Acquittal or conviction
Section 271 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 deals with acquittal or conviction. If, in any case under this Chapter in which a charge has been framed, the Magistrate finds the accused not guilty, he shall record an order of acquittal. The Act came into force on 01 Jul 2024.
(1) If, in any case under this Chapter in which a charge has been framed, the Magistrate finds the accused not guilty, he shall record an order of acquittal.
(2) Where, in any case under this Chapter, the Magistrate finds the accused guilty, but does not proceed in accordance with the provisions of section 364 or section 401, he shall, after hearing the accused on the question of sentence, pass sentence upon him according to law.
(3) Where, in any case under this Chapter, a previous conviction is charged under the provisions of subsection (7) of section 234 and the accused does not admit that he has been previously convicted as alleged in the charge, the Magistrate may, after he has convicted the said accused, take evidence in respect of the alleged previous conviction, and shall record a finding thereon:
Provided that no such charge shall be read out by the Magistrate nor shall the accused be asked to plead thereto nor shall the previous conviction be referred to by the prosecution or in any evidence adduced by it, unless and until the accused has been convicted under sub-section (2).
Section 271, The Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (Act 46 of 2023).
Replaces a provision of the Code of Criminal Procedure
CRPC 248 Acquittal or conviction Text carried over almost unchanged 99%
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 The repealed enactment still governs what happened while it was in force.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.
-
Shiv Pal Singh Chouhan vs The State of Madhya Pradesh
Decided under Code of Criminal Procedure 248, 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: Acquittal or conviction procedure - Magistrate must either acquit, proceed under Section 325 or 360, or pass sentence according to law
-
Yanamadala Anil Chand vs The State of Andhra Pradesh
Decided under Code of Criminal Procedure 248, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Where a person has been acquitted in most criminal cases, has not been involved in any criminal activity for several years, and has no pending cases, the continuation of a rowdy sheet without any current justification may be deemed arbitrary. In such circumstances, the appropriate remedy is to permit the person to make a representation before the competent police authority (Sub-Divisional Police Officer) for closure of the rowdy sheet, rather than granting absolute mandamus, thereby balancing law enforcement interests with individual rehabilitation rights.
On this section: Applied in context of acquittal in criminal case Cr.No.156/98
-
Diya Chandrayudu vs State of A.p
Decided under Code of Criminal Procedure 248, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
When a criminal revision case is filed against concurrent findings of two courts below (trial court and appellate court), the High Court will not interfere unless there are compelling reasons to do so. In cases involving recovery of stolen property with consistent witness testimony and proper identification by the victims, the conviction under Section 411 IPC is sustainable even if the test identification parade is conducted by a non-specialized officer like an Assistant Panchayat Secretary, provided the evidence is credible and corroborated by multiple witnesses. The credibility of witnesses, particularly mediators and investigating officers, should be assessed based on their testimony, demeanor, and whether they have any motive to falsely support the prosecution.
On this section: Conviction and sentencing procedure - the trial court convicted the accused under this section.
-
State Government vs velu and 2 others
Decided under Code of Criminal Procedure 248, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
In a criminal trial, the prosecution bears the burden of proving the guilt of the accused beyond any reasonable doubt. When the evidence of interested witnesses (related to the injured person) is inconsistent regarding the place of occurrence, the weapons used, and the specific injuries caused by each accused, and when there is no independent corroborating evidence or independent eye witness, and when there is unexplained delay in registration of the First Information Report, the court must give the benefit of doubt to the accused and acquit them. The cardinal principle that guilt must be proved beyond reasonable doubt cannot be compromised by circumstantial evidence or interested witness testimony alone.
On this section: Acquittal of accused. Court applied this section to acquit all three accused persons.
-
State of Odisha vs Pramod Padhi and others
Decided under Code of Criminal Procedure 248, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
When the informant and all injured victims do not support the prosecution case, do not depose any incriminating material against the accused, and state that the matter has been amicably settled, the prosecution fails to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. An FIR is corroborative evidence, not substantive evidence, and its contents must be proved through strong evidence adduced in court. In the absence of such evidence and when the complainant herself does not want to proceed with the case, the accused persons must be acquitted as the prosecution has failed to discharge its burden of proof.
On this section: Acquittal of accused persons when prosecution fails to prove charges
-
Soraba Police vs Nagaraj M H
Decided under Code of Criminal Procedure 248, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
When the sole witness in a criminal case (the complainant himself) testifies in a manner contradictory to the prosecution's case and fails to identify the accused or support the charges, and when the prosecution fails to produce sufficient corroborating evidence, the accused is entitled to acquittal as the prosecution has not discharged its burden of proving the charges beyond reasonable doubt.
On this section: Authority for acquittal and discharge of accused when prosecution fails to prove charges. Court exercised this power to acquit the accused.
-
P.S., Women, Khammam vs Patan Jakeer Hussain A1
Decided under Code of Criminal Procedure 248, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Mere general statements of harassment without describing specific overt acts, times, or nature of cruelty are insufficient to hold an accused guilty under Section 498-A IPC.
On this section: Order of acquittal.
-
State 430 IPC vs Onkar Supdu SonawaneKoli
Decided under Code of Criminal Procedure 248, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
When all prosecution witnesses are declared hostile by the prosecution itself and fail to support the prosecution's case, and when the complainant is not examined as a witness, the prosecution cannot discharge its burden of proving the accused's guilt beyond reasonable doubt. In such circumstances, the accused must be acquitted under CrPC Section 248(1), as the benefit of doubt must go to the accused.
On this section: Acquittal of accused when prosecution fails to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt
-
Dongri Police stn. vs Atik Ahmed Iliyas Ahmed Shaikh USec. 483, 485, 486 IPC
Decided under Code of Criminal Procedure 248, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
To secure conviction under Sections 483, 485, 486, 487 of IPC and Sections 103, 104 of Trade Mark Act and Section 63 of Copyright Act, the prosecution must prove: (1) that the trade mark or copyright is registered with statutory authorities; (2) that the property was properly seized from the accused with adherence to procedural requirements including panch witness corroboration and accused's signature on seizure memo; (3) that the accused was present and identified at the time of seizure; (4) that the property was properly labeled, numbered and sealed; (5) that specific individuals were deceived and induced to purchase duplicate products; and (6) that the accused was involved in making or possessing counterfeit marks or instruments. Failure to prove any of these essential ingredients results in acquittal.
On this section: Acquittal - Court applied this section to acquit the accused when prosecution failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt
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 271
What have the courts held on Section 271 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita?
Shiv Pal Singh Chouhan vs The State of Madhya Pradesh (20 Sep 2023) is the leading judgment on this section among those set out below, though it was decided under CRPC 248, which this section replaced -- the court never mentioned this Act: Acquittal or conviction procedure - Magistrate must either acquit, proceed under Section 325 or 360, or pass sentence according to law. Another 8 judgments on this section are set out below. They run from 2012 to 2024.
How do I find court cases under Section 271 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 271, section 271 BNSS, section 271 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita. People searching for it also type bnss 271(1) and bnss 271 2. Each opens the full list of orders on eCourtsIndia, where it can be narrowed by court, year and outcome. 9 reported judgments on this section are set out on this page, beginning with Shiv Pal Singh Chouhan vs The State of Madhya Pradesh (20 Sep 2023).
What should I read with Section 271 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, and has it changed?
Its own text turns on section 234 (Contents of charge), section 364 (Procedure when Magistrate cannot pass sentence sufficiently severe), section 401 (Order to release on probation of good conduct or after admonition), so none of them can safely be read on its own. It carries forward CrPC 248 (Acquittal or conviction), so the judgments decided under that provision are the case law on this one.
When did Section 271 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita come into force?
Section 271 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, cited as BNSS 271, 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.