Procedure where accused does not understand proceedings
Section 318 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 deals with procedure where accused does not understand proceedings. If the accused, though not of unsound mind, cannot be made to understand the proceedings, the Court may proceed with the inquiry or trial ; 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 Repealed by section 531 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (46 of 2023) with effect from 1 July 2024, but conduct before that date is still charged, tried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.
If the accused, though not of unsound mind, cannot be made to understand the proceedings, the Court may proceed with the inquiry or trial ; and, in the case of a Court other than a High Court, if such proceed- ings result in a conviction, the proceedings shall be forwarded to the High Court with a report of the circumstances of the case, and the High Court shall pass thereon such order as it thinks fit.
Section 318, The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Act 2 of 1974).
Now in the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita
BNSS 357 Procedure where accused does not understand proceedings 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 The repealed enactment still governs what happened while it was in force.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.
-
State vs Gani Mohd.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
A conviction pronounced against an accused who cannot understand the proceedings, without explaining to the accused the incriminating circumstances appearing against him and without giving him a chance of defence, and without a conclusive finding about the accused's mental state regarding understanding of proceedings, is void ab initio. Before proceeding with trial against such an accused, the trial court must make necessary enquiries and reach a definite conclusion about whether the accused can be made to understand the proceedings. The legislative intent of Section 318 CrPC is that conviction can be recorded only when the requirements of Chapters XVII to XXI of the Criminal Procedure Code have been complied with.
On this section: Core provision dealing with cases where accused, though not of unsound mind, cannot understand proceedings. Court held that this section requires magistrate to make necessary enquiries before proceeding with trial and that conviction must comply with other procedural requirements of CrPC.
-
Usman Gani vs State
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
A petitioner cannot claim mental incapacity as grounds for condonation of delay when his own conduct demonstrates capacity to file legal remedies. Filing multiple parallel remedies against the same order constitutes abuse of process of law and will not be permitted. The credibility of claims regarding mental unsoundness must be assessed against the petitioner's demonstrated conduct and capacity to engage in legal proceedings.
On this section: Provision allowing referral of cases involving persons of unsound mind to the High Court; the petitioner invoked this section claiming mental unsoundness
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 318
What have the courts held on Section 318 of the Code of Criminal Procedure?
State vs Gani Mohd. (19 Feb 2009) is the leading judgment on this section among those set out below: Core provision dealing with cases where accused, though not of unsound mind, cannot understand proceedings. Court held that this section requires magistrate to make necessary enquiries before proceeding with trial and that conviction must comply with other procedural requirements of CrPC. Another 1 judgment on this section is set out below. They run from 2009 to 2017.
How do I find court cases under Section 318 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 318, section 318 CRPC, section 318 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 State vs Gani Mohd. (19 Feb 2009).
What should I read with Section 318 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, and has it changed?
For anything done on or after 1 July 2024 the provision to read is BNSS 357 (Procedure where accused does not understand proceedings), which replaced it; conduct before that date is still charged, tried and appealed under this section.
When did Section 318 of the Code of Criminal Procedure come into force?
Section 318 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, cited as CRPC 318, 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.