Commission to whom to be issued
Section 320 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 deals with commission to whom to be issued. If the witness is within the territories to which this Sanhita extends, the commission shall be directed to the Chief Judicial Magistrate within whose local jurisdiction the witness is to be found. The Act came into force on 01 Jul 2024.
(1) If the witness is within the territories to which this Sanhita extends, the commission shall be directed to the Chief Judicial Magistrate within whose local jurisdiction the witness is to be found.
(2) If the witness is in India, but in a State or an area to which this Sanhita does not extend, the commission shall be directed to such Court or officer as the Central Government may, by notification, specify in this behalf.
(3) If the witness is in a country or place outside India and arrangements have been made by the Central Government with the Government of such country or place for taking the evidence of witnesses in relation to criminal matters, the commission shall be issued in such form, directed to such Court or officer, and sent to such authority for transmission as the Central Government may, by notification, prescribe in this behalf.
Section 320, The Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (Act 46 of 2023).
Replaces a provision of the Code of Criminal Procedure
CRPC 285 Commission to whom to be issued 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 The repealed enactment still governs what happened while it was in force.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.
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.
-
The Chariman vs A.balaji
Decided under Code of Criminal Procedure 285, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
A recruitment authority cannot reject a candidate for non-disclosure of a criminal case in the application form when the candidate was genuinely unaware of the case at the time of application. When the offense is trivial in nature (such as bursting crackers during Diwali) and the candidate had no knowledge of the criminal proceedings, the non-disclosure does not constitute deliberate suppression warranting rejection. The recruitment authority must assess the candidate's fitness fairly and objectively based on his qualifications and suitability for the post, without applying unreasonable standards of conduct divorced from practical reality. The principles laid down in Avatar Singh v. Union of India must be applied, particularly the principle that before holding a person guilty of suppressio veri or suggestio falsi, knowledge of the fact must be attributable to him.
On this section: The FIR against Balaji was registered under Section 285 CrPC for causing public nuisance by bursting crackers, which is a bailable offense. The court noted that this was a trivial offense and the basis for the rejection order.
-
Sanjeeva Palan vs State of U.p.
Decided under Code of Criminal Procedure 285, 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: Empowers the court to issue a commission to record evidence. The court emphasized that this power should be exercised keeping in mind the principles of justice and the peculiar circumstances of each case.
-
Dr. N. Rama Krishna Raju vs Dr. T. Srinivasulu
Decided under Code of Criminal Procedure 285, 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: Specifies that the commission shall be directed to the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate or Chief Judicial Magistrate within whose local jurisdiction the witness is found, not to a private advocate.
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 320
What have the courts held on Section 320 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita?
The Chariman vs A.balaji (14 Sep 2021) is the leading judgment on this section among those set out below, though it was decided under CRPC 285, which this section replaced -- the court never mentioned this Act: The FIR against Balaji was registered under Section 285 CrPC for causing public nuisance by bursting crackers, which is a bailable offense. The court noted that this was a trivial offense and the basis for the rejection order. Another 2 judgments on this section are set out below. They run from 2012 to 2021.
How do I find court cases under Section 320 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 320, section 320 BNSS, section 320 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita. People searching for it also type bns 320 2 and 320 bnss in crpc. 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 The Chariman vs A.balaji (14 Sep 2021).
What should I read with Section 320 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, and has it changed?
It carries forward CrPC 285 (Commission to whom to be issued), so the judgments decided under that provision are the case law on this one.
When did Section 320 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita come into force?
Section 320 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, cited as BNSS 320, 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.