Sections 177–189 CrPC vs Sections 197–209 BNSS — Place of Inquiry and Trial

In India, Sections 197 to 209 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) replaced Sections 177 to 189 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) from 1 July 2024. The rules on where a case is tried carry over, with four substantive changes: thug offences dropped, electronic communications added, registration in India, and electronic evidence from abroad.

At a glance

These are procedural provisions; neither First Schedule classifies them.

What changed

A word-by-word comparison of the thirteen sections, and of their headings against the Gazette marginal notes, shows the following. Substantive changes first.

• Modified — Section 201(1) (thug offences omitted). CrPC 181(1): "Any offence of being a thug, or murder committed by a thug, of dacoity, of dacoity with murder, of belonging to a gang of dacoits, or of escaping from custody". BNSS 201(1): "Any offence of dacoity, or of dacoity with murder, of belonging to a gang of dacoits, or of escaping from custody". The Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS) Gazette text contains no offence of being a thug (IPC Sections 310–311 have no counterpart found in it). Sub-sections (2) to (5) are identical.
• Modified — Section 202(1) (electronic communications). The heading becomes "Offences committed by means of electronic communications, letters, etc." In the text, "by means of letters or telecommunication messages" becomes "by means of electronic communications or letters or telecommunication messages", and "such letters or messages were sent or were received" becomes "such electronic communications or letters or messages were sent or were received". A comma is also added after "cheating". Section 2(1)(i) BNSS defines "electronic communication" to cover written, verbal, pictorial or video content transmitted by an electronic device, including a telephone, mobile phone, computer or camera.
• Minor edit — Section 202(2) (bigamy). "section 494 or section 495 of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860)" becomes "section 82 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023". BNS 82(1) (marrying again during lifetime of husband or wife) and 82(2) (doing so while concealing the former marriage) correspond to the two IPC sections. The place-of-trial options — where the offence was committed, where the offender last resided with the spouse by the first marriage, or where "the wife by the first marriage has taken up permanent residence after the commission of the offence" (words inserted in the CrPC by Act 45 of 1978) — carry over.
• Modified — Section 208 (offence outside India). The person "may be dealt with in respect of such offence as if it had been committed at any place within India at which he may be found" now continues "or where the offence is registered in India". The proviso — "no such offence shall be inquired into or tried in India except with the previous sanction of the Central Government" — is unchanged apart from the comma after "Provided that" being dropped.
• Expanded — Section 209 (evidence from abroad). "copies of depositions made or exhibits produced before a Judicial officer" becomes "copies of depositions made or exhibits produced, either in physical form or in electronic form, before a judicial officer, in or for that territory" (a comma is also added after "judicial officer"); the cross-reference moves from section 188 to section 208.
• Minor edit — Section 207. "sections 177 to 185" → "sections 197 to 205"; "under some law for the time being in force triable in India" → "under any law …"; "take a bond with or without sureties" → "take a bond or bail bond".
• Minor edit — Section 204. Joinder cross-references renumbered: sections 219, 220, 221 → 242, 243, 244; section 223 → 246. The comma before "or" closing clause (a) becomes a semicolon.
• Minor edit — Section 205. "any cases or class of cases" → "any case or class of cases"; "under this Code" → "under this Sanhita".
• Minor edit — Section 198. The commas closing clauses (a), (b) and (c) before "or" become semicolons.
• Identical — Sections 197, 199, 200, 203 and 206, text and heading.

Statutory text (relevant extract)

Extract, Section 202(1) BNSS:

(1) Any offence which includes cheating, may, if the deception is practised by means of electronic communications or letters or telecommunication messages, be inquired into or tried by any Court within whose local jurisdiction such electronic communications or letters or messages were sent or were received; …

Extract, Section 188 CrPC (after clauses (a) and (b)):

he may be dealt with in respect of such offence as if it had been committed at any place within India at which he may be found:

Extract, Section 208 BNSS (same place):

he may be dealt with in respect of such offence as if it had been committed at any place within India at which he may be found or where the offence is registered in India:

How it works — finding the right court

1. Start with the ordinary rule (s.197). The Court within whose local jurisdiction the offence was committed.
2. Check the multi-place rules (s.198). If it is uncertain in which of several areas the offence was committed; if it was committed partly in one area and partly in another; if it is a continuing offence committed in more areas than one; or if it consists of several acts in different areas — a Court with jurisdiction over any of those areas.
3. Act and consequence (s.199). Where an act is an offence because of what was done and a consequence that ensued, the Court where either occurred.
4. Related offences (s.200). Where an act is an offence because of its relation to another offence (abetment is the obvious case), the Court where either act was done.
5. Offence-specific rules (ss.201–203). Dacoity and escape from custody: where committed or where the accused is found (s.201(1)). Kidnapping or abduction: where the person was kidnapped, abducted, conveyed, concealed or detained (s.201(2)). Theft, extortion, robbery and stolen property: where committed or where the property was possessed (s.201(3), (5)). Criminal misappropriation and breach of trust: where committed or where the property was received, retained, or required to be returned or accounted for (s.201(4)). Cheating by electronic communications, letters or telecommunication messages: where they were sent or received; cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery: where the property was delivered or received (s.202(1)). Journeys and voyages: any Court through or into whose jurisdiction the person or thing passed (s.203).
6. Joint trials (s.204). Offences that may be tried together under Sections 242, 243, 244 or 246 BNSS may be tried by any Court competent to try any of them.
7. Conflicts and executive direction (ss.205–206). The State Government may direct cases committed for trial in a district to be tried in any sessions division, if not repugnant to a High Court or Supreme Court direction (s.205). Where two or more Courts have taken cognizance of the same offence, the High Court decides, and "all other proceedings in respect of that offence shall be discontinued" (s.206).
8. Offences outside local jurisdiction or outside India (ss.207–209). A Magistrate of the first class may inquire into an offence committed outside his jurisdiction by a person within it and send or bind him to the competent Magistrate (s.207). An offence committed abroad by a citizen of India, or on an Indian-registered ship or aircraft by anyone, may be dealt with where the person is found or where the offence is registered in India, but not inquired into or tried without Central Government sanction (s.208).

Two neighbouring provisions complete the picture. Section 447(1)(i) BNSS (formerly Section 407 CrPC) lets the High Court order an offence to be tried by a Court "not qualified under sections 197 to 205 (both inclusive)". Section 508 BNSS (formerly Section 462 CrPC) saves findings from being set aside merely because the proceedings took place in a wrong local area, "unless it appears that such error has in fact occasioned a failure of justice".

What this means in practice

• For a complainant in an online-fraud case. Where the deception was practised by electronic communication, Section 202(1) BNSS names the place where the communication was sent or received as a place of inquiry or trial. Under Section 182(1) CrPC, the same rule was confined in its words to letters and telecommunication messages.
• For a prosecution involving conduct abroad. Section 1(5) BNS applies the Sanhita to offences by any citizen of India anywhere beyond India, by any person on an Indian-registered ship or aircraft, and by any person beyond India "committing offence targeting a computer resource located in India". On a reading of the text, Section 208 BNSS provides a place of trial only for the first two categories; it does not mention the third. Plan for the Central Government's previous sanction before the trial stage (see Thota Venkateswarlu below).
• For the accused. Territorial objections turn on facts. The Supreme Court in Kaushik Chatterjee (below) said such questions "may have to be raised before the court trying the offence and such court is bound to consider the same". Section 508 BNSS limits the effect of a wrong-place finding to cases of an actual failure of justice.
• For the advocate in a bigamy case. Section 202(2) BNSS offers three places: where the offence was committed, where the offender last resided with the first spouse, and where "the wife by the first marriage has taken up permanent residence after the commission of the offence". See the bigamy page.

Judgments that still matter

No Supreme Court judgment construing Sections 197 to 209 BNSS was traced. The judgments below construe the CrPC provisions. Where the BNSS words repeat the CrPC (Sections 197, 199, 200 and the Section 208 proviso), on a reading of the text these rulings remain relevant; where the words changed (Sections 202, 208, 209), they must be read with the new words.

Thota Venkateswarlu v. State of A.P. through Principal Secretary & Anr., [2011] 11 S.C.R. 95 (2011 INSC 634) — 2 September 2011, Altamas Kabir, Cyriac Joseph and Surinder Singh Nijjar, JJ. A wife complained of cruelty and dowry demands; some alleged acts occurred in Botswana and others in India. The Court found that the Dowry Prohibition Act offences, at best, occurred within India and could be tried without sanction (para 9). It held that the proviso to Section 188 "is a fetter on the powers of the investigating authority to inquire into or try any offence" except with previous sanction, but that the fetters apply "only when the stage of trial is reached" (para 10). At para 11: "upto the stage of taking cognizance, no previous sanction would be required … However, the trial cannot proceed beyond the cognizance stage without the previous sanction of the Central Government." The Court declined to interfere with the High Court's refusal to quash, allowed the Magistrate to proceed with the offences alleged in India, and barred trial of the offences alleged abroad without sanction (para 13). The petition was disposed of (para 14).

Rupali Devi v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors., [2019] 6 S.C.R. 577 (2019 INSC 486) — 9 April 2019, Ranjan Gogoi, CJI, L. Nageswara Rao and Sanjay Kishan Kaul, JJ. On a reference, the question was whether courts at the wife's parental home have jurisdiction over a Section 498A IPC complaint where cruelty was committed at the matrimonial home and no overt act is alleged at the parental home. The Court described Sections 178 and 179 as exceptions to the "ordinary rule" in Section 177 (paras 7–8) and said the question turned on Section 179, not Section 178(b) or (c) (para 10). It held that "the courts at the place where the wife takes shelter after leaving or driven away from the matrimonial home on account of acts of cruelty … would, dependent on the factual situation, also have jurisdiction" (para 16). The appeals were disposed of in those terms (para 17). Section 199 BNSS repeats Section 179 CrPC word for word; the cruelty offence is now in the BNS (see the cruelty page).

Kaushik Chatterjee v. State of Haryana & Ors., Supreme Court, 30 September 2020 — V. Ramasubramanian, J. In transfer petitions based on lack of territorial jurisdiction, the Court summarised the rules in Sections 177 to 184 CrPC (para 21) and held that the issue of territorial jurisdiction depends "upon facts established through evidence", must be decided "with respect to the various rules enunciated in sections 177 to 184", and "may have to be raised before the court trying the offence and such court is bound to consider the same" (para 39). The transfer petitions were dismissed, leaving both parties free to raise the issue and lead evidence before the trial court (paras 40–41).

Which law applies to your case

Section 531(2)(a) BNSS provides that any appeal, application, trial, inquiry or investigation pending immediately before 1 July 2024 is to be disposed of, continued, held or made in accordance with the CrPC "as if this Sanhita had not come into force". On a reading of that provision, place-of-trial questions in proceedings pending on that date are governed by Sections 177 to 189 CrPC, and in proceedings begun on or after that date by Sections 197 to 209 BNSS. For the full transition rules, see which law applies to an offence before 1 July 2024.

Frequently asked questions

Which BNSS sections replace Sections 177 to 189 CrPC?

Sections 197 to 209 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 replace Sections 177 to 189 of the CrPC one for one, from 1 July 2024: 177 → 197, 178 → 198, 179 → 199 and so on to 189 → 209. They form Chapter XIV of the BNSS, 'Jurisdiction of the Criminal Courts in Inquiries and Trials', which was Chapter XIII of the CrPC.

Where is a criminal case ordinarily tried under the BNSS?

Section 197 BNSS, repeating Section 177 CrPC, provides that every offence 'shall ordinarily be inquired into and tried by a Court within whose local jurisdiction it was committed'. Sections 198 to 206 then allow other places, for example where the offence was committed partly in one area and partly in another, where a consequence ensued, or where the accused is found.

Where can online cheating be tried under the BNSS?

Section 202(1) BNSS allows an offence which includes cheating, where the deception is practised by means of electronic communications or letters or telecommunication messages, to be tried by any Court within whose local jurisdiction the electronic communications or letters or messages were sent or were received. Section 182(1) CrPC did not mention electronic communications.

What changed for offences committed outside India?

Section 208 BNSS lets a citizen of India who offends abroad, or a non-citizen who offends on an Indian ship or aircraft, be dealt with as if the offence had been committed at any place in India 'at which he may be found or where the offence is registered in India'. The words 'or where the offence is registered in India' are new. The proviso requiring the previous sanction of the Central Government is unchanged.

Is Central Government sanction needed before cognizance of an offence committed abroad?

In Thota Venkateswarlu v. State of A.P., [2011] 11 S.C.R. 95, para 11, the Supreme Court held under Section 188 CrPC that no previous sanction is required up to the stage of taking cognizance, but the trial cannot proceed beyond that stage without it. The proviso to Section 208 BNSS repeats the words of the CrPC proviso, apart from one comma.

Can a wife file a cruelty case where she lives with her parents?

In Rupali Devi v. State of U.P., [2019] 6 S.C.R. 577, para 16, a three-Judge Bench held that courts where the wife takes shelter after leaving or being driven from the matrimonial home on account of cruelty would, dependent on the factual situation, also have jurisdiction, applying Section 179 CrPC. Section 199 BNSS repeats Section 179.

Can evidence recorded abroad be received electronically?

Yes, if the Central Government so directs. Under Section 209 BNSS, when an offence committed outside India is inquired into or tried under Section 208, the Central Government may direct that copies of depositions made or exhibits produced 'either in physical form or in electronic form' before a judicial officer or an Indian diplomatic or consular representative there be received as evidence.

Does a trial in the wrong place become void?

Not merely for that reason. Section 508 BNSS, repeating Section 462 CrPC, provides that no finding, sentence or order shall be set aside merely because the proceedings took place in a wrong sessions division, district, sub-division or other local area, unless the error has in fact occasioned a failure of justice.

Related

• Zero FIR — BNSS 173
• Cognizance by Magistrate — CrPC 190 vs BNSS 210
• Warrant executed outside jurisdiction — CrPC 78–81
• Bigamy — IPC 494–495 vs BNS 82
• Online fraud and digital arrest scams
• CrPC to BNSS master comparison table

Sources

• Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (Gazette of India text): Sections 2(1)(i), 197–209, 242–244, 246 (headings), 447(1)(i), 508, 531(2)(a).
• Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (original India Code PDF text): Sections 177–189 with the Act 45 of 1978 footnote to Section 182(2), and Section 462.
• Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (Gazette of India text): Sections 1(4)–(5), 82. Indian Penal Code, 1860 (original text): Sections 310–311.
• Thota Venkateswarlu v. State of A.P., [2011] 11 S.C.R. 95 — corpus file 2011_11_95_104_EN.md.
• Rupali Devi v. State of Uttar Pradesh, [2019] 6 S.C.R. 577 — corpus file 2019_6_577_589_EN.md.
• Kaushik Chatterjee v. State of Haryana — corpus file Diary_30233-2019_Judgment.md.

This page explains the statutory text and the judgments cited as they stand. It is not legal advice; for a specific case, consult an advocate.