Irregularities which vitiate proceedings
Section 507 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 deals with irregularities which vitiate proceedings. If any Magistrate, not being empowered by law in this behalf, does any of the following things, namely:--- (a) attaches and sells property under section 85; The Act came into force on 01 Jul 2024.
If any Magistrate, not being empowered by law in this behalf, does any of the following things, namely:---
(a) attaches and sells property under section 85;
(b) issues a search-warrant for a document, parcel or other things in the custody of a postal authority;
(c) demands security to keep the peace;
(d) demands security for good behaviour;
(e) discharges a person lawfully bound to be of good behaviour;
(f) cancels a bond to keep the peace;
(g) makes an order for maintenance;
(h) makes an order under section 152 as to a local nuisance;
(i) prohibits, under section 162, the repetition or continuance of a public nuisance;
(j) makes an order under Part C or Part D of Chapter XI;
(k) takes cognizance of an offence under clause (c) of sub-section (1) of section 210;
(l) tries an offender;
(m) tries an offender summarily;
(n) passes a sentence, under section 364, on proceedings recorded by another Magistrate;
(o) decides an appeal;
(p) calls, under section 438, for proceedings; or
(q) revises an order passed under section 491,
his proceedings shall be void.
Section 507, The Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (Act 46 of 2023).
Replaces a provision of the Code of Criminal Procedure
CRPC 461 Irregularities which vitiate proceedings Text carried over almost unchanged 99%
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 The repealed enactment still governs what happened while it was in force.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
- s. 85 Attachment of property of person absconding
- s. 152 Conditional order for removal of nuisance
- s. 162 Magistrate may prohibit repetition or Continuance of public nuisance
- s. 210 Cognizance of offences by Magistrate
- s. 364 Procedure when Magistrate cannot pass sentence sufficiently severe
- s. 438 Calling for records to exercise powers of revision
- s. 491 Procedure when bond has been forfeited
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.
-
Kaushik Chaterjee vs State of Haryana
Decided under Code of Criminal Procedure 461, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
The question of territorial jurisdiction in criminal proceedings is a question of fact that must be established through evidence and cannot be decided at the transfer petition stage. The trial court, not the Supreme Court, is the appropriate forum to decide jurisdictional issues after evidence is led on the place of commission of the offence and other relevant factors enumerated in Sections 177 to 184 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Therefore, transfer petitions seeking transfer on the ground of lack of territorial jurisdiction must be dismissed, leaving it open to the parties to raise and have the trial court decide the jurisdictional issue during the trial.
On this section: Lists 17 irregularities which will make the whole proceedings void. Clause (l) provides that if a Magistrate not being empowered by law tries an offender, his proceedings shall be void. Court analyzed the distinction between 'tries an offence' versus 'tries an offender'.
-
Ajay Kr. Ghoshal Etc vs State of Bihar
Decided under Code of Criminal Procedure 461, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
The power to order retrial under Section 386(b) of the Code of Criminal Procedure is an exceptional power to be exercised only when the appellate court is satisfied that: (a) the trial was undertaken by a court lacking jurisdiction, or (b) the trial was vitiated by serious illegality or irregularity occasioning failure of justice, or (c) there was a misconception of the nature of proceedings such that there was no real trial. Mere procedural lapses or irregularities in investigation or conduct of trial, without demonstrable miscarriage of justice, are insufficient to order retrial. The appellate court must independently evaluate evidence and arrive at its own conclusions on guilt or innocence rather than remitting to trial court merely because procedural defects exist. De novo trial is a last resort remedy reserved for exceptional circumstances and must be guided by the demand of justice, balancing the accused's right to fair and speedy trial against societal interest in prosecution of serious crimes.
On this section: Error or irregularity in procedure - referenced regarding legislature's approach to procedural defects
-
Bhawani Singh vs State of Rajasthan through P P.
Decided under Code of Criminal Procedure 461, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
The ratio decidendi of this judgment is that: (1) Section 352 CrPC operates only when the same magistrate who witnessed the offence tries the case. If a different magistrate is holding charge at the time of trial, Section 352 does not apply. (2) A magistrate acting in official public capacity is not deemed personally interested under Section 479 CrPC, and the Explanation to Section 479 specifically clarifies this. (3) The title given to a document does not determine its legal nature. If allegations are made to a magistrate with a view to taking action, it constitutes a complaint under Section 2(d) CrPC regardless of the title. (4) A complaint filed under valid provisions of law (Section 180F of Indian Railways Act 1989) is not vitiated merely because the charge-sheet title incorrectly cites repealed provisions (Indian Railways Act 1890). (5) Section 195 CrPC bar does not apply to Section 224 IPC offence, hence defences available to co-accused under Section 195 are not available to accused charged under Section 224 IPC. (6) Prima facie evidence of commission of offence is sufficient to sustain cognizance and proceed with prosecution.
On this section: Irregularities in procedure. Court held that even if magistrate was personally interested (which was not established), it would not constitute irregularity under Section 461 as same magistrate did not start the trial.
-
Dinesh vs State of Rajasthan through P P.
Decided under Code of Criminal Procedure 461, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
When prima facie evidence of criminal offenses exists and the substance of allegations constitutes a valid complaint under law, procedural defects in the form or title of documents do not vitiate the cognizance or proceedings. The bar under Section 352 Criminal Procedure Code applies only when the same magistrate who witnessed the offense tries the case; if a different magistrate conducts the trial, the bar does not apply. A magistrate acting in his public capacity is not deemed personally interested under Section 479 Criminal Procedure Code merely by reason of being involved in a matter in that capacity. The availability of statutory protections under Section 195 and 340 Criminal Procedure Code depends on the specific offense charged, and these protections do not extend to offenses not enumerated in Section 195.
On this section: Irregularities in procedure; petitioners claimed violation but court found no irregularity
-
Swastik Mahalaxmi Sortex Industries through Abhishek Tayal vs Madhya Pradesh State Police Station-dehat
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
An order refusing interim custody of property is a revisable order, and where no confiscation proceedings by the Collector are pending and the applicant provides prima facie proof of ownership of perishable goods, interim custody should be granted.
On this section: Procedure for disposal of property.
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 507
What have the courts held on Section 507 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita?
Kaushik Chaterjee vs State of Haryana (30 Sep 2020) is the leading judgment on this section among those set out below, though it was decided under CRPC 461, which this section replaced -- the court never mentioned this Act: Lists 17 irregularities which will make the whole proceedings void. Clause (l) provides that if a Magistrate not being empowered by law tries an offender, his proceedings shall be void. Court analyzed the distinction between 'tries an offence' versus 'tries an offender'. Another 4 judgments on this section are set out below, 2 of them from the Supreme Court. They run from 2013 to 2024.
How do I find court cases under Section 507 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 507, section 507 BNSS, section 507 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita. People searching for it also type bns 507 section. Each opens the full list of orders on eCourtsIndia, where it can be narrowed by court, year and outcome. 5 reported judgments on this section are set out on this page, beginning with Kaushik Chaterjee vs State of Haryana (30 Sep 2020).
What should I read with Section 507 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, and has it changed?
Its own text turns on section 85 (Attachment of property of person absconding), section 152 (Conditional order for removal of nuisance), section 162 (Magistrate may prohibit repetition or Continuance of public nuisance), section 210 (Cognizance of offences by Magistrate), and on 3 further provisions, so none of them can safely be read on its own. It carries forward CrPC 461 (Irregularities which vitiate proceedings), so the judgments decided under that provision are the case law on this one.
When did Section 507 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita come into force?
Section 507 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, cited as BNSS 507, 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.