Evidence for defence
Section 266 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 deals with evidence for defence. The accused shall then be called upon to enter upon his defence and produce his evidence; The Act came into force on 01 Jul 2024.
(1) The accused shall then be called upon to enter upon his defence and produce his evidence; and if the accused puts in any written statement, the Magistrate shall file it with the record.
(2) If the accused, after he has entered upon his defence, applies to the Magistrate to issue any process for compelling the attendance of any witness for the purpose of examination or cross-examination, or the production of any document or other thing, the Magistrate shall issue such process unless he considers that such application should be refused on the ground that it is made for the purpose of vexation or delay or for defeating the ends of justice and such ground shall be recorded by him in writing:
Provided that when the accused has cross-examined or had the opportunity of cross-examining any witness before entering on his defence, the attendance of such witness shall not be compelled under this section, unless the Magistrate is satisfied that it is necessary for the ends of justice:
Provided further that the examination of a witness under this sub-section may be done by audio-video electronic means at the designated place to be notified by the State Government.
(3) The Magistrate may, before summoning any witness on an application under sub-section (2), require that the reasonable expenses incurred by the witness in attending for the purposes of the trial be deposited in Court.
Section 266, The Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (Act 46 of 2023).
Replaces a provision of the Code of Criminal Procedure
CRPC 243 Evidence for defence 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 The repealed enactment still governs what happened while it was in force.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.
-
Inspector of Customs, Akhnoor J & K vs Yash Pal
Decided under Code of Criminal Procedure 243, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
While the examination of an accused under Section 313 CrPC is mandatory in warrant cases and should generally be conducted personally, procedural flexibility may be introduced in special exigencies where personal attendance causes genuine hardship involving substantial expense or physical incapacity, provided the court has satisfied itself as to the genuineness of the hardship. However, when omission to put incriminating materials to an accused has in fact occurred at trial, the trial court must ordinarily eschew such materials from its consideration unless the accused is afforded opportunity to explain them, either during trial or by appellate-stage explanation. In this case, because the foundation of the prosecution case (voluntary confessions to Customs authorities) was not put to the accused at all, their acquittal could not be set aside.
On this section: These sections were cited to show that accused persons have the right to file written statements in various types of cases (warrant cases and sessions cases), suggesting that answers provided through counsel might be given credence in appropriate circumstances.
-
State of Punjab vs Hari Singh
Decided under Code of Criminal Procedure 243, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Where an accused is charged with possession of narcotic articles under Section 15 of the NDPS Act, conscious possession - meaning awareness of the nature of the article coupled with a deliberate or intended state of mind - is an essential legal requirement. In the absence of questioning the accused under Section 313 CrPC regarding this vital element of the prosecution case, the trial suffers from a serious procedural infirmity that cannot be cured by circumstantial evidence of physical possession alone, and the conviction must be set aside as violating the fundamental principles of natural justice and fair trial.
On this section: Section 243 enables accused in warrant cases instituted on police report to file written statements.
-
Krishnaiah vs State Rep. by
Decided under Code of Criminal Procedure 243, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
A trial court cannot impose exorbitant or unreasonable conditions on witness recall that economically disable an accused from exercising his constitutionally guaranteed right to cross-examine prosecution witnesses and defend himself effectively. The phrase 'reasonable expenses' in Sections 243(3) and 312 CrPC must be interpreted as a limiting principle, and witness batta must be restricted to actual travelling costs (appropriate class based on officer rank) and subsistence allowance (Rs.600/- per day for necessary days). Any condition that puts economic fetters on the right to cross-examination violates Articles 14, 21, and 22 of the Constitution and the principle of fair trial established in Maneka Gandhi. The imposition of costs to legal services authorities as a condition for witness recall is not justified and restricts the right of cross-examination.
On this section: Cited to establish that courts can direct deposit of reasonable expenses for witness attendance. The court emphasized the word 'reasonable' as a limiting principle, holding that trial courts cannot fix unreasonable amounts.
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 266
What have the courts held on Section 266 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita?
Inspector of Customs, Akhnoor J & K vs Yash Pal (06 Mar 2009) is the leading judgment on this section among those set out below, though it was decided under CRPC 243, which this section replaced -- the court never mentioned this Act: These sections were cited to show that accused persons have the right to file written statements in various types of cases (warrant cases and sessions cases), suggesting that answers provided through counsel might be given credence in appropriate circumstances. Another 2 judgments on this section are set out below, 2 of them from the Supreme Court. They run from 2009 to 2016.
How do I find court cases under Section 266 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 266, section 266 BNSS, section 266 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. 3 reported judgments on this section are set out on this page, beginning with Inspector of Customs, Akhnoor J & K vs Yash Pal (06 Mar 2009).
What should I read with Section 266 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, and has it changed?
1 other provision in this corpus refers back to it. It carries forward CrPC 243 (Evidence for defence), so the judgments decided under that provision are the case law on this one.
When did Section 266 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita come into force?
Section 266 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, cited as BNSS 266, 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.