Reports of certain Government scientific experts
Section 329 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 deals with reports of certain Government scientific experts. Any document purporting to be a report under the hand of a Government scientific expert to whom this section applies, upon any matter or thing duly submitted to him for examination or analysis and report in the course of any proceeding under this Sanhita, may be used as evidence in any inquiry, tria The Act came into force on 01 Jul 2024.
(1) Any document purporting to be a report under the hand of a Government scientific expert to whom this section applies, upon any matter or thing duly submitted to him for examination or analysis and report in the course of any proceeding under this Sanhita, may be used as evidence in any inquiry, trial or other proceeding under this Sanhita.
(2) The Court may, if it thinks fit, summon and examine any such expert as to the subject-matter of his report.
(3) Where any such expert is summoned by a Court, and he is unable to attend personally, he may, unless the Court has expressly directed him to appear personally, depute any responsible officer working with him to attend the Court, if such officer is conversant with the facts of the case and can satisfactorily depose in Court on his behalf.
(4) This section applies to the following Government scientific experts, namely:---
(a) any Chemical Examiner or Assistant Chemical Examiner to Government;
(b) the Chief Controller of Explosives;
(c) the Director of the Finger Print Bureau;
(d) the Director, Haffkeine Institute, Bombay;
(e) the Director, Deputy Director or Assistant Director of a Central Forensic Science Laboratory or a State Forensic Science Laboratory;
(f) the Serologist to the Government;
(g) any other scientific expert specified or certified, by notification, by the State Government or the Central Government for this purpose.
Section 329, The Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (Act 46 of 2023).
Replaces a provision of the Code of Criminal Procedure
CRPC 293 Reports of certain Government scientific experts Text carried over almost unchanged 98%
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 The repealed enactment still governs what happened while it was in force.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.
-
Hussain vs Union of India
Decided under Code of Criminal Procedure 293, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Speedy trial is a fundamental right guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. This right cannot be denied due to lack of resources. When criminal trials or appeals remain pending for extended periods without fault of the accused, the accused is entitled to either expedited trial completion within specified timelines (6 months for magisterial trials and 2 years for sessions trials with accused in custody; 5 years for appeals) or bail. High Courts are constitutionally obligated to issue directions to subordinate courts ensuring these timelines are met, and to monitor compliance through appropriate action plans and judicial performance assessments. The State is required to augment judicial infrastructure, including appointing additional judges, establishing forensic laboratories, and digitizing case records, to fulfill this constitutional obligation. Undertrial prisoners who have undergone detention exceeding the likely sentence upon conviction must be released on personal bond. These are mandatory obligations, not discretionary matters.
On this section: Regarding tendering of medical witness evidence; suggested amendments for expanded applicability
-
Naveen @ Ajay vs The State of Madhya Pradesh
Decided under Code of Criminal Procedure 293, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
A criminal trial for serious offences including rape and murder cannot be conducted in a hasty manner over 15 days without providing adequate time to the legal aid counsel to prepare the defence. The principle of fair trial, which is a fundamental right under the Constitution, requires that the accused be afforded a real and meaningful opportunity to defend himself through competent counsel with sufficient preparation time. The trial court has a duty to ensure compliance with fair trial principles by granting adequate time to defence counsel, which should normally be a minimum of 7 days but may be more depending on circumstances. Forensic evidence including DNA reports must be properly proved through examination of expert witnesses who prepared the reports, and the accused must be given opportunity to cross-examine such experts. A trial conducted in violation of these principles is void and the conviction and sentence must be set aside with the matter remitted for de novo trial.
On this section: Provision regarding admissibility of reports; High Court incorrectly relied on this section to avoid examining expert witnesses; Court clarified that reports must be properly proved through witness examination
-
K. Hashim vs State of Tamil Nadu
Decided under Code of Criminal Procedure 293, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
In criminal conspiracy cases involving counterfeiting of currency notes, the evidence of accomplices (approvers) is admissible under Section 10 of the Indian Evidence Act and can form basis of conviction if credible and cogent, provided it is corroborated in material particulars as required by Section 114(b) Evidence Act as a matter of prudence. Such corroboration need not be direct evidence of the crime but can be circumstantial evidence of the accused's connection with the crime. The definition of 'counterfeiting' under Section 28 IPC is wide and covers causing one thing to resemble another with intention or knowledge of deception without requiring exact reproduction, and Explanation 2 creates rebuttable presumption of counterfeiting intent when resemblance is such that person might be deceived. Sections 489A, 489C and 489D IPC apply to foreign currency including US dollars and cover possession of materials and instruments for counterfeiting process.
On this section: Expert reports - admissibility of expert reports in evidence; trial court considered this section while accepting expert report
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 329
What have the courts held on Section 329 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita?
Hussain vs Union of India (09 Mar 2017) is the leading judgment on this section among those set out below, though it was decided under CRPC 293, which this section replaced -- the court never mentioned this Act: Regarding tendering of medical witness evidence; suggested amendments for expanded applicability. Another 2 judgments on this section are set out below, all of them from the Supreme Court. They run from 2004 to 2023.
How do I find court cases under Section 329 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 329, section 329 BNSS, section 329 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita. People searching for it also type bnss 329(3) and bnss 329(4). 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 Hussain vs Union of India (09 Mar 2017).
What should I read with Section 329 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, and has it changed?
It carries forward CrPC 293 (Reports of certain Government scientific experts), so the judgments decided under that provision are the case law on this one.
When did Section 329 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita come into force?
Section 329 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, cited as BNSS 329, 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.