Acquittal or conviction
Section 255 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 deals with acquittal or conviction. If the Magistrate, upon taking the evidence referred to in section 254 and such further evidence, if any, as he may, of his own motion, cause to be produced, finds the accused not guilty, he shall record an order of acquittal. 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 Repealed by section 531 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (46 of 2023) with effect from 1 July 2024, but conduct before that date is still charged, tried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 Magistrate, upon taking the evidence referred to in section 254 and such further evidence, if any, as he may, of his own motion, cause to be produced, finds the accused not guilty, he shall record an order of acquittal.
(2) Where the Magistrate does not proceed in accordance with the provisions of section 325 or section 360, he shall, if he finds the accused guilty, pass sentence upon him according to law.
(3) A Magistrate may, under section 252 or section 255, convict the accused of any offence triable under this Chapter, which from the facts admitted or proved he appears to have committed, whatever may be the nature of the complaint or summons, if the Magistrate is satisfied that the accused would not be prejudiced thereby.
Section 255, The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Act 2 of 1974).
Now in the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita
BNSS 278 Acquittal or conviction 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 The repealed enactment still governs what happened while it was in force.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.
-
Keki Hormusji Gharda vs Mehervan Rustom Irani
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
In the absence of express statutory provision creating vicarious criminal liability, company directors and officers cannot be held criminally liable for actions of company employees or contractors merely by virtue of their positions in the company. Criminal liability requires direct overt acts, physical presence, or involvement by the accused. Allegations of instigating or managing affairs of a company do not, by themselves, constitute criminal wrongful restraint when the accused were not physically present at the site and no direct physical obstruction was caused by them. The Magistrate must carefully apply his mind to the facts and law before issuing summons, and must determine whether the allegations, even if taken to be correct, disclose a prima facie offence.
On this section: Discharge of accused - Referenced in the High Court order granting liberty to appellants to raise all contentions at trial.
-
Sardar Harvinder Singh vs Chobrolu Hutasana Rao
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 as the provision under which trial court convicted the accused
-
Puvvada Venkata Krishna Murthy vs The State of A.p.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
When a cheque is issued towards discharge of a legally enforceable debt and is dishonored due to insufficient funds, the issuer commits an offense under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The presentation of a cheque on multiple occasions, each resulting in dishonor, constitutes separate causes of action. The presumption under Section 146 of the Negotiable Instruments Act applies to validate the fact of dishonor based on the bank's official cheque return memo, and technical errors in the date of the memo (such as a Sunday date) do not invalidate the entire case if the bank has issued an official note confirming dishonor. The absence of cross-examination on key facts (such as the signature on the cheque and promissory note, or the loan amount) and the failure of the accused to adduce defense evidence or testify in his own defense strengthen the case against the accused.
On this section: Conviction and sentencing procedure - under which the trial court convicted and sentenced the accused
-
Shuchi Pandya vs Akshay Suresh Khadye
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
If a drawer of a cheque pays a part of the sum before the cheque is encashed, the legally enforceable debt on the date of maturity is not the sum represented on the cheque. Presentation of such a cheque without endorsement of part-payment fails the requirements of Section 138.
On this section: Standard procedures for trial and acquittal.
-
M Sathyananda Bhat vs Smt Leela K Nair
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
In a complaint under Section 138 of the NI Act, while a presumption exists in favor of the holder, the accused can rebut it by showing the improbability of the complainant's claim through a 'preponderance of probabilities'; if the complainant fails to prove the source of funds or the underlying transaction with material evidence, the acquittal is justified.
On this section: Acquittal of the accused.
-
Abilio Dsouza vs Adarsh Yeshwant Shet Mayekar
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
A sole proprietor can file a criminal complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act in his individual capacity for cheques issued in the name of his sole proprietorship concern, as a sole proprietorship does not constitute a separate juristic person and does not fall within the ambit of Section 141 of the NI Act. The complaint is maintainable when the sole proprietor is the sole beneficiary and manager of the proprietorship account, and the cheques are issued in discharge of a legally enforceable debt. All ingredients of Section 138 NI Act are satisfied when: (i) valid cheques are drawn on the account of the drawer; (ii) cheques are for payment of money; (iii) cheques are issued in discharge of debt or liability; (iv) cheques are returned unpaid; and (v) demand notice is served and payment is not made within 15 days. The presumption under Section 139 NI Act applies unless rebutted by the accused.
On this section: Applied for conviction and sentencing of the accused
-
Kalidindi Ramakrishna Raju vs P.p.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
While the conviction of the petitioners under Sections 278 and 284 IPC is justified based on the evidence and does not warrant interference, the sentence of rigorous imprisonment of six months is excessive and disproportionate. The High Court, in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction, may modify the sentence by setting aside the imprisonment while maintaining the fine penalties, particularly when the accused have already paid the fines and have undergone prolonged litigation.
On this section: Conviction by Magistrate - Applied by the trial court to convict the accused under Sections 278 and 284 IPC
-
Inspector of police, Kottapatti. vs Naveenkumar
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
In criminal cases involving motor vehicle accidents, the prosecution must prove beyond reasonable doubt that the accused operated the vehicle recklessly or negligently and that such conduct directly caused the death. Mere circumstantial evidence, hearsay testimony from witnesses who did not directly observe the accident, and the absence of eyewitnesses who can establish the manner of driving are insufficient to convict. The burden of proof remains on the prosecution throughout, and if the evidence does not meet the threshold of 'beyond reasonable doubt,' the accused must be acquitted.
On this section: Acquittal - Legal basis for acquitting the accused when charges not proven beyond reasonable doubt
-
Shri Subhash G Narvekar vs Mr Dharmendra Kumar Singh
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
In cheque dishonour cases under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, the statutory presumptions in favour of the complainant (under Sections 139 and 118) are mandatory and rebuttable. The accused must rebut these presumptions by preponderance of probability through cogent evidence. Mere allegations without supporting material, such as claiming blank cheques were issued for charity without proof of the charity or the complainant's charitable status, are insufficient to rebut the presumptions. The bank's cheque return memo creates a prima facie presumption of dishonour under Section 146, which is rebuttable only if the accused produces evidence of funds in the account. When the accused fails to discharge the burden of rebuttal, the court must find the accused guilty of the offence under Section 138.
On this section: Conviction and sentence - Court convicted the accused under this section for the offence under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act.
-
Gaffoor Abdulla Mujawar vs Anjum Musa Khatib
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
An accused cannot rebut the statutory presumption of a legally enforceable debt by merely alleging theft of cheques without supporting evidence like a police complaint or internal security records, especially when bank records confirm the receipt of funds.
On this section: Judgment of acquittal or conviction.
-
State vs Satish
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Without eyewitness testimony establishing the essential ingredients of rash and negligent driving, a person cannot be convicted under Section 279/304A IPC. The prosecution bears the burden of proving guilt beyond reasonable doubt, and this burden never shifts to the accused. When the prosecution's case is doubtful or lacks credible eyewitness evidence of the alleged rash and negligent driving, the benefit of doubt must be given to the accused, resulting in acquittal.
On this section: Order of acquittal. The court exercised power under this section to acquit the accused for the offences punishable under Section 279 and 304A IPC.
-
R.V.Ramaiah vs T.H.Manjunatha
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
In a private complaint case under the Negotiable Instruments Act, when a Magistrate passes an order of acquittal, the complainant cannot appeal against such acquittal order before the Sessions Court. The exclusive remedy available to the complainant is to file an application for special leave to appeal before the High Court under Section 378(4) of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973. Only after the High Court grants special leave can the complainant prefer an appeal before the High Court. An appeal against acquittal in a complaint case cannot be filed in the Sessions Court under any provision of the Criminal Procedure Code.
On this section: Provision under which lower court passed acquittal order; cited to establish that lower court followed proper procedure in acquitting accused.
-
The Bagalkot Rural Ps vs Hanamappa Sangappa Chimmalagi
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
In electoral offence cases under Section 133 of the Representation of the People Act and Section 171(H) of the Indian Penal Code, the prosecution bears the burden of proving guilt beyond reasonable doubt through credible and reliable evidence. If the evidence presented by the prosecution is insufficient to establish the essential ingredients of the offence, the accused must be acquitted.
On this section: Procedural provision under which the acquittal order was passed by the court
-
The State of West Bengal vs MANIK DAS BAIRAGYA
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
In criminal jurisprudence, the fundamental principle is that a person alleged as an accused is presumed to be innocent unless that presumption is rebutted by the prosecution by production of evidence showing him to be guilty of the offence charged. The burden of proving guilt of the accused is on the prosecution, and unless the prosecution relieves itself of this burden through adequate and credible evidence, the court cannot record a finding of guilt. When witness testimony is insufficient to establish the prosecution case, the accused must be acquitted.
On this section: Acquittal of accused when prosecution fails to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt
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 255
What have the courts held on Section 255 of the Code of Criminal Procedure?
Keki Hormusji Gharda vs Mehervan Rustom Irani (13 May 2009) is the leading judgment on this section among those set out below: Discharge of accused - Referenced in the High Court order granting liberty to appellants to raise all contentions at trial. Another 13 judgments on this section are set out below, 1 of them from the Supreme Court. They run from 2009 to 2025.
How do I find court cases under Section 255 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 255, section 255 CRPC, section 255 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. People searching for it also type crpc 255(1) and crpc 255(2). Each opens the full list of orders on eCourtsIndia, where it can be narrowed by court, year and outcome. 14 reported judgments on this section are set out on this page, beginning with Keki Hormusji Gharda vs Mehervan Rustom Irani (13 May 2009).
What should I read with Section 255 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, and has it changed?
Its own text turns on section 252 (Conviction on plea of guilty), section 254 (Procedure when not convicted), section 325 (Procedure when Magistrate cannot pass sentence sufficiently severe), section 360 (Order to release on probation of good conduct or after admonition), 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 278 (Acquittal or conviction), which replaced it; conduct before that date is still charged, tried and appealed under this section.
When did Section 255 of the Code of Criminal Procedure come into force?
Section 255 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, cited as CRPC 255, 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.