Evidence for prosecution
Section 267 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 deals with evidence for prosecution. When, in any warrant-case instituted otherwise than on a police report, the accused appears or is brought before a Magistrate, the Magistrate shall proceed to hear the prosecution and take all such evidence as may be produced in support of the prosecution. The Act came into force on 01 Jul 2024.
(1) When, in any warrant-case instituted otherwise than on a police report, the accused appears or is brought before a Magistrate, the Magistrate shall proceed to hear the prosecution and take all such evidence as may be produced in support of the prosecution.
(2) The Magistrate may, on the application of the prosecution, issue a summons to any of its witnesses directing him to attend or to produce any document or other thing.
Section 267, The Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (Act 46 of 2023).
Replaces a provision of the Code of Criminal Procedure
CRPC 244 Evidence for prosecution 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 The repealed enactment still governs what happened while it was in force.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.
-
Sunil Mehta vs State of Gujarat
Decided under Code of Criminal Procedure 244, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Evidence recorded during preliminary inquiry under Section 202 CrPC before the accused appears in court cannot be used to frame charges against the accused under Section 246 CrPC without fresh evidence being produced and recorded under Section 244 CrPC in the presence and with the opportunity of cross-examination by the accused. The accused has a fundamental right to cross-examine prosecution witnesses before charges are framed, as this right is essential for the accused to demonstrate that allegations are groundless and no case exists warranting framing of charges. The scheme and procedure of Chapter XV (dealing with complaints and preliminary inquiry) is distinct from Chapter XIX Part B (dealing with trial of warrant cases on private complaint), and evidence recorded at the preliminary stage cannot substitute for evidence properly recorded under Section 244 in the presence of the accused.
On this section: Magistrate must proceed to hear prosecution and take all evidence in support of prosecution in warrant case instituted on complaint
-
Sudarshanacharya vs Purushottamacharya
Decided under Code of Criminal Procedure 244, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
In criminal proceedings, while the right to speedy trial is a fundamental component of Article 21 of the Constitution, courts cannot prescribe automatic or mechanical time limits at the end of which criminal trials must be terminated and the accused acquitted or discharged. Courts must exercise discretion based on the totality of circumstances including the conduct of parties, nature of the offence, and whether allowing proceedings to continue would constitute an abuse of process. The inherent powers under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code may be invoked to quash proceedings only when the court is satisfied on material on record that continued proceedings would be an abuse of process or when ends of justice require it. In cases involving criminal breach of trust relating to institutional property, where the accused has engaged in delay tactics through repeated discharge applications and the complainant has demonstrated continued interest in prosecution, the continuation of proceedings does not constitute an abuse of process.
On this section: Provides for complainant to produce evidence before the magistrate. The court examined whether the complainant was given adequate opportunity to produce evidence.
-
S Krishnaiah vs B Mallika Rjuna
Decided under Code of Criminal Procedure 244, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
When a criminal complaint alleging theft is filed before a magistrate, the magistrate's primary duty is to inquire into the complaint and decide whether to take cognizance of the offense or forward it to police for investigation. The magistrate cannot entertain applications regarding the subject matter of the complaint (such as interim custody of seized property) without first taking cognizance of the offense. Furthermore, a magistrate cannot return seized property to the accused without proper inquiry into the criminal allegations, merely because the accused disputes ownership. The distinction between civil ownership disputes and criminal theft allegations must be maintained, and the magistrate's earlier finding of prima facie case of theft cannot be contradicted by subsequently returning the property without justification.
On this section: Prescribes procedure for cases instituted otherwise than on police report; the court noted the magistrate failed to follow these procedures
-
Rani vs Rakesh
Decided under Code of Criminal Procedure 244, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
When a Magistrate exercises discretion under Section 249 Cr.P.C. to discharge an accused due to non-appearance of complainant, such discretion being judicial in nature must be exercised reasonably and with utmost caution. The court should not automatically discharge the accused upon every instance of complainant's absence. Instead, the court must examine whether the complainant has actively pursued the case with dedication or attended casually. A single non-appearance, particularly when the complainant has been regularly appearing and pursuing the case, should not result in automatic discharge. The discretion must be exercised judiciously after thorough examination of facts, and not arbitrarily. An order of discharge under Section 249 Cr.P.C. is a final order amenable to revision before the Sessions Court, and the distinction between discharge under Section 249 and acquittal under Section 256 must be properly appreciated.
On this section: Evidence for prosecution in warrant cases instituted otherwise than on police report; cited to establish the procedural framework applicable to the present case
-
Mohan Lal Jatia vs Registrar General
Decided under Code of Criminal Procedure 244, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
A complaint filed by the Registrar General of the Supreme Court under Section 340 Cr.P.C. must be treated as if instituted on a police report in accordance with Section 343(1) Cr.P.C., notwithstanding the provisions of Chapter XV relating to complaint cases. Consequently, the trial shall proceed as a warrant trial case on a police report, and pre-charge evidence recording is not required when the investigating agency (CBI) has already completed its investigation and material is available on record. The procedure under Sections 245 and 246 Cr.P.C. (applicable to warrant trial cases on complaint) does not apply to such cases.
On this section: Provisions relating to warrant trial procedure in complaint cases; petitioner argued these should apply, but court rejected this interpretation
-
Ramesh Ajmani vs State of Uttarakhand
Decided under Code of Criminal Procedure 244, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
A party cannot raise a jurisdictional objection for the first time in a High Court application under Section 482 CrPC without having raised it before the trial court. Jurisdictional objections under Chapter XIII CrPC must be raised before the trial court at the appropriate stage, and only after exhausting remedies at the trial court level can such objections be raised in the High Court. The High Court will not exercise its discretionary power under Section 482 CrPC to quash proceedings based on jurisdictional grounds that were not raised before the trial court.
On this section: Recording of evidence in criminal proceedings; the court noted that evidence was recorded under this section before charge was framed
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 267
What have the courts held on Section 267 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita?
Sunil Mehta vs State of Gujarat (20 Feb 2013) is the leading judgment on this section among those set out below, though it was decided under CRPC 244, which this section replaced -- the court never mentioned this Act: Magistrate must proceed to hear prosecution and take all evidence in support of prosecution in warrant case instituted on complaint. Another 5 judgments on this section are set out below, 2 of them from the Supreme Court. They run from 2010 to 2024.
How do I find court cases under Section 267 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 267, section 267 BNSS, section 267 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita. People searching for it also type 267 bnss in crpc and ebc 267 bnss. Each opens the full list of orders on eCourtsIndia, where it can be narrowed by court, year and outcome. 6 reported judgments on this section are set out on this page, beginning with Sunil Mehta vs State of Gujarat (20 Feb 2013).
What should I read with Section 267 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, and has it changed?
1 other provision in this corpus refers back to it. It carries forward CrPC 244 (Evidence for prosecution), so the judgments decided under that provision are the case law on this one.
When did Section 267 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita come into force?
Section 267 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, cited as BNSS 267, 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.