any criminal justice system is the jurisdiction of criminal courts—which determines the Jurisdiction for Inquiry and Trial based on factors such as the nature of the crime, the territorial location of the offence, and the status of the accused. Under the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), the principles governing criminal court jurisdiction have been largely retained from the CrPC, but with important structural reforms aimed at enhancing procedural efficiency, promoting victim-centric justice, and streamlining trials.
Understanding the scope, classification, and application of jurisdiction is essential for legal practitioners, students, and law enforcement authorities, as it lays the groundwork for determining which court can legally take cognizance of a case and conduct the trial. This article explores the concept of Jurisdiction for Inquiry and Trial under BNSS.
An inquiry is a preliminary investigation by a magistrate or court to determine if a crime occurred and if there’s enough evidence to warrant a trial, while a trial is a formal judicial proceeding conducted by a judge or magistrate to determine the guilt or innocence of the accused and concludes with a conviction or acquittal. Key differences include their purpose (fact-finding vs. judgment), the final outcome (discharge/committal vs. conviction/acquittal), and the strictness of evidence collection and procedures.
Jurisdictional Issues:
- Jurisdiction with respect to taking cognizance of an offence.
- Procedure for dealing with information/complaint beyond the jurisdiction of local police station or local court.
Jurisdiction with Respect to Taking Cognizance of an Offence:
Chapter XIV of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, consisting of Sections 197 to 200 deals the jurisdiction of the Criminal Courts in Inquires and Trials. The word ‘offence‘ is important. It means and implies that provisions of this chapter relating to territorial jurisdiction do not apply to proceedings like maintenance. This Chapter does not apply to proceedings conducted under Chapter IX, Chapter X and Chapter XI of BNSS.
S. 197 BNSS:
Ordinary Place of Inquiry and Trial:
Every offence shall ordinarily be inquired into and tried by a Court within whose local jurisdiction it was committed.
According to Section 2(n) of BNSS, “local jurisdiction”, in relation to a Court or Magistrate, means the local area within which the Court or Magistrate may exercise all or any of its or his powers under this Sanhita and such local area may comprise the whole of the State, or any part of the State, as the State Government may, by notification, specify.
It is the foundational principle concerning local jurisdiction. Section 197 BNSS, stipulates that typically, every offence should be investigated or tried by a court within the geographical area where it occurred. Thus, a magistrate within whose local jurisdiction the offence is committed is competent to take cognizance and to try the case. A magistrate has no jurisdiction to take cognizance of a case which has wholly been committed outside his jurisdictional limits. This proximity ensures the availability of witnesses, thereby benefiting both the prosecution and the defence. Moreover, dispensing criminal justice in the locality of the crime enhances the sense of social security. When the offence involves acts of omission, Section 197 BNSS mandates that the inquiry or trial be conducted by a court within the local jurisdiction where the omissions occurred.
In Emperor v. Ganga, (1912) ILR (All) 451 case, it was held that the jurisdiction of the Court to try an offence for which cognizance under Section 177 of CrPC (S. 197 BNSS) has been taken and the jurisdiction of the Court shall remain unaffected by any subsequent change in the territorial jurisdiction of the Court.
The word ‘ordinary’ means in normal manner and it is used here to determine that this provision is not imperative, and place of trial and inquiry can be changed. The territorial jurisdiction is a matter of convenience, keeping in mind the administrative point of view with respect to the work of a particular court, the convenience of the accused and the convenience of the witnesses.
General Rules for Jurisdiction can be summarized as follows:
- Where Offence Allegedly Occurred: The primary rule is that the inquiry or trial will be conducted by a court in the area where the crime is said to have taken place.
- Where Offender is Found: If the crime’s location is unknown or if the accused is found in a different area, the court in that location has jurisdiction.
- Subject to Code Provisions: This section is subject to other provisions within the BNSS, meaning there are exceptions and scenarios where the jurisdiction might vary.
In Nasiruddin Khan V. State of Bihar, AIR 1973 SC 186 case, where the petitioner was a member of Bihar Military Police. He left without intimating the officer and went home in Patna. He took a defence that headquarter of where he was working was in Kashmir and so no case can be filed in Patna, as it does not have jurisdiction. The Supreme Court held that the trial at Patna was not invalid. Therefore, his defence was treated as rejected and the Court said that there is no provision that case cannot be filed in Patna, it can be filed in Patna.
In Harjit Singh v. Union of India, 16th May 1994 case, the Punjab and Haryana High Court established that anticipatory bail may be granted by the High Court or Sessions Court possessing territorial jurisdiction over the location where the offence was committed.
S. 198 BNSS:
Place of Inquiry or Trial:
(a) When it is uncertain in which of several local areas an offence was committed; or
(b) where an offence is committed partly in one local area and partly in another; or
(c) where an offence is a continuing one, and continues to be committed in more local areas than one; or
(d) where it consists of several acts done in different local areas, it may be inquired into or tried by a Court having jurisdiction over any of such local areas.
According to Section 198(a) BNSS, Section 198 BNSS is applicable when it is uncertain in which of several local areas an offence was committed. Section 198 BNSS creates an exception to the ‘ordinary rule‘ engrafted in Section 197 BNSS by permitting the courts in another local area where the offence is partly committed to take cognizance.
According to Section 198(b) BNSS, in situations where an offence occurs partly in one local area and partly in another, it is permissible for the inquiry or trial to be conducted by a court with jurisdiction over any of the involved local areas. Similarly, if an offence commences within the jurisdiction of one court and is concluded within the jurisdiction of another court, either of the two courts may conduct the trial.
According to Section 198(c) BNSS, in cases where an offence is deemed to be continuing, persisting across multiple local areas, the inquiry or trial may be conducted by a court possessing jurisdiction over any of these local areas.
According to Section 198(d) BNSS, in instances where an offence comprises several acts conducted in various local areas, the inquiry or trial may be conducted by a court possessing jurisdiction over any of these local areas.
For example, a terrorist attack was planned in Delhi, money contracted was given in Noida, guns and grenades were supplied in Pune and the offence was committed in Hyderabad. Now in this situation, it is very difficult to find out the original place of offence as it involves various offences. Here, under Section 198 BNSS, the accused may be inquired into or tried by any court within whose local jurisdiction any offence was committed.
Note that a conspiracy to commit an offence is regarded as a continuing offence. For instance, while the offence of kidnapping from lawful guardianship is not considered continuing, the offence of abduction falls under this category. Additionally, offences such as travelling without a valid passport are also classified as continuing offences.
Therefore, a conjoint reading of these two sections would show that the rule laid down by section 197 BNSS is one of the general applications and governs all criminal trials held under the provisions of the Sanhita, subject to the exceptions provided in the Sanhita. Whereas section 198 BNSS governs the exceptions as are provided therein.
In Mangal Das RR v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1966 SC 128 case, the Supreme Court held that, if of any case proceeding were taken in wrong court or place and decision was given, then the case will not get dismissed only on the basis that the court was not having the jurisdiction. It is only being dismissed if both the parties were not having knowledge and filed a case in wrong court.
In Rhea Chakraborty v. State of Bihar, 2020 SCC OnLine SC 654 case, the Supreme Court commented: ” … Having regard to the law enunciated by this Court as noted above, it must be held that the Patna police committed no illegality in registering the Complaint. Looking at the nature of the allegations in the Complaint which also relate to misappropriation and breach of trust, the exercise of jurisdiction by the Bihar Police appears to be in order. At the stage of investigation, they were not required to transfer the FIR to Mumbai police. For the same reason, the Bihar government was competent to give consent for entrustment of investigation to the CBI and as such the ongoing investigation by the CBI is held to be lawful ….”
In order to attract the provisions of this section it would be necessary for the prosecution to aver that the offence was committed in one or the other local area of which it is uncertain. The section is a specific provision and not a general principle of law. This section is intended to provide for the difficulty that would arise where there is an uncertainty as to in which of the different areas an offence has been committed. The section cannot be invoked where there is no uncertainty as to the local area in which the offence has been committed.
S. 199 BNSS:
Offence Triable where Act is Done or Consequence Ensues:
When an act is an offence by reason of anything which has been done and of a consequence which has ensued, the offence may be inquired into or tried by a Court within whose local jurisdiction such thing has been done or such consequence has ensued.
Section 199 BNSS assumes that the accused has performed an act resulting in a consequence, and the accused is being prosecuted for the offence stemming from both the act and its consequences. The Section stipulates that when an act constitutes an offence due to actions taken and resulting consequences, the offence may be inquired into or tried by a court within the local jurisdiction where such actions occurred or where the consequences unfolded.
- Example 1: A sustains a wound within the jurisdiction of court X and subsequently dies within the jurisdiction of court Y. The offence of culpable homicide against A may be investigated or adjudicated by either court X or court Y.
- Example 2: A is threatened with harm within the jurisdiction of court X, leading him to deliver property to the threatening individual within the jurisdiction of court Y. The offence of extortion against A may be examined or prosecuted by either court X or court Y.
- Example 3: A was hit by a truck in Noida and died in the hospital of Gurugram. Here, the place of offence is Noida whereas the consequence i.e., death was taken in place in Gurugram. The offence may be inquired into or tried by any court of either area.
In State of A.P. v. Punati Ramulu, AIR 1993 SC 2644 case, the Supreme Court held that an absence of territorial jurisdiction will not prevent the Police from recording information about the cognizable offence and forwarding the same to the police station having jurisdiction over the area in which the crime was said to have been committed.
The expression ‘by the reason of which’ governs both the clauses, i.e. anything which has been done and any consequence which has ensued. If the offence is complete in itself by the reason of the act having been done and the consequence is a mere result of it, not essential for the completion of the offence, this section will not apply
S. 200 BNSS:
Place of Trial where Act is an Offence by Reason of Relation to other Offence:
When an act is an offence by reason of its relation to any other act which is also an offence or which would be an offence if the doer were capable of committing an offence, the first-mentioned offence may be inquired into or tried by a Court within whose local jurisdiction either act was done.
The section contemplates two offences, of which one category is designated as ‘the first mentioned offence’. The relation between the ‘first mentioned offence’ and the other offence referred to in the section is a logical relationship, not a chronological sequence. In other words either offence may be anterior in point of time. The principle underlining the section is that the act must be an offence by the reason of its relation to any other act which is also an offence.
Section 200 BNSS emphasises that when an act is an offence by reason of its relation with another offence or would be an offence if the doer is capable of committing that offence, then the first aforesaid offence may be inquired or tried by any court within whose local jurisdiction the offence was committed.
- Example 1: A charge of abetment may be inquired or tried either in a Court where the abetment was committed, or where the offence was committed through abetment.
- Example 2: A charge of receiving stolen goods may be inquired or trial where goods were stolen or place where goods were received by someone dishonestly.
- Example 3: In cases where an offence of cheating is committed by A by making a false representation to C, at place X, and by inducing C to deliver property to A’s abettor B at place Y, A and B can be jointly tried by either of the courts within the local jurisdiction where place X or place Y is situated. This possibility arises from the combined effect of Sections 199 and 200 BNSS.
Note that, if the criminal act for which abetment is given is not actually committed, this principle cannot be applied, and the offence of abetment can only be tried at the place where it occurred.