Place of trial for offences triable together
Section 204 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 deals with place of trial for offences triable together. Where— (a) the offences committed by any person are such that he may be charged with, and tried at one trial for, each such offence by virtue of the provisions of section 242, section 243 or section 244; The Act came into force on 01 Jul 2024.
Where—
(a) the offences committed by any person are such that he may be charged with, and tried at one trial for, each such offence by virtue of the provisions of section 242, section 243 or section 244; or
(b) the offence or offences committed by several persons are such that they may be charged with and tried together by virtue of the provisions of section 246, the offences may be inquired into or tried by any Court competent to inquire into or try any of the offences.
Section 204, The Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (Act 46 of 2023).
Replaces a provision of the Code of Criminal Procedure
CRPC 184 Place of trial for offences triable together Text carried over almost unchanged 100%
Measured by comparing the text of the two provisions, not taken from an official correspondence table — there is no machine-readable one. See both texts side by side before relying on it.
Both regimes are live. The repealed enactment still governs what happened while it was in force. We never redirect one to the other.
Cross-references
Extracted from the operative text of the enactments themselves. Every destination below exists in our corpus.
Related judgements & precedents
These are some judgments that construed this section, and hold precedence value. They hold authority on how to read, interpret and use this section.
-
Kaushik Chaterjee vs State of Haryana
Decided under Code of Criminal Procedure 184, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
The question of territorial jurisdiction in criminal proceedings is a question of fact that must be established through evidence and cannot be decided at the transfer petition stage. The trial court, not the Supreme Court, is the appropriate forum to decide jurisdictional issues after evidence is led on the place of commission of the offence and other relevant factors enumerated in Sections 177 to 184 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Therefore, transfer petitions seeking transfer on the ground of lack of territorial jurisdiction must be dismissed, leaving it open to the parties to raise and have the trial court decide the jurisdictional issue during the trial.
On this section: Provides that cases involving multiple offences of the same kind or multiple offences forming the same transaction may be inquired into or tried by any Court competent to inquire into or try any of the offences.
-
Bridgestone India Pvt. LTD vs Inderpal Singh
Decided under Code of Criminal Procedure 184, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
After the promulgation of the Negotiable Instruments (Amendment) Second Ordinance, 2015, territorial jurisdiction for criminal proceedings under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, is determined by the place where the cheque is delivered for collection (i.e., the branch of the bank where the payee or holder in due course maintains the account) or where it is presented for payment (i.e., the branch of the drawee bank where the drawer maintains the account), not by the place where the cheque is drawn. The amended Section 142(2), through the non-obstante clause in Section 142A(1), overrides prior judgments and the general jurisdiction principles under Section 177 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, and applies retrospectively to cases pending before the amendment came into force.
On this section: Provision regarding consolidation of offences committed in a single transaction.
-
Bridgestone India PVT LTD vs Inderpal Singh
Decided under Code of Criminal Procedure 184, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
After the promulgation of the Negotiable Instruments (Amendment) Second Ordinance, 2015, territorial jurisdiction for prosecuting an offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, lies in the court within whose local jurisdiction the branch of the bank where the payee or holder in due course maintains an account is situated (i.e., where the cheque is delivered for collection), not where the cheque is drawn or where the drawee bank is located. The amended Section 142(2) and Section 142A(1) override the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, and prior judgments, including Dashrath Rupsingh Rathod's case, and apply retrospectively to pending cases.
On this section: Cited in the context of exceptions to the general jurisdictional rule when multiple offences are committed in a single transaction.
The holding above is the ratio decidendi as extracted from the judgment by eCourts India, reproduced unaltered — it is a rendering of the court's reasoning, not a substitute for its words. Read the order itself before relying on it.
Questions about Section 204
What have the courts held on Section 204 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita?
Kaushik Chaterjee vs State of Haryana (30 Sep 2020) is the leading judgment on this section among those set out below, though it was decided under CRPC 184, which this section replaced -- the court never mentioned this Act: Provides that cases involving multiple offences of the same kind or multiple offences forming the same transaction may be inquired into or tried by any Court competent to inquire into or try any of the offences. Another 2 judgments on this section are set out below, all of them from the Supreme Court. They run from 2015 to 2020.
How do I find court cases under Section 204 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita?
In judgments and charge sheets this section is written several ways, and each form finds a different set of orders. These search the full text of every order eCourtsIndia holds, best matches first: BNSS 204, section 204 BNSS, section 204 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita. People searching for it also type bns 204 section and bns 204 in ipc. Each opens the full list of orders on eCourtsIndia, where it can be narrowed by court, year and outcome. 3 reported judgments on this section are set out on this page, beginning with Kaushik Chaterjee vs State of Haryana (30 Sep 2020).
What should I read with Section 204 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, and has it changed?
Its own text turns on section 242 (Offences of same kind within year may be charged together), section 243 (Trial for more than one offence), section 244 (Where it is doubtful what offence has been committed), section 246 (What persons may be charged jointly), so none of them can safely be read on its own. It carries forward CrPC 184 (Place of trial for offences triable together), so the judgments decided under that provision are the case law on this one.
When did Section 204 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita come into force?
Section 204 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, cited as BNSS 204, came into force on 01 Jul 2024, having been enacted on 25 Dec 2023. It is in force as at the date shown on this page.
Other sections of this Act
- 359. Compounding of offences1355 words
- 187. Procedure when investigation cannot be completed in twenty-four hours1122 words
- 2. Definitions956 words
- 243. Trial for more than one offence930 words
- 35. When police may arrest without warrant881 words
- 480. When bail may be taken in case of non-bailable offence823 words
Source and method. Compiled from the enactments of Parliament and of the State legislatures as published on India Code, and republished together with commentary and other original matter under section 52(1)(q)(ii) of the Copyright Act, 1957. Structured, cross-referenced and maintained by eCourtsIndia. Text as in force on 15 Oct 2026. This page is not a substitute for legal advice.