Trial of offences under Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and other laws
Section 4 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 deals with trial of offences under Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and other laws. All offences under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 shall be investigated, inquired into, tried, and otherwise dealt with according to the provisions hereinafter contained. The Act came into force on 01 Jul 2024.
(1) All offences under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 shall be investigated, inquired into, tried, and otherwise dealt with according to the provisions hereinafter contained.
(2) All offences under any other law shall be investigated, inquired into, tried, and otherwise dealt with according to the same provisions, but subject to any enactment for the time being in force regulating the manner or place of investigating, inquiring into, trying or otherwise dealing with such offences.
Section 4, The Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (Act 46 of 2023).
Replaces a provision of the Code of Criminal Procedure
CRPC 4 Trial of offences under the Indian Penal Code and other laws 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 The repealed enactment still governs what happened while it was in force.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.
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.
-
Loop Telecom LTD vs Regr. Gen. Delhi High Court
Decided under Code of Criminal Procedure 4, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Where co-accused in the same criminal transaction are charged with offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 as well as offences under the Indian Penal Code, a Special Judge appointed under Section 3 of the Prevention of Corruption Act has valid jurisdiction under Section 4(3) of the PC Act read with Section 220 and Section 223 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 to take cognizance of and try all accused jointly, including those charged solely with IPC offences. The Administrative Order of the High Court nominating a Special Judge and the Government Notification appointing such Special Judge are constitutionally valid exercises of authority under Article 233 of the Constitution and Section 3(1) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. The establishment of a Special Court to exclusively try cases arising from the same FIR and the same criminal transaction does not violate the Criminal Procedure Code or deprive the accused of valuable legal rights.
On this section: Provides that offences under other laws shall be investigated, inquired into, tried and dealt with according to same provisions subject to enactments regulating such matters. Court noted this allows departure from normal procedural rules where special statutes provide differently.
-
Tofan Singh vs The State of Tamil Nadu through the Ineliigence Officer
Decided under Code of Criminal Procedure 4, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Officers designated under Section 53 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 are 'police officers' within the meaning of Section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. Consequently, any confessional statement made to such officers is barred from being used as evidence under Section 25 of the Evidence Act. Additionally, a statement recorded under Section 67 of the NDPS Act cannot be used as a confessional statement in the trial of an offence under the NDPS Act, as Section 67 is limited to calling for information and examining persons during an inquiry antecedent to investigation, not for recording confessions as substantive evidence.
On this section: Trial of offences under IPC and other laws - applicability of CrPC
-
Sondabhai Hanubhai Bharwad vs State of Gujarat
Decided under Code of Criminal Procedure 4, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
When the same act constitutes an offence both under the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 and under the Indian Penal Code, specifically where minerals are dishonestly removed from government land without consent (theft under IPC), the two offences are distinct in their ingredients and ingredients are different. Therefore, Section 22 of the MMDR Act, which restricts cognizance of offences under the Act to complaints by authorized officers, does not bar prosecution under the IPC for the distinct offence of theft. The police can register FIR for theft, investigate, and submit report to Magistrate for cognizance under Section 190(1)(d) CrPC, while simultaneously the authorized officer can file complaint for MMDR Act violation requiring different procedure for Magistrate cognizance. Both prosecutions can proceed as the offences are distinct and the bar against double jeopardy applies only to identical offences.
On this section: All offences under other laws shall be investigated and tried according to CrPC provisions subject to any enactment regulating the place, manner and circumstances of investigation
-
State of Maharashtra vs Ashok
Decided under Code of Criminal Procedure 4, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
A Special Court under MCOCA may take cognizance of an offence on a private complaint, but such power is controlled by and must be exercised in compliance with Section 23(2) of MCOCA, which mandates that no Special Court shall take cognizance of any offence under the Act without the previous sanction of a Police Officer not below the rank of Additional Director General of Police. Section 9(1) and Section 23(2) of MCOCA must be read harmoniously and together, not in isolation. The provisions of Section 25 of MCOCA, which give overriding effect to MCOCA over the Criminal Procedure Code, preclude the Special Judge from invoking Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. to conduct independent inquiry on a private complaint and take cognizance without compliance with Section 23. Private complaints must follow the procedure outlined in Section 23 of MCOCA: forward to officer under Section 23(1)(a) for inquiry by police officer under Section 23(1)(b), and only thereafter take cognizance upon obtaining sanction under Section 23(2).
On this section: Application of Criminal Procedure Code to offences under other laws. Discussed regarding relationship between MCOCA as self-contained code and general application of Cr.P.C. with modifications.
-
Jik Industries Ltd. vs Amarlal V. Jumani
Decided under Code of Criminal Procedure 4, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Approval and sanction of a scheme of compromise and arrangement under Section 391 of the Companies Act, 1956 does not have the effect of automatically compounding an offence under Section 138 read with Section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. The offence, if committed prior to the scheme, does not stand automatically compounded by virtue of the scheme sanction. Compounding of criminal offences, including those under the NI Act, requires the explicit consent of the complainant or person aggrieved, and this consent cannot be assumed or implied from the sanction of a corporate restructuring scheme. The statutory procedure for compounding prescribed in Section 320 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 applies to compounding of NI Act offences despite the non obstante clause in Section 147 of the NI Act, as Section 147 only makes offences compoundable but does not prescribe the mode and manner of such compounding.
On this section: Offences under any other law to be investigated and tried according to Code provisions; Court held this mandates application of Section 320 to NI Act compounding
-
State of Karnataka vs Parmjit Singh
Decided under Code of Criminal Procedure 4, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Where a statute authorizes the imposition of punishment including imprisonment without prescribing any procedure for trial or hearing, it violates Articles 20 and 21 of the Constitution. Consumer forums cannot exercise penal jurisdiction without being invested with the procedural powers and status of criminal courts. However, when the legislature subsequently amends the statute to confer Judicial Magistrate First Class powers on forums and provide for summary trial under the Code of Criminal Procedure, the original constitutional challenge becomes moot. Offences under the Consumer Protection Act must be tried in accordance with the criminal procedure framework prescribed in the Code of Criminal Procedure and Indian Penal Code.
On this section: Applied to establish that offences under Consumer Protection Act must be tried in accordance with criminal procedure safeguards; amended Section 27 expressly references CrPC framework
-
M.koteswara Rao vs The State of Andhra Pradesh
Decided under Code of Criminal Procedure 4, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Section 145 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, which contains a non-obstante clause, permits the Magistrate to take cognizance of a cheque dishonour complaint based on affidavit evidence from the complainant, notwithstanding the general requirement in Sections 200-202 of the Criminal Procedure Code to record sworn statements. This special procedure under the Negotiable Instruments Act is saved by Sections 4-5 of the Criminal Procedure Code and overrides the general procedural requirements for pre-cognizance enquiry.
On this section: Save special procedures under special Acts like the Negotiable Instruments Act
-
In Reference vs Vinod
Decided under Code of Criminal Procedure 4, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
For the purpose of the Commission for Protection of Child Rights Act, 2005, 'child' means a person who has not completed 18 years of age. Only those offences against children or violations of child rights in respect of which the Commission finds 'violation of child rights of a serious nature' or 'contravention of provision of any law for the time being in force' and recommends to the concerned Government or authority for initiation of proceedings for prosecution shall be deemed to be cognizable and triable by the specified Children's Court. In all other cases, ordinary procedure provided in the Code of Criminal Procedure shall be followed. The Children's Court cannot directly take cognizance; it can take cognizance only if the case has been committed to it by a Magistrate as provided in the Code of Criminal Procedure.
On this section: Section 4 cited to establish that regular court jurisdiction is not excluded unless specifically regulated by other enactments; Section 193 interpreted regarding Court of Session's cognizance powers; Section 223 applied to joint trial of multiple accused; Section 395(2) used as basis for reference; Chapter XVIII cited regarding trial procedures before Court of Session
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 4
What have the courts held on Section 4 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita?
Loop Telecom LTD vs Regr. Gen. Delhi High Court (01 Jul 2013) is the leading judgment on this section among those set out below, though it was decided under CRPC 4, which this section replaced -- the court never mentioned this Act: Provides that offences under other laws shall be investigated, inquired into, tried and dealt with according to same provisions subject to enactments regulating such matters. Court noted this allows departure from normal procedural rules where special statutes provide differently. Another 7 judgments on this section are set out below, 6 of them from the Supreme Court. They run from 2006 to 2020.
How do I find court cases under Section 4 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 4, section 4 BNSS, section 4 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita. Each opens the full list of orders on eCourtsIndia, where it can be narrowed by court, year and outcome. 8 reported judgments on this section are set out on this page, beginning with Loop Telecom LTD vs Regr. Gen. Delhi High Court (01 Jul 2013).
What should I read with Section 4 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, and has it changed?
3 other provisions in this corpus refer back to it. It carries forward CrPC 4 (Trial of offences under the Indian Penal Code and other laws), so the judgments decided under that provision are the case law on this one.
When did Section 4 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita come into force?
Section 4 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, cited as BNSS 4, 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 15 Oct 2026. This page is not a substitute for legal advice.