Person once convicted or acquitted not to be tried for same offence
Section 337 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 deals with person once convicted or acquitted not to be tried for same offence. A person who has once been tried by a Court of competent jurisdiction for an offence and convicted or acquitted of such offence shall, while such conviction or acquittal remains in force, not be liable to be tried again for the same offence, nor on the same facts for any other offence for which a di The Act came into force on 01 Jul 2024.
(1) A person who has once been tried by a Court of competent jurisdiction for an offence and convicted or acquitted of such offence shall, while such conviction or acquittal remains in force, not be liable to be tried again for the same offence, nor on the same facts for any other offence for which a different charge from the one made against him might have been made under sub-section (1) of section 244, or for which he might have been convicted under sub-section (2) thereof.
(2) A person acquitted or convicted of any offence may be afterwards tried, with the consent of the State Government, for any distinct offence for which a separate charge might have been made against him at the former trial under sub-section (1) of section 243.
(3) A person convicted of any offence constituted by any act causing consequences which, together with such act, constituted a different offence from that of which he was convicted, may be afterwards tried for such last-mentioned offence, if the consequences had not happened, or were not known to the Court to have happened, at the time when he was convicted.
(4) A person acquitted or convicted of any offence constituted by any acts may, notwithstanding such acquittal or conviction, be subsequently charged with, and tried for, any other offence constituted by the same acts which he may have committed if the Court by which he was first tried was not competent to try the offence with which he is subsequently charged.
(5) A person discharged under section 281 shall not be tried again for the same offence except with the consent of the Court by which he was discharged or of any other Court to which the first-mentioned Court is subordinate.
(6) Nothing in this section shall affect the provisions of section 26 of the General Clauses Act, 1897 (10 of 1897) or of section 208 of this Sanhita.
Explanation.—The dismissal of a complaint, or the discharge of the accused, is not an acquittal for the purposes of this section.
Illustrations.
(a) A is tried upon a charge of theft as a servant and acquitted. He cannot afterwards, while the acquittal remains in force, be charged with theft as a servant, or, upon the same facts, with theft simply, or with criminal breach of trust.
(b) A is tried for causing grievous hurt and convicted. The person injured afterwards dies. A may be tried again for culpable homicide.
(c) A is charged before the Court of Session and convicted of the culpable homicide of B. A may not afterwards be tried on the same facts for the murder of B.
(d) A is charged by a Magistrate of the first class with, and convicted by him of, voluntarily causing hurt to B. A may not afterwards be tried for voluntarily causing grievous hurt to B on the same facts, unless the case comes within sub-section (3) of this section.
(e) A is charged by a Magistrate of the second class with, and convicted by him of, theft of property from the person of B. A may subsequently be charged with, and tried for, robbery on the same facts.
(f) A, B and C are charged by a Magistrate of the first class with, and convicted by him of, robbing D. A, B and C may afterwards be charged with, and tried for, dacoity on the same facts.
Section 337, The Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (Act 46 of 2023).
Replaces a provision of the Code of Criminal Procedure
CRPC 300 Person once convicted or acquitted not to be tried for same offence 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.
This section refers to
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.
-
Sangeetaben Mahendrabhai Patel v. State of Gujarat
Decided under Code of Criminal Procedure 300, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Judgement of Main Case order-7.pdf 2012-04-23. Crl A 645/2012. Chauhan/Khehar. DATE-CHECK flagged 2011-08-18 HC / 2003-10-22 / 2004-02-06 complaint dates (false positive); body is the named 23 Apr 2012 reportable. s.300 CrPC double jeopardy: NI Act 138 and IPC 406/420 are distinct offences on the ingredients test; conviction or acquittal under 138 does not bar a later IPC prosecution. NI 138 and Art 20 already filled — do not remap.
On this section: Successor of CrPC 300 (mapping.csv near-identical, score 0.9962). The ingredients-test double-jeopardy holding carries to BNSS 337.
-
Vishnu Dutt Sharma vs Daya Sapra
Decided under Code of Criminal Procedure 300, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
The principle of res judicata and the concept of abuse of process of law do not operate to bar continuation of a civil suit merely because the accused has been acquitted in a related criminal proceeding arising from the same transaction. A judgment in a criminal proceeding, even if it results in acquittal, does not have binding effect on a parallel civil suit as the standards of proof, burden of proof, causes of action, and legal issues are fundamentally different between criminal and civil proceedings. The applicability of reverse burden provisions and statutory presumptions in criminal law must be strictly interpreted and applied with due regard to the presumption of innocence and constitutional rights of the accused, whereas in civil proceedings no such strict compliance is required. A creditor has the right to pursue both criminal and civil remedies concurrently, and the continuation of such proceedings is neither barred by law nor constitutes an abuse of process, provided the civil suit was not barred at the time of its filing.
On this section: Provides protection against double jeopardy in criminal proceedings (once acquitted or convicted, cannot be tried again for same offence). The court distinguished this from civil proceedings where no such bar exists.
-
Jagtamba Devi vs Hem Ram
Decided under Code of Criminal Procedure 300, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
A court is constitutionally and procedurally bound to provide reasoned orders explaining the basis for its decision. The complete absence of reasons in a judicial order renders that order unsustainable and violates principles of natural justice. An order that merely states "Heard. Dismissed" without any indication of the court's mind or application of law is fundamentally defective and subject to reversal on appeal. The right to reasons is an indispensable part of a sound judicial system, and the giving of reasons is one of the salutary requirements of natural justice.
On this section: Concept of double jeopardy; appellant contended it was not applicable to the proceedings.
-
Kailash Kumar Singla vs State of Punjab
Decided under Code of Criminal Procedure 300, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
When an investigator discovers illegal gratification during investigation of a bribery case and subsequently discovers disproportionate assets of the accused, the registration of a separate FIR for disproportionate assets does not constitute abuse of investigative power or violation of Section 300 CrPC, provided the investigator conducts independent inquiry into the accused's income and expenditure. The disproportionate assets case is a distinct offense from the bribery case, and successive FIRs for such distinct offenses do not fall within the prohibition against double jeopardy or the principle established in T.T. Antony v. State of Kerala.
On this section: Prohibition against being tried for the same offense twice; petitioner argued this section was violated by the second FIR, but court held it was not applicable as the offenses were different
-
Gaurav vs State of Hp
Decided under Code of Criminal Procedure 300, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Security proceedings under Sections 107 and 150 CrPC are preventive in nature and do not bar subsequent FIR registration for cognizable offences arising from the same incident. Discharge in security proceedings is not acquittal and does not attract the prohibition of double jeopardy under Section 300 CrPC. A person discharged in preventive proceedings may be prosecuted for criminal offences based on the same facts. The High Court, while exercising jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC to quash criminal proceedings, should only examine whether allegations prima facie constitute an offence without conducting a mini-trial or appreciating evidence. Contradictions in complaint or complainant statement are not grounds for quashing FIR at threshold stage.
On this section: Prohibition on double jeopardy - court held this does not apply to security proceedings
-
M.k.prasad vs Dy.s.p.
Decided under Code of Criminal Procedure 300, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
An acquittal or discharge made by a court lacking competent jurisdiction due to absence of valid sanction for prosecution does not constitute a bar under Section 300 of the Criminal Procedure Code against subsequent prosecution for the same offence after obtaining proper sanction. The first trial is null and void as the court was incompetent to take cognizance and record a valid verdict. Therefore, one of the essential conditions for invoking the bar under Section 300 CrPC (requisite jurisdiction of the court) is lacking, and the accused can be prosecuted afresh after obtaining proper sanction from the competent authority.
On this section: Bar against retrial for the same offence; central provision in dispute regarding double jeopardy; the court analyzed whether this section applies when first trial was by incompetent court
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 judgment dated 28.01.2025 forms the subject matter of the present Appeal. A.2 is the appellant before us. Decision - 9. The issue before us is whether the decision of the learned Single Judge attracts section 300 (1) of The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, or in the alternative, section 337(1) of The Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) i.e., the bar on trying a person two times for the same offence after the person is either convicted or acquitted of such offence. - 10. Section 300(1) of the Cr.P.C, section 337(1) of the BNSS and Article 20(2) of the Constitution of India are set out …
Questions about Section 337
What have the courts held on Section 337 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita?
Sangeetaben Mahendrabhai Patel v. State of Gujarat (23 Apr 2012) is the leading judgment on this section among those set out below, though it was decided under CRPC 300, which this section replaced -- the court never mentioned this Act: Successor of CrPC 300 (mapping.csv near-identical, score 0.9962). The ingredients-test double-jeopardy holding carries to BNSS 337. Another 5 judgments on this section are set out below, 3 of them from the Supreme Court. They run from 2008 to 2024.
How do I find court cases under Section 337 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 337, section 337 BNSS, section 337 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita. People searching for it also type 337 bnss act and 337 bnss in crpc. 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 Sangeetaben Mahendrabhai Patel v. State of Gujarat (23 Apr 2012).
What should I read with Section 337 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, and has it changed?
Its own text turns on section 208 (Offence committed outside India), section 243 (Trial for more than one offence), section 244 (Where it is doubtful what offence has been committed), section 281 (Power to stop proceedings in certain cases), and on 1 further provision, so none of them can safely be read on its own. 2 other provisions in this corpus refer back to it. It carries forward CrPC 300 (Person once convicted or acquitted not to be tried for same offence), so the judgments decided under that provision are the case law on this one.
When did Section 337 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita come into force?
Section 337 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, cited as BNSS 337, 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.