Evidence for prosecution
Section 242 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 deals with evidence for prosecution. If the accused refuses to plead or does not plead, or claims to be tried or the Magistrate does not convict the accused under section 241, the Magistrate shall fix a date for the examination of witnesses. The Act came into force on 01 Apr 1974. Repealed by section 531 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (46 of 2023) with effect from 1 July 2024, but conduct before that date is still charged, tried and appealed under it.
(1) If the accused refuses to plead or does not plead, or claims to be tried or the Magistrate does not convict the accused under section 241, the Magistrate shall fix a date for the examination of witnesses.
(2) The Magistrate may, on the application of the prosecution, issue a summons to any of its witnesses directing him to attend or to produce any document or other thing.
(3) On the date so fixed, the Magistrate shall proceed to take all such evidence as may be produced in support of the prosecution:
Provided that the Magistrate may permit the cross-examination of any witness to be deferred until any other witness or witnesses have been examined or recall any witness for further cross-examination.
Section 242, The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Act 2 of 1974).
Now in the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita
BNSS 265 Evidence for prosecution Text carried over almost unchanged 90%
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 The repealed enactment still governs what happened while it was in force.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
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.
-
Mohd.rafiq vs State
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
When a petitioner himself files an application under sections 173 and 242 CrPC seeking reinvestigation and specifically prays that cognizance should not be taken till the decision of such application, any delay in taking cognizance caused by the pendency of such application cannot be attributed to the prosecution or the court's inaction. Therefore, such delay does not constitute a violation of the limitation period prescribed under section 468 CrPC, and cognizance taken after the rejection of such application is not illegal merely on the ground that it was taken after the expiry of the limitation period calculated from the date of the charge-sheet filing.
On this section: Application for reinvestigation; petitioner filed application under this section seeking reinvestigation and delay in cognizance
-
P.tharakarama Reddy vs The State of Telangana
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Admitting documents subject to proof and relevancy in criminal proceedings is a proper procedure that does not constitute an infirmity. Merely marking documents on record does not dispense with the requirement of proving them through witness examination, and the accused retains the right to cross-examine witnesses regarding such documents.
On this section: Provision under which prosecution applied to introduce documents as evidence
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 242
What have the courts held on Section 242 of the Code of Criminal Procedure?
Mohd.rafiq vs State (08 May 2013) is the leading judgment on this section among those set out below: Application for reinvestigation; petitioner filed application under this section seeking reinvestigation and delay in cognizance. Another 1 judgment on this section is set out below. They run from 2013 to 2022.
How do I find court cases under Section 242 of the Code of Criminal Procedure?
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: CRPC 242, section 242 CRPC, section 242 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Each opens the full list of orders on eCourtsIndia, where it can be narrowed by court, year and outcome. 2 reported judgments on this section are set out on this page, beginning with Mohd.rafiq vs State (08 May 2013).
What should I read with Section 242 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, and has it changed?
Its own text turns on section 241 (Conviction on plea of guilty), so none of them can safely be read on its own. For anything done on or after 1 July 2024 the provision to read is BNSS 265 (Evidence for prosecution), which replaced it; conduct before that date is still charged, tried and appealed under this section.
When did Section 242 of the Code of Criminal Procedure come into force?
Section 242 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, cited as CRPC 242, came into force on 01 Apr 1974, having been enacted on 25 Jan 1974. It is no longer in force.
Other sections of this Act
- 320. Compounding of offences1554 words
- 167. Procedure when investigation cannot be completed in twenty four hours1005 words
- 220. Trial for more than one offence962 words
- 360. Order to release on probation of good conduct or after admonition804 words
- 2. Definitions799 words
- 198. Prosecution for offences against marriage774 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. Recovered from the consolidated text published by India Code (item 330a1099-77ad-4a2e-b22a-769b33398f9e). This page is not a substitute for legal advice.