When attendance of witness may be dispensed with and commission issued
Section 319 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 deals with when attendance of witness may be dispensed with and commission issued. Whenever, in the course of any inquiry, trial or other proceeding under this Sanhita, it appears to a Court or Magistrate that the examination of a witness is necessary for the ends of justice, and that the attendance of such witness cannot be procured without an amount of delay, expense or inconven The Act came into force on 01 Jul 2024.
(1) Whenever, in the course of any inquiry, trial or other proceeding under this Sanhita, it appears to a Court or Magistrate that the examination of a witness is necessary for the ends of justice, and that the attendance of such witness cannot be procured without an amount of delay, expense or inconvenience which, under the circumstances of the case, would be unreasonable, the Court or Magistrate may dispense with such attendance and may issue a commission for the examination of the witness in accordance with the provisions of this Chapter:
Provided that where the examination of the President or the Vice-President of India or the Governor of a State or the Administrator of a Union territory as a witness is necessary for the ends of justice, a commission shall be issued for the examination of such a witness.
(2) The Court may, when issuing a commission for the examination of a witness for the prosecution, direct that such amount as the Court considers reasonable to meet the expenses of the accused, including the advocate's fees, be paid by the prosecution.
Section 319, The Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (Act 46 of 2023).
Replaces a provision of the Code of Criminal Procedure
CRPC 284 When attendance of witness may be dispensed with and commissionissued Text carried over almost unchanged 90%
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 The repealed enactment still governs what happened while it was in force.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.
-
Central Bureau of Investigation vs Sohan Lal Bishnoi
Decided under Code of Criminal Procedure 284, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
The inherent jurisdiction of the High Court under Section 482 CrPC cannot be invoked to interfere with a trial court's discretionary order declining to permit video teleconference examination of a witness in a sessions trial, where the trial court has exercised its discretion judiciously, in good faith, on correct and plausible grounds, and where the witness has merely expressed partial reluctance rather than outright refusal to appear, and where the reasons for non-appearance (professional inconvenience and travel expenses) are not substantial or genuine grounds for dispensing with personal presence of witness, particularly when the trial court has already issued summons multiple times and the witness has not specifically stated inability to visit India for compelling reasons.
On this section: Provisions regarding examination of witnesses. Referenced in context of alternative procedures available to trial court.
-
Sanjeeva Palan vs State of U.p.
Decided under Code of Criminal Procedure 284, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
A trial court, when faced with an application under Section 284 Cr.P.C. for recording evidence through commission or video conferencing, must exercise its discretion by carefully considering the peculiar circumstances of the case, including the age, health, language barriers, safety concerns, and relocation of witnesses, and must weigh whether any prejudice would be caused to the parties if such alternative modes are allowed. The court cannot reject such applications merely on the ground that the trial is pending for a long time or that the witnesses are suspected of being absconders, without considering the legitimate difficulties faced by the witnesses. The interests of justice require that courts balance the need for expeditious trial with the practical difficulties and vulnerabilities of witnesses.
On this section: Provides for recording evidence of witnesses who are unable or unwilling to attend court through commission. The court held that the trial court failed to properly exercise its discretion under this section.
-
Dr. N. Rama Krishna Raju vs Dr. T. Srinivasulu
Decided under Code of Criminal Procedure 284, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
The appointment of a private advocate (Advocate Commissioner) for examining a witness in criminal proceedings is impermissible and violates the statutory framework enshrined in Sections 284 to 286 CrPC. When a witness cannot attend court due to age, infirmity, or other reasonable grounds, the proper procedure is to approach the concerned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate or Chief Judicial Magistrate for appointing a Magistrate as Commissioner to examine the witness in accordance with the statutory provisions, not to appoint a private advocate for this purpose.
On this section: Provides that when examination of a witness is necessary and attendance cannot be procured without unreasonable delay, expense or inconvenience, a commission may be issued. The Court must satisfy itself that these conditions are met.
-
Sri K.krishna Kishore vs The State of A.p.
Decided under Code of Criminal Procedure 284, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
A revision petition is not maintainable when the petitioner has not first offered an explanation to the lower court's objection regarding the maintainability of an application, and instead directly approaches the High Court without exhausting the procedural remedy available before the lower court.
On this section: Provision allowing exemption from personal appearance and appointment of advocate-commissioner for examination - the core procedural provision at issue in this revision
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.
Judgments citing this section
These may be obiter dicta or a precedent, for you to study. These are the judgments where this section is quoted.
-
… The petitioners /Accused Nos.1, 3 and 4 were arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 23.01.2025, for the offences punishable under Sections 204, 205, 318(2) and 319(2) of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, in Crime No.25 of 2025 on the file of the respondent-police. 3. The case of the prosecution is that there was a case against the defacto complainant and his mother for selling ganja, and they are currently facing trial. While this was the situation, on 20.01.2025, …
Questions about Section 319
What have the courts held on Section 319 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita?
Central Bureau of Investigation vs Sohan Lal Bishnoi (22 May 2019) is the leading judgment on this section among those set out below, though it was decided under CRPC 284, which this section replaced -- the court never mentioned this Act: Provisions regarding examination of witnesses. Referenced in context of alternative procedures available to trial court. Another 3 judgments on this section are set out below. They run from 2011 to 2019.
How do I find court cases under Section 319 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 319, section 319 BNSS, section 319 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita. People searching for it also type bnss 319(2). 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 Central Bureau of Investigation vs Sohan Lal Bishnoi (22 May 2019).
What should I read with Section 319 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, and has it changed?
4 other provisions in this corpus refer back to it. It carries forward CrPC 284 (When attendance of witness may be dispensed with and commissionissued), so the judgments decided under that provision are the case law on this one.
When did Section 319 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita come into force?
Section 319 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, cited as BNSS 319, 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.