Court may alter charge
Section 239 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 deals with court may alter charge. Any Court may alter or add to any charge at any time before judgment is pronounced. The Act came into force on 01 Jul 2024.
(1) Any Court may alter or add to any charge at any time before judgment is pronounced.
(2) Every such alteration or addition shall be read and explained to the accused.
(3) If the alteration or addition to a charge is such that proceeding immediately with the trial is not likely, in the opinion of the Court, to prejudice the accused in his defence or the prosecutor in the conduct of the case, the Court may, in its discretion, after such alteration or addition has been made, proceed with the trial as if the altered or added charge had been the original charge.
(4) If the alteration or addition is such that proceeding immediately with the trial is likely, in the opinion of the Court, to prejudice the accused or the prosecutor as aforesaid, the Court may either direct a new trial or adjourn the trial for such period as may be necessary.
(5) If the offence stated in the altered or added charge is one for the prosecution of which previous sanction is necessary, the case shall not be proceeded with until such sanction is obtained, unless sanction has been already obtained for a prosecution on the same facts as those on which the altered or added charge is founded.
Section 239, The Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (Act 46 of 2023).
Replaces a provision of the Code of Criminal Procedure
CRPC 216 Court may alter charge 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 The repealed enactment still governs what happened while it was in force.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.
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.
-
Jasvinder Saini v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi)
Decided under Code of Criminal Procedure 216, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Judgment of Main Case order-8.pdf 2013-07-02. Crl A 819/2013. Thakur/Desai. DATE-CHECK flagged 2010-11-22 / 2010-10-28 (false positive from Rajbir citations); body is the named 2 July 2013 reportable. CrPC 216 power to alter/add a charge is unrestrained until judgment but cannot be used mechanically to add 302 to every 304B charge because of Rajbir; addition must rest on evidence. Orders adding 302 set aside; trial court may re-examine on the evidence (Hasanbhai). Map crpc 216 + BNSS 239 successor. Do not pad 302/304B (filled).
On this section: Successor of CrPC 216 (mapping.csv near-identical, score 1). The evidence-based alter-charge holding carries to BNSS 239.
-
Haji Mahboob Ahmad vs Kalyan Singh
Decided under Code of Criminal Procedure 216, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
The Supreme Court of India has the constitutional power under Article 142 to transfer criminal proceedings from one court to another to remedy procedural defects and ensure complete justice, even when the High Court has statutory power under Section 407 of the Criminal Procedure Code to do so. This power can be exercised when crimes that shake the secular fabric of the Constitution have allegedly been committed and the accused persons have not been brought to book largely because of procedural defects and the conduct of the investigating agency. The transfer does not violate Article 21 of the Constitution because the procedure established by law itself contemplates such transfers under Section 407 of the Criminal Procedure Code, and the absence of a non-obstante clause in Section 11(1) proviso of the Criminal Procedure Code distinguishes this case from cases where substantive rights are infringed. Additionally, criminal conspiracy charges already contained in a joint charge sheet cannot be separated from the accused persons by discharging them, and all offences committed in the course of the same transaction to accomplish a conspiracy must be tried jointly.
On this section: Power to add charges - the Court held that additional charges can be added under this section without conducting a de novo trial
-
Shantibhai J Vaghela vs State of Gujarat
Decided under Code of Criminal Procedure 216, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Commission of the offence of culpable homicide not amounting to murder under Section 304 IPC requires some positive act on the part of the accused as distinguished from silence, inaction or a mere lapse. Allegations of not carrying out a prompt search of missing children, delay in lodging formal complaint with police, and failure to take adequate measures to guard access from ashram to river, which are mere omissions, lapses and negligence, cannot make out a case of culpable homicide. Something more positive than a mere omission, lapse or negligence will have to be present to attract ingredients of Section 304 IPC, and such positive material is conspicuously absent in the FIR. In the absence of any acceptable material disclosing the commission of Section 304 offence, High Court was justified in exercising its jurisdiction to interdict investigation for that offence, though such power must be exercised sparingly and only when facts demand.
On this section: Power to add or alter charges; Court held that Trial Court retains power to add Section 304 charges if subsequent facts warrant such addition
-
Sujith Surendran vs State of Kerala
Decided under Code of Criminal Procedure 216, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
The power of a court to alter or add charges under Section 216 Cr.P.C is unrestrained provided such alteration or addition is made before judgment is pronounced and is supported by material evidence on record that has connection to the charges sought to be amended. The mere alteration of charges after conclusion of trial does not result in prejudice to the accused as sufficient procedural safeguards are built into Section 216 Cr.P.C and related provisions. Therefore, a court's decision to alter charges based on evidence recorded during trial cannot be interfered with unless it is shown that the court acted without any material or exceeded its jurisdiction.
On this section: Confers jurisdiction on all courts to alter or add to any charge framed earlier at any time before judgment is pronounced. The court examined the scope and procedure for charge alteration, holding that courts can exercise this power only when material evidence exists on record with connection to the charges sought to be amended.
-
Aaftab Unnisa Begum vs State of Telangana
Decided under Code of Criminal Procedure 216, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
At the stage of framing charges or considering discharge applications, the court should consider the allegations on face value based on victim statements and prima facie material without conducting a roving enquiry. Confessional statements of co-accused, while not substantive evidence, can serve as corroborative material to establish prima facie case for continuation of trial. The court's power to amend or add charges under Section 216 CrPC after framing charges is valid and does not prejudice the accused's right to fair trial, provided Section 217 CrPC is complied with for recall of witnesses.
On this section: Power of court to alter, delete, or amend charges at any stage after framing charges and till pronouncement of judgment
-
Pawan Kumar vs State
Decided under Code of Criminal Procedure 216, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Alternative charges cannot be framed under Section 302 IPC and Section 306 IPC simultaneously because these are distinct offences with different ingredients. The framing of alternative charges is permissible only when doubt exists as to the nature of the offence, not when facts are in doubt. When a trial court exercises its power under Section 216 Criminal Procedure Code to alter charges from Section 306 IPC to Section 302 IPC, it must consider the case diary and medical report, and must follow proper procedure to ensure the accused is not prejudiced and has adequate opportunity to meet the altered charge.
On this section: Power to alter or add any charge at any time before judgment is pronounced. Court may exercise this power when a case is made out from evidence, but must follow proper procedure.
-
Aarif Khan @ Sanu vs The State of Bihar
Decided under Code of Criminal Procedure 216, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
When a trial is ongoing and prosecution witnesses have testified that they were attacked and suffered injuries, the trial court does not act illegally or with perversity in refusing to alter charges from attempted murder and causing hurt to the lesser charge of extortion, particularly when the High Court should exercise judicial restraint and not examine the merits of witness depositions during the revision stage as such examination may influence the course of trial.
On this section: Alteration of charges - petitioners sought to alter charges from Sections 307 and 333 to Section 384 IPC; trial court rejected this application
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 239
What have the courts held on Section 239 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita?
Jasvinder Saini v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) (02 Jul 2013) is the leading judgment on this section among those set out below, though it was decided under CRPC 216, which this section replaced -- the court never mentioned this Act: Successor of CrPC 216 (mapping.csv near-identical, score 1). The evidence-based alter-charge holding carries to BNSS 239. Another 6 judgments on this section are set out below, 3 of them from the Supreme Court. They run from 2003 to 2023.
How do I find court cases under Section 239 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 239, section 239 BNSS, section 239 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita. People searching for it also type 239 bnss in crpc and 239 bnss act. Each opens the full list of orders on eCourtsIndia, where it can be narrowed by court, year and outcome. 7 reported judgments on this section are set out on this page, beginning with Jasvinder Saini v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) (02 Jul 2013).
What should I read with Section 239 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, and has it changed?
It carries forward CrPC 216 (Court may alter charge), so the judgments decided under that provision are the case law on this one.
When did Section 239 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita come into force?
Section 239 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, cited as BNSS 239, 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.