Evidence of officers of the Mint
CRPC 292 (Evidence of officers of the Mint) corresponds most closely to BNSS 328, Evidence of officers of Mint, on a text comparison scoring 86 per cent. The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 was repealed with effect from 01 Jul 2024, but conduct before that date is still charged, tried and appealed under it.
Repealed · Code of Criminal Procedure
Section 292 Evidence of officers of the Mint
(1) Any document purporting to be a report under the hand of any such gazetted officer of the Mint or of the India Security Press (including the office of the Controller of Stamps and Stationery) as the Central Government may, by notification, specify in this behalf, upon any matter or thing duly submitted to him for examination and report in the course of any proceeding under this Code, may be used as evidence in any inquiry, trial or other proceeding under this Code, although such officer is not called as a witness.
(2) The Court may, if it thinks fit, summon and examine any such officer as to the subject-matter of his report:
Provided that no such officer shall be summoned to produce any records on which the report is based.
(3) Without prejudice to the provisions of sections 123 and 124 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (1 of 1872), no such officer shall, except with the permission of the Master of the Mint or the India Security Press or the Controller of Stamps and Stationery, as the case may be, be permitted-
(a) to give any evidence derived from any unpublished official records on which the report is based ; or
(b) to disclose the nature or particulars of any test applied by him in the course of the examination of the matter or thing.
In force · Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita
Section 328 Evidence of officers of Mint
(1) Any document purporting to be a report under the hand of a gazetted officer of any Mint or of any Note Printing Press or of any Security Printing Press (including the officer of the Controller of Stamps and Stationery) or of any Forensic Department or Division of Forensic Science Laboratory or any Government Examiner of Questioned Documents or any State Examiner of Questioned Documents as the Central Government may, by notification, specify in this behalf, upon any matter or thing duly submitted to him for examination and report in the course of any proceeding under this Sanhita, may be used as evidence in any inquiry, trial or other proceeding under this Sanhita, although such officer is not called as a witness.
(2) The Court may, if it thinks fit, summon and examine any such officer as to the subject-matter of his report:
Provided that no such officer shall be summoned to produce any records on which the report is based.
(3) Without prejudice to the provisions of sections 129 and 130 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023, no such officer shall, except with the permission of the General Manager or any officer in charge of any Mint or of any Note Printing Press or of any Security Printing Press or of any Forensic Department or any officer in charge of the Forensic Science Laboratory or of the Government Examiner of Questioned Documents Organisation or of the State Examiner of Questioned Documents Organisation be permitted---
(a) to give any evidence derived from any unpublished official records on which the report is based; or
(b) to disclose the nature or particulars of any test applied by him in the course of the examination of the matter or thing.
Other provisions with similar text
The next closest matches, in order. Where a provision was split or merged, the answer is often more than one of these.
How this table was made, and what it is not
There is no official machine-readable correspondence between the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. The Ministry published comparison charts for human readers; nothing exists that a computer can check. So this is not an official mapping and we do not present it as one.
What it measures is how alike the text of two provisions is. For each provision of the old enactment we compare its words against every provision of the new one and report the closest, with the score. That works here because the new codes are largely a renumbering rather than a rewrite: where a provision carried over near-verbatim the match is self-evidencing, and you can see it for yourself, because both texts are set out side by side on every entry.
Where the law genuinely changed, the score falls and the entry says no close match found rather than offering a guess. Those entries matter: they are where the reform actually did something.
Check before you cite. A high score means the words are alike, not that a court has held the provisions equivalent. For that, read both texts and the Gazette.
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. This page is not a substitute for legal advice.