Cognizance of offences by Court of Session
Section 213 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 deals with cognizance of offences by Court of Session. Except as otherwise expressly provided by this Sanhita or by any other law for the time being in force, no Court of Session shall take cognizance of any offence as a Court of original jurisdiction unless the case has been committed to it by a Magistrate under this Sanhita. The Act came into force on 01 Jul 2024.
Except as otherwise expressly provided by this Sanhita or by any other law for the time being in force, no Court of Session shall take cognizance of any offence as a Court of original jurisdiction unless the case has been committed to it by a Magistrate under this Sanhita.
Section 213, The Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (Act 46 of 2023).
Replaces a provision of the Code of Criminal Procedure
CRPC 193 Cognizance of offences by Courts of Session Text carried over almost unchanged 95%
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 The repealed enactment still governs what happened while it was in force.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.
Referred to by 1
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.
-
Essar Teleholdings LTD vs Regr. Gen. Delhi High Court
Decided under Code of Criminal Procedure 193, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
When offences are committed in one series of acts forming the same criminal transaction, a Special Judge appointed under Section 3 of the Prevention of Corruption Act has the express authority under Section 4(3) of the PC Act to take cognizance of and try offences under the Indian Penal Code (such as Sections 420 and 120-B) against an accused, notwithstanding that the same offences would ordinarily be triable by a Magistrate, provided that co-accused in the same transaction are charged with offences specified in Section 3 of the PC Act. The application of Sections 220 and 223 of the Criminal Procedure Code permits such consolidated trial of co-accused charged with different offences arising from the same transaction, and the splitting of such trials would be incongruous and impractical. The High Court's Administrative Order and the State's Notification appointing a Special Judge for the 2G Spectrum cases were constitutionally valid exercises of authority under Articles 233-234 and Section 194 of the CrPC respectively, and cannot be collaterally assailed as they were premised on the Supreme Court's valid directions under Articles 136 and 142 of the Constitution.
On this section: Restricts Courts of Session from taking original cognizance of offences except when committed to them by magistrate or when expressly provided in law. Court distinguished this from Special Judge's powers under PC Act.
-
Girish Sharma vs The State of Chhattisgarh
Decided under Code of Criminal Procedure 193, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
While a prosecutor enjoys discretion in deciding whether to charge a person as an accused or cite them as a witness in a chargesheet, the court retains ultimate and final authority to take cognizance based on a balanced assessment of the interests of justice. In exercising this authority, the court must weigh: (a) the utility of the person as a witness in strengthening the prosecution case against more serious accused; (b) the interests of justice in summoning such person as an accused; and (c) whether summoning them as accused would jeopardize the prosecution case against the main accused. The prosecutor's decision to cite a person as witness is not binding on the court and can be interfered with when interests of justice so require. However, such interference must be based on a holistic consideration of all relevant factors, not merely on the existence of incriminating material. Additionally, the procedure under Section 306 Cr.P.C. (seeking pardon for accomplices) is not the only available procedure for citing an accomplice as a witness, and accomplices can be used as witnesses in appropriate circumstances without formal pardon proceedings.
On this section: Procedure for summoning additional accused in trial; cited by applicants seeking to summon three appellants as accused
-
Balveer Singh vs State of Rajasthan
Decided under Code of Criminal Procedure 193, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
When a Magistrate actively considers an application for cognizance, applies independent mind, and deliberately refuses cognizance of certain offences before committing case to Sessions Court, the Sessions Court can still take cognizance of those offences on a fresh application by the complainant, because: (1) Sessions Court is acting as court of original jurisdiction under Section 193 and cognizance taken by it is first cognizance for jurisdictional purposes; (2) The Magistrate's refusal order does not attain absolute finality that bars Sessions Court's revisional jurisdiction; (3) No valuable right accrues from such refusal order as it is not final adjudication on merits; and (4) Provided proper opportunity of hearing is given to the accused before Sessions Court takes such cognizance, the action is constitutionally valid. The distinction between Magistrate playing 'active role' (taking/refusing cognizance after hearing) versus 'passive role' (merely forwarding for commitment) becomes relevant when Magistrate has already actively decided against cognizance, but does not create an absolute bar.
On this section: Cognizance of offences by Courts of Session - requires case to be committed by Magistrate; Court clarified that Sessions Court takes cognizance 'as a court of original jurisdiction' meaning it is the first time cognizance is taken for jurisdictional purposes even if Magistrate had previously refused.
-
Loop Telecom LTD vs Regr. Gen. Delhi High Court
Decided under Code of Criminal Procedure 193, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Where co-accused in the same criminal transaction are charged with offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 as well as offences under the Indian Penal Code, a Special Judge appointed under Section 3 of the Prevention of Corruption Act has valid jurisdiction under Section 4(3) of the PC Act read with Section 220 and Section 223 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 to take cognizance of and try all accused jointly, including those charged solely with IPC offences. The Administrative Order of the High Court nominating a Special Judge and the Government Notification appointing such Special Judge are constitutionally valid exercises of authority under Article 233 of the Constitution and Section 3(1) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. The establishment of a Special Court to exclusively try cases arising from the same FIR and the same criminal transaction does not violate the Criminal Procedure Code or deprive the accused of valuable legal rights.
On this section: Imposes interdict on Courts of Session against taking cognizance of offence as court of original jurisdiction unless case committed by Magistrate, subject to express exceptions in Code or other laws. Court discussed this in context of Special Judge's power to take cognizance.
-
Vikash Saraf vs Registrar General Delhi H. Ct.
Decided under Code of Criminal Procedure 193, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
When co-accused are charged in the same transaction with offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act 1988, a Special Judge appointed under Section 3 of that Act has jurisdiction under Section 4(3) to try other co-accused charged only with Indian Penal Code offences (Sections 120-B and 420 IPC) relating to the same transaction. The application of Sections 220 and 223 of the Criminal Procedure Code permits consolidated trial of multiple accused charged with different offences arising from the same transaction. An Administrative Order passed by the High Court and a Notification issued by the State Government appointing a Special Judge to try all cases arising from the 2G Spectrum scam, including IPC offences, is constitutionally and legally valid as it falls within the statutory framework of the PC Act and Criminal Procedure Code and does not violate Article 14 of the Constitution merely by affecting appeal rights when there is no threat to fair trial. Supreme Court orders directing establishment of a Special Court passed under Articles 136 and 142 of the Constitution are binding and cannot be indirectly assailed through collateral challenges to the Special Court's jurisdiction.
On this section: Restricts Court of Session from taking cognizance of offences as court of original jurisdiction except when committed to it by Magistrate or when express provision exists in Code or other law. Court discussed this in context of Special Judge's jurisdiction.
-
Girish Sharma vs The State Of Chhattisgarh
Decided under Code of Criminal Procedure 193, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
The decision of a prosecutor to cite a person as a witness instead of charging him as an accused in a chargesheet is not final and binding on the Court. While Section 306 CrPC provides a formal procedure for obtaining pardon to examine an accomplice as a witness, it is not the only avenue available. The Court must ultimately decide whether to take cognizance by balancing the interest of justice - weighing whether the person should be charged as an accused versus their utility as a witness in strengthening the prosecution case against more serious accused. Mere existence of incriminating material is insufficient to mandate cognizance; the Court must consider broader prosecutorial strategy and the practical impact on achieving justice in the case.
On this section: Application by other accused seeking to summon Girish Sharma, Arvind Singh Dhruv, and Jeet Ram Yadav as accused in the trial; trial court rejected such applications
-
Suman vs State of Rajasthan
Decided under Code of Criminal Procedure 193, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
A person who is named in a first information report or complaint with allegation of committing a particular crime or offence, but against whom the police does not file a charge-sheet or drops the case, can be proceeded against under Section 319 Code of Criminal Procedure if from the evidence collected or produced in the course of any inquiry into or trial of an offence, the court is prima facie satisfied that such person has committed any offence for which such person can be tried with other accused. The non-filing of charge-sheet by police against such person is not a bar to invoking the jurisdiction of the court under Section 319 CrPC.
On this section: Cognizance of offence by magistrate; relationship with Section 319 discussed regarding taking cognizance of offence versus offender
-
L. Deben Singh vs Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI)
Decided under Code of Criminal Procedure 193, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
A cognizance order taken without prosecution sanction under Section 197 CrPC for an offence allegedly committed by a public servant in discharge of official duty is void ab initio and non-existent in law from its very inception. Consequently, when such void cognizance is set aside and the case is remanded for de novo committal process with proper compliance of legal requirements including obtaining prosecution sanction, the subsequent cognizance taken by the Sessions Judge after committal does not constitute double cognizance but is the first valid cognizance in the eyes of law. Therefore, the Sessions Judge's cognizance order dated 18.10.2019 is legally valid and does not violate the principle that cognizance can be taken only once.
On this section: Power of Sessions Judge to take cognizance. The court clarified that Sessions Judge can take cognizance after committal by Magistrate if cognizance has not been taken by Magistrate earlier.
-
L. Deben Singh vs Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI)
Decided under Code of Criminal Procedure 193, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
A cognizance order taken by a court against a public servant for an offence allegedly committed during discharge of official duty without prior prosecution sanction under Section 197 CrPC is void ab initio and non-existent in the eye of law from its very inception. Consequently, when such void cognizance is set aside and the case is remanded for de novo committal process after obtaining the mandatory prosecution sanction, the subsequent cognizance taken by the competent court after proper committal does not constitute double cognizance but is the first and only valid cognizance. The principle that cognizance can be taken only once applies within the framework of valid legal proceedings, and a void cognizance order is not counted as a valid cognizance for this purpose.
On this section: Power of Sessions Judge to take cognizance; court clarified that Sessions Judge can take cognizance after committal if Magistrate did not take cognizance
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 213
What have the courts held on Section 213 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita?
Essar Teleholdings LTD vs Regr. Gen. Delhi High Court (01 Jul 2013) is the leading judgment on this section among those set out below, though it was decided under CRPC 193, which this section replaced -- the court never mentioned this Act: Restricts Courts of Session from taking original cognizance of offences except when committed to them by magistrate or when expressly provided in law. Court distinguished this from Special Judge's powers under PC Act. Another 8 judgments on this section are set out below, 7 of them from the Supreme Court. They run from 2009 to 2024.
How do I find court cases under Section 213 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 213, section 213 BNSS, section 213 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita. People searching for it also type bns 213 section and 213 bnss in crpc. Each opens the full list of orders on eCourtsIndia, where it can be narrowed by court, year and outcome. 9 reported judgments on this section are set out on this page, beginning with Essar Teleholdings LTD vs Regr. Gen. Delhi High Court (01 Jul 2013).
What should I read with Section 213 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, and has it changed?
1 other provision in this corpus refers back to it. It carries forward CrPC 193 (Cognizance of offences by Courts of Session), so the judgments decided under that provision are the case law on this one.
When did Section 213 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita come into force?
Section 213 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, cited as BNSS 213, 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 14 Oct 2026. This page is not a substitute for legal advice.