Acquittal
Section 255 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 deals with acquittal. If, after taking the evidence for the prosecution, examining the accused and hearing the prosecution and the defence on the point, the Judge considers that there is no evidence that the accused committed the offence, the Judge shall record an order of acquittal. The Act came into force on 01 Jul 2024.
If, after taking the evidence for the prosecution, examining the accused and hearing the prosecution and the defence on the point, the Judge considers that there is no evidence that the accused committed the offence, the Judge shall record an order of acquittal.
Section 255, The Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (Act 46 of 2023).
Replaces a provision of the Code of Criminal Procedure
CRPC 232 Acquittal 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 The repealed enactment still governs what happened while it was in force.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.
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.
-
Ram Prakash Chaddha vs The State of Uttar Pradesh
Decided under Code of Criminal Procedure 232, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
At the stage of considering discharge application under Section 227 Cr.PC, the court must confine its consideration to 'the record of the case and the documents submitted therewith' (prosecution materials only) and determine whether a prima facie case exists based on grave suspicion emerging from such materials. Mere suspicion, supposition, or conjecture not founded on materials on record cannot justify framing charges. In cases of criminal conspiracy, there must be at least an allegation of agreement between conspirators; absent such allegation or evidence of agreement in prosecution materials, charges of conspiracy cannot be framed merely on basis of suspicious circumstances. The court is not a mere post office of prosecution but must exercise independent judicial mind to protect accused from frivolous prosecution, especially at pre-trial stage.
On this section: Provision for conviction after trial; uses positive terminology; distinguishes from Section 227 which uses negative terminology; court cannot exercise Section 232 powers at discharge stage
-
Nazeema vs State of Kerala
Decided under Code of Criminal Procedure 232, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
For the offence of robbery under Section 390 IPC to be established, the prosecution must prove either theft or extortion as a constituent element, and must also prove that the offender caused or attempted to cause hurt, death, wrongful restraint, or fear thereof in the course of committing the theft or extortion. When an accused is acquitted of the constituent offences (theft and administering poison/causing hurt), the derivative offence of robbery cannot be established against the same accused based on the same evidence, as the essential ingredients required for robbery are not proven. Logical consistency requires that if the foundational elements of an offence are not established, the derivative offence built upon those elements cannot be sustained.
On this section: Order of acquittal. The trial court did not record an order of acquittal under this section as grounds were made out to proceed with trial.
-
Dr. Padamsinha B. Patil vs Central Bureau of Investigation
Decided under Code of Criminal Procedure 232, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
While the right of an accused to examine defence witnesses is fundamental and ordinarily cannot be curtailed, the court has discretion under Section 233(3) of the CrPC to refuse such applications if made for vexation, delay, or defeating ends of justice. However, this discretion must be exercised judicially. The court cannot reject defence witnesses merely on grounds of delay when the prosecution has taken years to examine its witnesses. Critically, if the prosecution does not examine witnesses whose statements were recorded during investigation under Section 161 of the CrPC, and the defence alleges these witnesses were deliberately withheld, the accused cannot be deprived of the opportunity to examine them in defence, provided such witnesses have potential to throw light on the occurrence. The relevancy of evidence must be determined by whether it bears on the facts in issue or relevant facts under Section 5 of the Indian Evidence Act, not by whether it relates to the character or background of the deceased.
On this section: Relates to acquittal of accused; Section 233 applies when accused is not acquitted under this section.
-
Raziya vs The State of Kerala
Decided under Code of Criminal Procedure 232, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
When an accused kidnaps a child from lawful guardianship with the intent to employ the child for begging, and the evidence clearly establishes the participation of both accused in the kidnapping and employment of the child for begging, the conviction under Section 363A IPC and Section 24 of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2000 is justified. The sentence for such offences should be proportionate to the gravity of the offence, with consideration given to the role and culpability of each accused. A sentence of rigorous imprisonment for 10 years for the primary perpetrator (who is blind and engaged in begging) is appropriate, while a sentence of 5 years for the co-accused (spouse) may be more proportionate considering the facts and circumstances.
On this section: Acquittal of accused - Court found grounds to proceed against accused as no grounds for acquittal were made out
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 255
What have the courts held on Section 255 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita?
Ram Prakash Chaddha vs The State of Uttar Pradesh (15 Jul 2024) is the leading judgment on this section among those set out below, though it was decided under CRPC 232, which this section replaced -- the court never mentioned this Act: Provision for conviction after trial; uses positive terminology; distinguishes from Section 227 which uses negative terminology; court cannot exercise Section 232 powers at discharge stage. Another 3 judgments on this section are set out below, 1 of them from the Supreme Court. They run from 2015 to 2024.
How do I find court cases under Section 255 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 255, section 255 BNSS, section 255 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita. People searching for it also type 255 bnss in crpc and 255 bnss act. Each opens the full list of orders on eCourtsIndia, where it can be narrowed by court, year and outcome. 4 reported judgments on this section are set out on this page, beginning with Ram Prakash Chaddha vs The State of Uttar Pradesh (15 Jul 2024).
What should I read with Section 255 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, and has it changed?
1 other provision in this corpus refers back to it. It carries forward CrPC 232 (Acquittal), so the judgments decided under that provision are the case law on this one.
When did Section 255 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita come into force?
Section 255 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, cited as BNSS 255, 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.