Sentences which Magistrates may pass
Section 23 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 deals with sentences which Magistrates may pass. The Court of a Chief Judicial Magistrate may pass any sentence authorised by law except a sentence of death or of imprisonment for life or of imprisonment for a term exceeding seven years. The Act came into force on 01 Jul 2024.
(1) The Court of a Chief Judicial Magistrate may pass any sentence authorised by law except a sentence of death or of imprisonment for life or of imprisonment for a term exceeding seven years.
(2) The Court of a Magistrate of the first class may pass a sentence of imprisonment for a term not exceeding three years, or of fine not exceeding fifty thousand rupees, or of both, or of community service.
(3) The Court of Magistrate of the second class may pass a sentence of imprisonment for a term not exceeding one year, or of fine not exceeding ten thousand rupees, or of both, or of community service.
Explanation.---"Community service" shall mean the work which the Court may order a convict to perform as a form of punishment that benefits the community, for which he shall not be entitled to any remuneration.
Section 23, The Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (Act 46 of 2023).
Replaces a provision of the Code of Criminal Procedure
CRPC 29 Sentences which Magistrates may pass 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 The repealed enactment still governs what happened while it was in force.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.
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.
-
Ram Nath vs The State of Uttar Pradesh
Decided under Code of Criminal Procedure 29, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
When an act or omission constitutes an offence under both the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 and Sections 272 and 273 of the Indian Penal Code, the provisions of the FSSA have overriding effect over the IPC provisions by virtue of Section 89 of the FSSA. Therefore, prosecution should proceed only under the FSSA, specifically Section 59, and not under the IPC provisions. The FSSA being comprehensive legislation with exhaustive substantive and procedural provisions for dealing with food safety offences, including more stringent punishments and specialized procedures, is the appropriate and exclusive remedy for food adulteration and unsafe food violations.
On this section: Limits sentencing powers of courts; overridden by FSSA Section 79
-
B. A. Umesh vs Registrar, Supreme Court of India
Decided under Code of Criminal Procedure 29, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
In review petitions arising from cases where death penalty has been awarded, a limited oral hearing of a maximum of thirty minutes per side in open Court is mandated by Article 21 of the Constitution as a just, fair and reasonable procedure, as a distinct exception to the general rule established in P.N. Eswara Iyer v. Registrar, Supreme Court. This exception is justified because: (1) death penalty is irreversible and results in deprivation of the most fundamental right to life; (2) different judicially trained minds applying the 'rarest of rare' sentencing doctrine can reach diametrically opposite conclusions on identical facts; and (3) even a remote chance of deviating from an original decision in a death sentence case justifies oral hearing as part of a 'reasonable procedure' under Article 21. All cases in which death sentence has been awarded by the High Court shall be heard by a Bench consisting of not less than three Judges under Supreme Court Rules 2013 Order VI Rule 3.
On this section: Sentences which Magistrates may pass - subordinate courts expressly debarred from awarding death penalty
-
A. K. Vijaya Kumar vs R. Mohan
Decided under Code of Criminal Procedure 29, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
When a court imposes a sentence of imprisonment without a fine component under Section 357(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, it possesses the legal power and authority to award an alternative sentence of imprisonment in default of payment of the compensation amount ordered by that court, because (1) such power is necessary to give effect to Section 357(3)'s objective of ensuring victim compensation is not rendered illusory; (2) the absence of an enforcement mechanism with deterrent effect would frustrate the entire purpose of the compensation order; (3) Section 431 of CrPC puts compensation awards on par with fines for recovery purposes, and since Section 64 of IPC permits default imprisonment for non-payment of fines, the same principle applies to compensation; (4) the court may impose a reasonable compensation amount and provide reasonable time for payment, enforcing the order by imposing a default sentence, thereby ensuring both victim relief and proportionate deterrence against the offender.
On this section: Limits powers of Judicial Magistrate First Class to pass imprisonment up to three years or fine up to Rs. 5,000 (now Rs. 10,000); referenced in context of why compensation orders under Section 357(3) are necessary when loss exceeds fine limits
-
Ram Nath vs The State of Uttar Pradesh
Decided under Code of Criminal Procedure 29, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
When an act or omission constitutes an offence of food adulteration under both Sections 272-273 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 59 of the Food Safety and Standards Act 2006, the provisions of the FSSA shall have overriding effect by virtue of Section 89 of FSSA. Consequently, there shall be no simultaneous prosecution under both statutes; the prosecution must proceed exclusively under the FSSA framework which provides more comprehensive and stringent provisions for dealing with unsafe food offences. The IPC provisions for food adulteration are superseded by the FSSA for all food safety matters covered by the FSSA.
On this section: Limits jurisdiction of ordinary courts, overridden by FSSA Section 79
-
Shiv Pal Singh Chouhan vs The State of Madhya Pradesh
Decided under Code of Criminal Procedure 29, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
A Magistrate can forward a case to the Chief Judicial Magistrate under Section 325 CrPC only after hearing evidence for prosecution and defence and forming a reasoned opinion that the accused is guilty and deserves a punishment different in kind or more severe than what the Magistrate is empowered to inflict. The Magistrate cannot forward the case merely on the basis that the accused may deserve a heavier sentence without first hearing evidence and forming a reasoned opinion of guilt. The order forwarding the case must be a short but speaking and reasoned order referring to the evidence for prosecution and defence in brief. The opinion recorded by the Magistrate is not binding on the Chief Judicial Magistrate, who must pass a final judgment independently.
On this section: Sentencing powers of different Magistrates - Magistrate First Class can pass sentence up to 3 years imprisonment or fine up to 10,000 rupees
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 23
What have the courts held on Section 23 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita?
Ram Nath vs The State of Uttar Pradesh (21 Feb 2024) is the leading judgment on this section among those set out below, though it was decided under CRPC 29, which this section replaced -- the court never mentioned this Act: Limits sentencing powers of courts; overridden by FSSA Section 79. Another 4 judgments on this section are set out below, 4 of them from the Supreme Court. They run from 2010 to 2024.
How do I find court cases under Section 23 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 23, section 23 BNSS, section 23 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita. Each opens the full list of orders on eCourtsIndia, where it can be narrowed by court, year and outcome. 5 reported judgments on this section are set out on this page, beginning with Ram Nath vs The State of Uttar Pradesh (21 Feb 2024).
What should I read with Section 23 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, and has it changed?
3 other provisions in this corpus refer back to it. It carries forward CrPC 29 (Sentences which Magistrates may pass), so the judgments decided under that provision are the case law on this one.
When did Section 23 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita come into force?
Section 23 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, cited as BNSS 23, 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.