Power to proceed against other persons appearing to be guilty of offence
Section 358 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 deals with power to proceed against other persons appearing to be guilty of offence. Where, in the course of any inquiry into, or trial of, an offence, it appears from the evidence that any person not being the accused has committed any offence for which such person could be tried together with the accused, the Court may proceed against such person for the offence which he appears t The Act came into force on 01 Jul 2024.
(1) Where, in the course of any inquiry into, or trial of, an offence, it appears from the evidence that any person not being the accused has committed any offence for which such person could be tried together with the accused, the Court may proceed against such person for the offence which he appears to have committed.
(2) Where such person is not attending the Court, he may be arrested or summoned, as the circumstances of the case may require, for the purpose aforesaid.
(3) Any person attending the Court, although not under arrest or upon a summons, may be detained by such Court for the purpose of the inquiry into, or trial of, the offence which he appears to have committed.
(4) Where the Court proceeds against any person under sub-section (1), then---
(a) the proceedings in respect of such person shall be commenced afresh, and the witnesses reheard;
(b) subject to the provisions of clause (a), the case may proceed as if such person had been an accused person when the Court took cognizance of the offence upon which the inquiry or trial was commenced.
Section 358, The Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (Act 46 of 2023).
Replaces a provision of the Code of Criminal Procedure
CRPC 319 Power to proceed against other persons appearing to be guilty ofoffence Text carried over almost unchanged 88%
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 The repealed enactment still governs what happened while it was in force.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.
-
Hardeep Singh v. State of Punjab
Decided under Code of Criminal Procedure 319, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Section 319 CrPC power to add an accused may be exercised after committal, on evidence recorded in inquiry or trial (not on the police report alone). The test is more than prima facie but short of satisfaction for conviction: the evidence should indicate that the person would likely be convicted.
On this section: BNSS 358 succeeds CrPC 319; Hardeep Singh's evidence-threshold carries forward.
-
Ram Nath vs The State of Uttar Pradesh
Decided under Code of Criminal Procedure 319, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
When an act or omission constitutes an offence under both the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 and Sections 272 and 273 of the Indian Penal Code, the provisions of the FSSA have overriding effect over the IPC provisions by virtue of Section 89 of the FSSA. Therefore, prosecution should proceed only under the FSSA, specifically Section 59, and not under the IPC provisions. The FSSA being comprehensive legislation with exhaustive substantive and procedural provisions for dealing with food safety offences, including more stringent punishments and specialized procedures, is the appropriate and exclusive remedy for food adulteration and unsafe food violations.
On this section: Overridden by FSSA Section 78 regarding power to proceed against other persons
-
Somesh Chaurasia vs State of M. P
Decided under Code of Criminal Procedure 319, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
When a person convicted of a serious offence under Section 302 IPC and released on bail during suspension of sentence is subsequently implicated in another serious offence (particularly murder) committed during the period of bail, the bail must be cancelled as the accused has misused the liberty granted to him. The High Court must apply stringent legal principles governing post-conviction bail and cannot dispose of bail cancellation applications by merely directing further investigation without considering the gravity of allegations, criminal antecedents, and material facts indicating abuse of process. The cancellation of bail is warranted when there is evidence of misuse of liberty by engaging in similar criminal activity, and the court must ensure that the rule of law is preserved and that no person, regardless of political connections, is shielded from the administration of criminal justice.
On this section: Arraignment of accused during trial - the Court upheld the trial judge's order summoning the second respondent to stand trial under this section when the closure report was found to be questionable
-
Girish Sharma vs The State of Chhattisgarh
Decided under Code of Criminal Procedure 319, 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: Power to summon person as accused during trial; central issue whether this provision applied to summon three appellants; Supreme Court found Section 319 not applicable in manner used by High Court
-
Brijendra Singh vs State of Rajasthan
Decided under Code of Criminal Procedure 319, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
The power conferred by Section 319 Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 on courts to summon persons not arraigned as accused to face trial is discretionary and extraordinary in nature. This power must be exercised sparingly and only in those cases where circumstances warrant. A much stricter degree of satisfaction than the prima facie case standard (applicable at cognizance or charge-framing) is required. The court must be satisfied that strong and cogent evidence has occurred against the person from the evidence led before the court indicating that such person may be guilty of committing the offence for which such person could be tried together with already arraigned accused. Mere probability of complicity or weak oral testimony that has already been rejected during investigation is insufficient to invoke this extraordinary power. The trial court and High Court must carefully examine all material on record, including investigative findings, before invoking Section 319 powers, and the exercise of this power in casual or cavalier manner without such scrutiny cannot withstand judicial review.
On this section: Core provision enabling courts to summon any person not being an accused to face trial; court held that this power requires degree of satisfaction much stricter than prima facie case, requires strong and cogent evidence, and must be exercised sparingly and not in casual manner
-
Satish Shetty vs State of Karnataka
Decided under Code of Criminal Procedure 319, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
When a trial court's judgment of acquittal is shown to be perverse through gross errors in approach and appreciation of evidence, ignoring glaring facts and credible testimonies, an appellate court is justified in interfering with such acquittal and reversing it based on the merits of the case. Specifically, in cases of cruelty leading to suicide by a married woman within seven years of marriage, once the cruelty under Section 498-A IPC is established through credible evidence, the Court may exercise its discretion to invoke the statutory presumption under Section 113-A of the Evidence Act to convict for abetment of suicide under Section 306 IPC, even without a specific charge under that section, where the relevant and material facts are already part of the charges framed under Sections 498-A and 304-B IPC. The conviction should be upheld when the presumption is not rebutted by credible evidence and the trial court's acquittal judgment was patently erroneous in ignoring available evidence.
On this section: Process for adding new accused during trial - one relation was summoned as accused no. 4 under this section.
-
Balveer Singh vs State of Rajasthan
Decided under Code of Criminal Procedure 319, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
When a Magistrate actively considers an application for cognizance, applies independent mind, and deliberately refuses cognizance of certain offences before committing case to Sessions Court, the Sessions Court can still take cognizance of those offences on a fresh application by the complainant, because: (1) Sessions Court is acting as court of original jurisdiction under Section 193 and cognizance taken by it is first cognizance for jurisdictional purposes; (2) The Magistrate's refusal order does not attain absolute finality that bars Sessions Court's revisional jurisdiction; (3) No valuable right accrues from such refusal order as it is not final adjudication on merits; and (4) Provided proper opportunity of hearing is given to the accused before Sessions Court takes such cognizance, the action is constitutionally valid. The distinction between Magistrate playing 'active role' (taking/refusing cognizance after hearing) versus 'passive role' (merely forwarding for commitment) becomes relevant when Magistrate has already actively decided against cognizance, but does not create an absolute bar.
On this section: Power of trial court to summon additional accused persons during trial - distinguished from Sessions Court power to take cognizance under Section 193.
-
Mohit @ Sonu vs State of U. P.
Decided under Code of Criminal Procedure 319, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
An order of a trial court refusing to summon additional accused under Section 319 Cr.P.C. is not a purely interlocutory order within the meaning of Section 397(2) Cr.P.C. because it substantially affects the rights of the accused by determining whether they will face trial. Therefore, such order must be challenged through revisional jurisdiction under Sections 397/401 Cr.P.C., not through inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. Additionally, when any court (whether exercising revisional or inherent jurisdiction) passes an order prejudicial to the rights of an accused or any person, such person has a fundamental right to notice and opportunity of hearing as mandated by Section 401(2) Cr.P.C. and the principles of natural justice before such prejudicial order is passed. The inherent power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. can be exercised only when no other specific remedy is available in the Code.
On this section: Power of Court to summon any person as an accused during trial; the scope of this discretion and what evidence threshold must be met
-
Sunil Mehta vs State of Gujarat
Decided under Code of Criminal Procedure 319, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Evidence recorded during preliminary inquiry under Section 202 CrPC before the accused appears in court cannot be used to frame charges against the accused under Section 246 CrPC without fresh evidence being produced and recorded under Section 244 CrPC in the presence and with the opportunity of cross-examination by the accused. The accused has a fundamental right to cross-examine prosecution witnesses before charges are framed, as this right is essential for the accused to demonstrate that allegations are groundless and no case exists warranting framing of charges. The scheme and procedure of Chapter XV (dealing with complaints and preliminary inquiry) is distinct from Chapter XIX Part B (dealing with trial of warrant cases on private complaint), and evidence recorded at the preliminary stage cannot substitute for evidence properly recorded under Section 244 in the presence of the accused.
On this section: Power to summon new accused during trial with similar cross-examination rights
-
Jalpat Rai vs State of Haryana
Decided under Code of Criminal Procedure 319, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
When eyewitness testimony from interested parties with deep-rooted enmity comes into conflict with conclusive ballistic and medical forensic evidence, the eyewitness testimony cannot safely be acted upon to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt, especially when the ocular account is internally inconsistent, suffers from significant discrepancies, omissions and improvements, and lacks independent corroboration from objective evidence. An appellate court cannot reverse an acquittal passed by trial court unless the conviction based on evidence is the only possible view, not merely a possible view. Conviction requires proof beyond reasonable doubt, and where doubt exists about complicity, accused must be given benefit of doubt.
On this section: Summoning of additional accused during trial - public prosecutor can apply to implead additional persons discovered to be involved during course of trial
-
Ram Nath vs The State of Uttar Pradesh
Decided under Code of Criminal Procedure 319, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
When an act or omission constitutes an offence of food adulteration under both Sections 272-273 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 59 of the Food Safety and Standards Act 2006, the provisions of the FSSA shall have overriding effect by virtue of Section 89 of FSSA. Consequently, there shall be no simultaneous prosecution under both statutes; the prosecution must proceed exclusively under the FSSA framework which provides more comprehensive and stringent provisions for dealing with unsafe food offences. The IPC provisions for food adulteration are superseded by the FSSA for all food safety matters covered by the FSSA.
On this section: Provision regarding proceeding against persons not originally accused, overridden by FSSA Section 78
-
Ranvir Singh vs State of Haryana
Decided under Code of Criminal Procedure 319, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
A second complaint on the same cause of action and between the same parties is legally maintainable even after dismissal of an earlier complaint, provided the earlier complaint was dismissed not on merits following inquiry under Section 202-203 CrPC, but on account of procedural default by the complainant such as failure to pay process fees. The bar to entertaining a second complaint applies only when the first complaint has been dismissed on merits after a full inquiry by the Magistrate, except in the exceptional circumstances enumerated in Pramatha Nath Talukdar v. Saroj Ranjan Sarkar (AIR 1962 SC 876), namely: (i) where the previous order was passed on an incomplete record; (ii) on a misunderstanding of the nature of the complaint; (iii) where it was manifestly absurd, unjust, fallacious or false; or (iv) where new facts which could not with reasonable diligence have been brought on record in the previous proceeding have been adduced. When a complaint is dismissed merely for procedural default and not on merits, a fresh complaint on the same facts is permissible as it is a different action from attempting to recall or review the earlier order of dismissal, which is prohibited under Section 362 CrPC.
On this section: Mentioned in context of whether special statute provisions override general CrPC provisions on complaint filing
-
Harbhajan Singh vs State of Punjab
Decided under Code of Criminal Procedure 319, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
When a court is presented with prima facie material consisting of a dying declaration naming specific persons as responsible for the victim's suicide, corroborated by the testimony of credible prosecution witnesses that those persons had engaged in a sustained course of threats and harassment, the extraordinary power under Section 319 CrPC to summon such persons as additional accused should be exercised. The fact that such persons were not initially chargesheeted does not prevent the Court from exercising this jurisdiction at a later stage if evidence adduced during trial discloses their participation in the commission of an offence. This power should be used sparingly and only when compelling reasons exist, which are present when the evidence is sufficient to support a reasonable possibility of conviction at the conclusion of the trial.
On this section: Power to summon any person as an accused during investigation or at any stage of trial - Core provision at issue; the Court clarified the principles for exercising this extraordinary power
-
Karam Singh vs State Of Punjab
Decided under Code of Criminal Procedure 319, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
In criminal cases involving non-compoundable offences such as Section 307 IPC (Attempt to Murder), while the conviction cannot be set aside merely on the basis of compromise between parties, the compromise is a relevant and significant circumstance that the court must consider when determining the quantum of sentence. When parties who are residents of the same village and apparently related have settled their disputes amicably after a prolonged period, the court should take a lenient view on sentencing to enable the parties to live cordially together, provided the conviction is maintained to uphold the rule of law. Additionally, acquittals recorded by the trial court should not be reversed on appeal at a belated stage when the evidence was insufficient at trial and the parties have subsequently reconciled.
On this section: Summoning of Persons Not Originally Accused - Applied to summon Kewal Singh and Jassan Singh during trial; both acquitted
-
Rishipal vs State of Haryana
Decided under Code of Criminal Procedure 319, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
When specific role has been attributed to accused in the FIR and corroborated by eyewitness statements recorded under Section 161 CrPC, placement in column 2 during investigation does not constitute exoneration, and a trial court is justified in summoning such persons as additional accused under Section 319 CrPC. Hearsay testimony of non-eyewitnesses cannot override the self-evident role of assailants as established through FIR contents and eyewitness accounts.
On this section: Power to summon additional accused during trial based on evidence
-
Girish Sharma vs The State Of Chhattisgarh
Decided under Code of Criminal Procedure 319, 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: Critical provision allowing Court to summon a person as accused if sufficient grounds appear during trial; High Court applied this mechanically without considering broader interest of justice
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 358
What have the courts held on Section 358 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita?
Hardeep Singh v. State of Punjab (10 Jan 2014) is the leading judgment on this section among those set out below, though it was decided under CRPC 319, which this section replaced -- the court never mentioned this Act: BNSS 358 succeeds CrPC 319; Hardeep Singh's evidence-threshold carries forward. Another 15 judgments on this section are set out below, 14 of them from the Supreme Court. They run from 2009 to 2025.
How do I find court cases under Section 358 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 358, section 358 BNSS, section 358 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita. People searching for it also type 358 bnss in crpc and 358 bnss act. Each opens the full list of orders on eCourtsIndia, where it can be narrowed by court, year and outcome. 16 reported judgments on this section are set out on this page, beginning with Hardeep Singh v. State of Punjab (10 Jan 2014).
What should I read with Section 358 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, and has it changed?
It carries forward CrPC 319 (Power to proceed against other persons appearing to be guilty ofoffence), so the judgments decided under that provision are the case law on this one.
When did Section 358 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita come into force?
Section 358 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, cited as BNSS 358, 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.