Tender of pardon to accomplice
Section 343 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 deals with tender of pardon to accomplice. With a view to obtaining the evidence of any person supposed to have been directly or indirectly concerned in or privy to an offence to which this section applies, the Chief Judicial Magistrate at any stage of the investigation or inquiry into, or the trial of, the offence, and the Magistrate of the The Act came into force on 01 Jul 2024.
(1) With a view to obtaining the evidence of any person supposed to have been directly or indirectly concerned in or privy to an offence to which this section applies, the Chief Judicial Magistrate at any stage of the investigation or inquiry into, or the trial of, the offence, and the Magistrate of the first class inquiring into or trying the offence, at any stage of the inquiry or trial, may tender a pardon to such person on condition of his making a full and true disclosure of the whole of the circumstances within his knowledge relative to the offence and to every other person concerned, whether as principal or abettor, in the commission thereof.
(2) This section applies to---
(a) any offence triable exclusively by the Court of Session or by the Court of a Special Judge appointed under any other law for the time being in force;
(b) any offence punishable with imprisonment which may extend to seven years or with a more severe sentence.
(3) Every Magistrate who tenders a pardon under sub-section (1) shall record—
(a) his reasons for so doing;
(b) whether the tender was or was not accepted by the person to whom it was made, and shall, on application made by the accused, furnish him with a copy of such record free of cost.
(4) Every person accepting a tender of pardon made under sub-section (1)---
(a) shall be examined as a witness in the Court of the Magistrate taking cognizance of the offence and in the subsequent trial, if any;
(b) shall, unless he is already on bail, be detained in custody until the termination of the trial.
(5) Where a person has accepted a tender of pardon made under sub-section (1) and has been examined under sub-section (4), the Magistrate taking cognizance of the offence shall, without making any further inquiry in the case---
(a) commit it for trial---
(i) to the Court of Session if the offence is triable exclusively by that Court or if the Magistrate taking cognizance is the Chief Judicial Magistrate;
(ii) to a Court of Special Judge appointed under any other law for the time being in force, if the offence is triable exclusively by that Court;
(b) in any other case, make over the case to the Chief Judicial Magistrate who shall try the case himself.
Section 343, The Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (Act 46 of 2023).
Replaces a provision of the Code of Criminal Procedure
CRPC 306 Tender of pardon to accomplice Text carried over almost unchanged 95%
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.
-
State through CBI, Chennai v. V. Arul Kumar
Decided under Code of Criminal Procedure 306, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Judgement of Main Case order-27.pdf 2016-05-13 DATE VERIFIED. Sikri/Agrawal. Reportable. Crl A 499/2016. A Metropolitan Magistrate has power under CrPC 306 to tender pardon even in Prevention of Corruption Act cases before committal; PC Act 5 does not exclude 306; after committal only the 307 court can tender. Even if the magistrate was not empowered, CrPC 460(g) saves a bona fide tender. Map crpc 306 + BNSS 343 successor (near-identical 0.953) and crpc 460 + BNSS 506 successor (near-identical 1). Do not pad PC Act or crpc 307.
On this section: Successor of CrPC 306 (mapping.csv near-identical, score 0.953). The pre-committal pardon holding carries to BNSS 343.
-
Girish Sharma vs The State of Chhattisgarh
Decided under Code of Criminal Procedure 306, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
While a prosecutor enjoys discretion in deciding whether to charge a person as an accused or cite them as a witness in a chargesheet, the court retains ultimate and final authority to take cognizance based on a balanced assessment of the interests of justice. In exercising this authority, the court must weigh: (a) the utility of the person as a witness in strengthening the prosecution case against more serious accused; (b) the interests of justice in summoning such person as an accused; and (c) whether summoning them as accused would jeopardize the prosecution case against the main accused. The prosecutor's decision to cite a person as witness is not binding on the court and can be interfered with when interests of justice so require. However, such interference must be based on a holistic consideration of all relevant factors, not merely on the existence of incriminating material. Additionally, the procedure under Section 306 Cr.P.C. (seeking pardon for accomplices) is not the only available procedure for citing an accomplice as a witness, and accomplices can be used as witnesses in appropriate circumstances without formal pardon proceedings.
On this section: Procedure for granting pardon to accomplice and using them as witness; High Court erroneously held this was only available procedure; Supreme Court rejected this interpretation
-
Chandra Prakash vs State of Rajasthan
Decided under Code of Criminal Procedure 306, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
In cases of criminal conspiracy, the prosecution need not prove express agreement between conspirators; the agreement may be proved by necessary implication from circumstances. When assessing approver evidence, courts must first apply a reliability test to determine if the approver is a trustworthy witness on the evidence itself, independent of corroboration. Only if the approver passes the reliability test does the second test apply, requiring corroboration in material particulars that connects the accused with the offense. Such corroboration must come from independent sources and may be direct or circumstantial in nature. Under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, discovery of facts in consequence of information from an accused in custody is admissible if the information is credible and material discovery is effected; formal arrest is not necessary, only that the person be accused of an offense and in custody of a police officer. The broad definition of 'explosive substance' under the Explosive Substances Act, 1908 and 'explosive' under the Explosive Act, 1884 encompasses materials for making explosives; when such materials are possessed in conjunction with other explosive articles and components in large quantities, possession constitutes a criminal offense even without direct evidence of criminal intent if the circumstances demonstrate conscious possession for use in explosions. Sanction under Section 7 of the Explosive Substances Act, 1908 requires only 'consent' for subjective appreciation and can be granted by District Magistrate pursuant to delegation from Central Government; the sanctioning authority need not be examined as a witness if the sanction document is properly proven and shows application of mind.
On this section: Application by accused for recording of statement
-
Girish Sharma vs The State Of Chhattisgarh
Decided under Code of Criminal Procedure 306, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
The decision of a prosecutor to cite a person as a witness instead of charging him as an accused in a chargesheet is not final and binding on the Court. While Section 306 CrPC provides a formal procedure for obtaining pardon to examine an accomplice as a witness, it is not the only avenue available. The Court must ultimately decide whether to take cognizance by balancing the interest of justice - weighing whether the person should be charged as an accused versus their utility as a witness in strengthening the prosecution case against more serious accused. Mere existence of incriminating material is insufficient to mandate cognizance; the Court must consider broader prosecutorial strategy and the practical impact on achieving justice in the case.
On this section: Central procedural issue; High Court erroneously assumed this was the ONLY procedure available to cite an accomplice as witness; Supreme Court clarified that while this section provides a formal pardon route, it is not mandatory for all accomplice witness scenarios
-
K. Hashim vs State of Tamil Nadu
Decided under Code of Criminal Procedure 306, 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: Pardon to accomplice - approvers were pardoned under this section by order dated 5.10.1983
-
Firosuddin Basheeruddin vs State of Kerala
Decided under Code of Criminal Procedure 306, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Criminal conspiracy can be proved by circumstantial evidence. When two or more persons agree to commit an illegal act or legal act by illegal means, that agreement constitutes criminal conspiracy even if the substantive crime is not committed. Not all conspirators need know every detail of the conspiracy; unity of objective is essential while there may be plurality of means sometimes even unknown to each other. Once the existence of conspiracy is proved, every act, declaration and writing of any conspirator referable to common intention is relevant against all conspirators. In organized crimes involving division of labour, each conspirator may perform different tasks in furtherance of the common objective, and each is liable for crimes committed by co-conspirators in furtherance of the conspiracy regardless of whether that particular conspirator directly participated in the substantive offense. The prosecution must establish the agreement to commit an unlawful act through proved facts and circumstances from which reasonable inference of conspiracy may be drawn, and the court must guard against unfairness by ensuring cogent evidence of involvement of each accused.
On this section: Procedure for recording pardon and examination of approvers - applied to validate examination of three approvers (PWs 1-3) who became witnesses after pardon
-
Indo Asian LTD vs State of Uttrakhand
Decided under Code of Criminal Procedure 306, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
The High Court's power under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to quash criminal proceedings should not be exercised at the threshold stage to prevent a criminal court from examining and adjudicating the case based on evidence, particularly where the complaint and documentary evidence (invoices) prima facie disclose sufficient material to proceed. The determination of factual matters such as whether goods were legitimately consumed during processing or were converted to one's own use must be left to the Criminal Court after examination of evidence, and not pre-judged by the High Court in exercise of its power to quash proceedings at an early stage.
On this section: Procedure for taking cognizance - Charge-sheet filed under this section after investigation
-
Babu Rudregouda Sahebagouda Rudregoudar vs The State of Karnataka by Tikota Police
Decided under Code of Criminal Procedure 306, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
The exercise of power to tender pardon to an accused under Section 306 Cr.P.C. rests on judicial discretion and must be exercised with great caution and on sufficient grounds, recognizing the risk of allowing an offender to escape just punishment at the expense of co-accused. A trial court cannot grant pardon without placing sufficient materials on record demonstrating the necessity for such pardon, such as credible evidence of witness hostility, and must consider the impact on co-accused's right to defend themselves. The grant of pardon without proper application of judicial mind and without sufficient supporting materials constitutes abuse of process of court and is liable to be set aside by the High Court.
On this section: Provision allowing accused to apply for pardon at any stage of trial before pronouncement of judgment; court must exercise judicial discretion with great caution
-
Rameshbhai Chanabhai Jesadiya vs State of Gujarat
Decided under Code of Criminal Procedure 306, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
An approver's evidence must satisfy a double test: first, the witness must be reliable in his own right, and second, his testimony must receive sufficient corroboration. If the witness is found unreliable, his testimony must be discarded without even looking for corroboration.
On this section: Grant of pardon to approver and recording of accused statements.
-
Ashok Seghal vs State
Decided under Code of Criminal Procedure 306, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
A Magistrate First Class has concurrent jurisdiction with the Special Judge to tender pardon under Section 306 Cr.P.C. in cases arising under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The power to grant pardon is not exclusively vested in the Special Judge. When a Magistrate tenders pardon bonafide, even if erroneously without explicit jurisdiction, the proceedings are protected by Section 460(g) Cr.P.C. and cannot be set aside merely on the ground of lack of empowerment. The deeming clause in Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act has limited purpose only for sub-sections 1 to 5 of Section 308 Cr.P.C. and does not exclude the Magistrate's concurrent power under Section 306 Cr.P.C.
On this section: Court held that Section 306 grants Magistrate First Class power to tender pardon at any stage of investigation, inquiry or trial in offences triable by Court of Session or Special Judge. This power is not taken away by the Prevention of Corruption Act.
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 343
What have the courts held on Section 343 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita?
State through CBI, Chennai v. V. Arul Kumar (13 May 2016) is the leading judgment on this section among those set out below, though it was decided under CRPC 306, which this section replaced -- the court never mentioned this Act: Successor of CrPC 306 (mapping.csv near-identical, score 0.953). The pre-committal pardon holding carries to BNSS 343. Another 9 judgments on this section are set out below, 7 of them from the Supreme Court. They run from 2001 to 2020.
How do I find court cases under Section 343 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 343, section 343 BNSS, section 343 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita. People searching for it also type bns 343 section and 343 bnss in crpc. Each opens the full list of orders on eCourtsIndia, where it can be narrowed by court, year and outcome. 10 reported judgments on this section are set out on this page, beginning with State through CBI, Chennai v. V. Arul Kumar (13 May 2016).
What should I read with Section 343 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, and has it changed?
3 other provisions in this corpus refer back to it. It carries forward CrPC 306 (Tender of pardon to accomplice), so the judgments decided under that provision are the case law on this one.
When did Section 343 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita come into force?
Section 343 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, cited as BNSS 343, 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.