No appeal to lie unless otherwise provided
Section 413 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 deals with no appeal to lie unless otherwise provided. No appeal shall lie from any judgment or order of a Criminal Court except as provided for by this Sanhita or by any other law for the time being in force: Provided that the victim shall have a right to prefer an appeal against any order passed by the Court acquitting the accused or convicting for a The Act came into force on 01 Jul 2024.
No appeal shall lie from any judgment or order of a Criminal Court except as provided for by this Sanhita or by any other law for the time being in force:
Provided that the victim shall have a right to prefer an appeal against any order passed by the Court acquitting the accused or convicting for a lesser offence or imposing inadequate compensation, and such appeal shall lie to the Court to which an appeal ordinarily lies against the order of conviction of such Court.
Section 413, The Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (Act 46 of 2023).
Replaces a provision of the Code of Criminal Procedure
CRPC 372 No appeal to lie, unless otherwise provided 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 The repealed enactment still governs what happened while it was in force.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.
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.
-
Joseph Stephen v. Santhanasamy
Decided under Code of Criminal Procedure 372, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Judgement of Main Case order-8.pdf 2022-01-25. Crl.A. Nos. 90-93 of 2022. M.R. Shah / Sanjiv Khanna. DATE-CHECK false positive (2020-05-14 HC / 2012-09-28 trial / 2013-01-18 first appeal); body is the named reportable ending NEW DELHI JANUARY 25, 2022. Isolates the 2009 CrPC 372 proviso: a victim has an independent statutory appeal against acquittal, conviction for a lesser offence, or inadequate compensation; where that appeal lies, revision is barred by s.401(4), and the High Court cannot convert an acquittal into a conviction under s.401(3). Better labelled merits PDF than leftover Kodagali pronouncement ROP. Do not pad 401 (already filled).
On this section: BNSS 413 is the successor no-appeal-unless-provided clause (including the victim’s proviso); Joseph Stephen’s CrPC 372 holding carries forward.
-
Parvinder Kansal v. State (NCT of Delhi)
Decided under Code of Criminal Procedure 372, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Judgement of Main Case order-2.pdf 2020-08-28. Crl.A. 555/2020. Ashok Bhushan / R. Subhash Reddy. DATE-CHECK false positive (2019-08-17 sentence / 2007 FIR / 2008 chargesheet); body is the named Crl.A. 555/2020 ending New Delhi August 28, 2020 (digitally signed 2020.08.28). NONREPORTABLE but Binding SC. Isolates the limit of the CrPC 372 proviso: it does not confer a victim’s appeal against inadequate sentence; only the State may appeal under s.377. Complements Joseph Stephen (right versus limits of 372). Do not pad 377.
On this section: BNSS 413 carries Parvinder Kansal’s limit: the victim’s statutory appeal does not extend to inadequate sentence.
-
Honnaiah T. H vs The State of Karnataka
Decided under Code of Criminal Procedure 372, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
An informant/injured victim has the legal standing to file a criminal revision petition challenging an order passed during trial, provided the order is not merely interlocutory but substantially affects the rights of the parties or could result in gross miscarriage of justice. The test for determining whether an order is interlocutory is whether it is of a purely interim or temporary nature that does not decide or touch upon important rights or liabilities of parties. Any order that substantially affects the rights of parties, such as an order refusing to mark crucial evidence as an exhibit, is not interlocutory and is therefore subject to revision. The revisional jurisdiction of the High Court under Section 397 read with Section 401 CrPC can be exercised at the instance of a private complainant or informant where the trial court has wrongly shut out evidence or committed a manifest illegality that could result in gross miscarriage of justice.
On this section: Defines the rights of victims/complainants, specifically the right to challenge orders acquitting the accused, convicting for a lesser offence, or imposing inadequate compensation. The Court held that this section does not restrict a victim's right to file revision petitions for other substantive orders.
-
Surya Baksh Singh vs State Of Uttar Pradesh
Decided under Code of Criminal Procedure 372, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
The High Court possesses inherent powers under Section 482 of the CrPC to dismiss criminal appeals filed by convicts who deliberately obtain bail or exemption from surrender and thereafter wilfully abscond or fail to prosecute their appeals, provided the Court has first taken reasonable steps to secure the appellant's presence (including proceedings against sureties). However, such dismissal should be preceded by examination of the case on merits where practicable, and the Court must ensure that the appellant has had a fair opportunity to be heard. The ends of justice, which include protection of society and victims' rights alongside convict rights, justify application of Section 482 to prevent abuse of the appellate process by convicts seeking to circumvent their sentences.
On this section: Establishes that appeal is not a right unless granted by statute; no appeal shall lie except as provided by CrPC or other law
-
Harbans Lal vs State of Punjab
Decided under Code of Criminal Procedure 372, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Once a probation period imposed by a lower court has been completed by the convicted persons, a revision petition challenging the grant of probation becomes infructuous, and the High Court need not examine the legality or propriety of the probation order. The completion of the probation period renders the revision petition moot and without practical effect.
On this section: Basis for filing revision petition against conviction and sentence
-
Sardar Harvinder Singh vs Chobrolu Hutasana Rao
Decided under Code of Criminal Procedure 372, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
In cases of cheque dishonor under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, where the cheque amount remains unpaid, the sentence imposed by the trial court must be of such nature as to give proper effect to the object of the legislation and must be commensurate to the gravity of the offense. A sentence consisting only of a fine that is grossly disproportionate to the cheque amount (such as a fine of Rs. 10,000 for a cheque of Rs. 1,00,000) without any substantive imprisonment, and without regard to the legislative intent to protect creditors and ensure accountability of cheque drawers, is inadequate and defeats the very object of the enactment. Personal circumstances of the accused, such as health conditions or family dependents, cannot justify imposing a sentence that is not commensurate to the gravity of the offense. The existence of a civil decree obtained in separate proceedings is not a ground to impose an inadequate criminal sentence. A criminal revision petition by a complainant challenging the inadequacy of sentence is maintainable under Sections 397 and 401 CrPC, as the victim has the right to appeal against inadequate sentence under the proviso to Section 372 CrPC.
On this section: Cited for the proposition that victim has right to prefer appeal against order imposing inadequate compensation; proviso to Section 372 was interpreted to support maintainability of revision petition challenging inadequate sentence
-
The State of Madhya Pradesh vs Rampal Kushwaha
Decided under Code of Criminal Procedure 372, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Once an appellate court has decided an appeal against acquittal on merit, the order becomes final under section 393 Cr.P.C., and no further appeal by the State under section 378(3) Cr.P.C. is maintainable, even if the State was not made a party in the original appeal. The finality principle applies regardless of whether the appeal was filed by victims under amended section 372 Cr.P.C. or by any other party. The State's remedy in such circumstances is through revision, section 482 Cr.P.C., or constitutional remedies under Article 226 and 227, not through a fresh application for leave to appeal.
On this section: Victim's right to appeal against acquittal or conviction for lesser offence or inadequate compensation; court held victims validly exercised this right
-
Reena Devi vs State (govt of Nct of Delhi)
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
An appellate court will not interfere with an acquittal judgment when the trial court has properly appreciated the evidence and correctly applied the burden of proof standard (beyond reasonable doubt). The acquittal judgment of the trial court is upheld when the appellate court finds no perversity or misapplication of law in the trial court's reasoning.
On this section: Appellate jurisdiction in criminal matters - basis for the appeal
-
Rameshwar and Another vs State of U.p. and Another
Decided under Code of Criminal Procedure 372, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
When an aggrieved party has an appropriate statutory remedy available under law (such as appeal under Section 372 Cr.P.C. against acquittal), an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing proceedings is not maintainable. The High Court's inherent power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. should not be invoked when statutory remedies are available to the aggrieved party.
On this section: Appeal against acquittal - alternative remedy available to applicants
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 413
What have the courts held on Section 413 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita?
Joseph Stephen v. Santhanasamy (25 Jan 2022) is the leading judgment on this section among those set out below, though it was decided under CRPC 372, which this section replaced -- the court never mentioned this Act: BNSS 413 is the successor no-appeal-unless-provided clause (including the victim’s proviso); Joseph Stephen’s CrPC 372 holding carries forward. Another 8 judgments on this section are set out below, 4 of them from the Supreme Court. They run from 2013 to 2026.
How do I find court cases under Section 413 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 413, section 413 BNSS, section 413 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita. People searching for it also type bnss 413 in crpc and 413 bnss limitation. Each opens the full list of orders on eCourtsIndia, where it can be narrowed by court, year and outcome. 9 reported judgments on this section are set out on this page, beginning with Joseph Stephen v. Santhanasamy (25 Jan 2022).
What should I read with Section 413 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, and has it changed?
It carries forward CrPC 372 (No appeal to lie, unless otherwise provided), so the judgments decided under that provision are the case law on this one.
When did Section 413 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita come into force?
Section 413 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, cited as BNSS 413, 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.