Sections 225–237 CrPC vs Sections 248–260 BNSS — Trial Before a Court of Session

In India, Sections 248 to 260 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) replaced Sections 225 to 237 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) from 1 July 2024. The Sessions trial runs through the same stages, but the BNSS adds sixty-day limits for discharge and charge, audio-video evidence, and judgment within thirty days from the date of completion of arguments.

These thirteen sections make up Chapter XIX of the BNSS, "Trial before a Court of Session" (Chapter XVIII of the CrPC). Each old number moves 23 places up, and the chapter begins once a Magistrate commits the case under Section 232 BNSS (formerly Section 209 CrPC).

At a glance

These are procedural sections, so neither First Schedule classifies them. Whether a case reaches the Court of Session at all depends on the "triable by" column of the First Schedule for the offence charged.

What changed

Substantive changes

• Section 227 → Section 250 — Modified. A new sub-section (1) lets the accused "prefer an application for discharge within a period of sixty days from the date of commitment of the case under section 232". Sub-section (2) repeats Section 227. This is covered in full on the page for Sections 227 and 239 CrPC.
• Section 228 → Section 251 — Modified. Clause (b): the Judge shall frame the charge in writing "within a period of sixty days from the date of first hearing on charge" (new words). Sub-section (2): the charge is read and explained "to the accused present either physically or through audio-video electronic means" (new words). Clause (a) drops "or, as the case may be," before "the Judicial Magistrate of the first class".
• Section 231 → Section 254 — Expanded. A proviso to sub-section (1): "evidence of a witness under this sub-section may be recorded by audio-video electronic means". A new sub-section (2): "The deposition of evidence of any public servant may be taken through audio-video electronic means." The old sub-section (2), on deferring cross-examination or recalling a witness, is now sub-section (3), word for word.
• Section 235 → Section 258 — Modified. Sub-section (1): "the Judge shall give a judgment in the case" now continues "as soon as possible, within a period of thirty days from the date of completion of arguments, which may be extended to a period of forty-five days for reasons to be recorded in writing". Sub-section (2): "section 360" → "section 401".
• Section 237 → Section 260 — Modified. Sub-section (4): compensation "not exceeding one thousand rupees" → "not exceeding five thousand rupees". Heading and sub-section (1): "section 199(2)" / "sub-section (2) of section 199" → "sub-section (2) of section 222". Sub-section (3): "the President, Vice-President" → "the President, the Vice-President".
• Section 226 → Section 249 — Expanded. "in pursuance of a commitment of the case under section 209" → "in pursuance of a commitment of the case under section 232, or under any other law for the time being in force"; a comma is added after "brought before the Court".

Drafting changes and unchanged sections

• Section 225 → 248 — Identical. Same heading and words.
• Section 229 → 252 — Identical.
• Section 230 → 253 — Minor edit. "section 229" → "section 252".
• Section 232 → 255 — Identical.
• Section 233 → 256 — Minor edit. "section 232" → "section 255".
• Section 234 → 257 — Minor edit. "the accused or his pleader" → "the accused or his advocate", in the section and its proviso.
• Section 236 → 259 — Minor edit. "sub-section (7) of section 211" → "sub-section (7) of section 234"; "section 229 or section 235" → "section 252 or section 258" (twice).

The BNSS as enacted does not reproduce the Chhattisgarh, Karnataka and West Bengal amendments to Section 228 CrPC; whether any State has amended Section 251 BNSS was not checked.

Statutory text (relevant extract)

Extract — Section 258(1) BNSS:

(1) After hearing arguments and points of law (if any), the Judge shall give a judgment in the case, as soon as possible, within a period of thirty days from the date of completion of arguments, which may be extended to a period of forty-five days for reasons to be recorded in writing.

Extract — Section 235(1) CrPC (old):

(1) After hearing arguments and points of law (if any), the Judge shall give a judgment in the case.

Extract — Section 254(1) proviso and (2) BNSS:

Provided that evidence of a witness under this sub-section may be recorded by audio-video electronic means.

(2) The deposition of evidence of any public servant may be taken through audio-video electronic means.

How it works — the stages of a Sessions trial

1. Prosecution by the Public Prosecutor (Section 248). Every Sessions trial is prosecuted by a Public Prosecutor appointed under Section 18 BNSS. A victim may instruct an advocate, but under Section 338(2) BNSS that advocate "shall act therein under the directions of the Public Prosecutor" and may, with the Court's permission, submit written arguments after the evidence is closed.
2. Opening (Section 249). When the accused appears after commitment under Section 232 (or under any other law), the prosecutor describes the charge and states "by what evidence he proposes to prove the guilt of the accused".
3. Discharge or charge (Sections 250 and 251). The accused may apply for discharge within sixty days of commitment. If the Judge finds "not sufficient ground for proceeding", he discharges with reasons. If there is "ground for presuming" an offence, he either frames a charge and transfers the case to the Chief Judicial Magistrate or another Judicial Magistrate of the first class (offence not exclusively Sessions-triable, Section 251(1)(a)), or frames a written charge himself within sixty days of the first hearing on charge (Section 251(1)(b)).
4. Plea (Sections 251(2) and 252). The charge is read and explained, and the accused is asked whether he pleads guilty or claims to be tried. On a guilty plea the Judge records it and "may, in his discretion, convict him thereon".
5. Prosecution evidence (Sections 253 and 254). The Judge fixes a date, issues process on the prosecution's application, and takes "all such evidence as may be produced in support of the prosecution". Evidence may be recorded by audio-video electronic means; cross-examination of a witness may be deferred, or a witness recalled (Section 254(3)).
6. Examination of the accused and acquittal (Section 255). After the prosecution evidence, examining the accused (Section 351 BNSS) and hearing both sides "on the point", the Judge records an acquittal if there is "no evidence that the accused committed the offence".
7. Defence (Section 256). Otherwise the accused enters on his defence; any written statement is filed, and process for defence witnesses issues unless refused, for recorded reasons, as sought "for the purpose of vexation or delay or for defeating the ends of justice".
8. Arguments (Section 257). The prosecutor sums up and the accused or his advocate replies; if the defence raises a point of law, the prosecution may answer it with the Judge's permission.
9. Judgment and sentence (Section 258). Judgment within the period in Section 258(1), quoted in the extract above. On conviction the Judge hears the accused on sentence, unless he proceeds under Section 401 (probation or admonition), and then passes sentence.
10. Previous conviction (Section 259). A previous conviction charged under Section 234(7) is not read out or referred to until the accused is convicted under Section 252 or 258; if then disputed, the Judge takes evidence and records a finding.

Special procedure — Section 260. Where a Court of Session takes cognizance on a Public Prosecutor's written complaint of defamation of the President, the Vice-President, a Governor, an Administrator, a Minister or another public servant in respect of his public functions (Section 222(2) BNSS), it tries the case as a warrant case instituted otherwise than on a police report. The person defamed is examined as a prosecution witness unless the Court directs otherwise for recorded reasons. The trial is held in camera if either party wants it or the Court thinks fit. If the Court discharges or acquits and finds "no reasonable cause" for the accusation, it may order the person defamed (other than the President, the Vice-President, a Governor or an Administrator) to pay compensation of up to five thousand rupees, recoverable as a fine and appealable to the High Court (Sections 260(3) to (8)).

What this means in practice

• For the accused and defence advocate: Diarise three periods that did not exist under the CrPC: sixty days from commitment to apply for discharge (Section 250(1)), sixty days from the first hearing on charge for the charge to be framed (Section 251(1)(b)), and the Section 258(1) period for judgment (quoted above). On a reading of the text, Sections 250, 251 and 258 do not state what follows if a period is missed. The hearing on sentence under Section 258(2) is a separate stage: be ready with material on the accused's background, not only oral submissions (see Santa Singh below).
• For the Public Prosecutor: A private advocate briefed by the victim works under your directions (Section 338(2)); the conduct of the trial stays with you (Section 248). A public servant's deposition can now be taken by audio-video means (Section 254(2)).
• For the victim: Your advocate may assist the Public Prosecutor and, with the Court's permission, file written arguments after the evidence is closed (Section 338(2)); your advocate cannot take over the prosecution.
• Defamation of high functionaries: The person defamed may be ordered to pay up to ₹5,000 (was ₹1,000) if the accusation had no reasonable cause (Section 260(4)).

Judgments that still matter

Santa Singh v. State of Punjab, [1977] 1 S.C.R. 229 (Supreme Court, 17 August 1976; P.N. Bhagwati and S. Murtaza Fazal Ali JJ., separate concurring opinions). The trial court sentenced the appellant to death on the day it convicted him, without hearing him on sentence. Bhagwati J. held that the hearing under Section 235(2) "is not confined merely to hearing oral submissions": both sides may place facts and material bearing on sentence and, if contested, lead evidence, though the Court must not let the hearing be used to protract proceedings (report page 235). He held that non-compliance "cannot be described as mere irregularity" curable under Section 465 CrPC (report page 236). Fazal Ali J. read the provision as splitting "the sessions trial or the warrant trial, where also a similar provision exists" into two integral stages (report page 239). The conviction under Section 302 IPC was left undisturbed; the death sentence was set aside and the case remanded to the Sessions Court to pass sentence after hearing the appellant (report page 237). Section 258(2) BNSS repeats Section 235(2) except for the cross-reference to Section 401, so on a reading of the text the ruling bears on the new section.

Shiv Kumar v. Hukam Chand and Anr., [1999] Supp. 2 S.C.R. 81 (1999 INSC 363) (Supreme Court, 30 August 1999; S.P. Kurdukar, K.T. Thomas and N. Santosh Hegde JJ.; judgment by K.T. Thomas J.). The complainant sought leave for his own advocate to conduct a Sessions prosecution with the Public Prosecutor's consent. The Court held: "From the scheme of the Code the legislative intention is manifestly clear that prosecution in a Sessions Court cannot be conducted by any one other than the Public Prosecutor" (report page 86). A private counsel acts under the Public Prosecutor's directions and may file written arguments only with the Court's permission; reducing the Public Prosecutor to a supervisory role would make Section 225 "a dead letter" (report pages 86–87). The appeal was dismissed. Section 248 BNSS repeats Section 225 word for word.

State of Kerala v. Rasheed, [2018] 13 S.C.R. 587 (Supreme Court, 30 October 2018; Abhay Manohar Sapre and Indu Malhotra JJ.; judgment by Indu Malhotra J.). An accused asked to defer cross-examination of five witnesses until all their examinations-in-chief were over. The Court held that "deferral cannot be asserted as a matter of right" and the party seeking it "must give sufficient reasons" (para 7); the guiding test is prejudice to that party if deferral is refused (para 10). It laid down practice guidelines, including a case-calendar prepared after framing of charges and a deferral request made preferably before that calendar is prepared (para 12). The appeal was allowed, the High Court's order was set aside and the Additional Sessions Judge's order refusing deferral was restored (para 14). The words construed are now Section 254(3) BNSS.

Post-2024 judgment

Mukesh Kumar Yadav v. The State (UT of Andaman & Nicobar Islands), 2026 INSC 559 (Supreme Court, 26 May 2026; judgment by K.V. Viswanathan J.). The High Court reversed an acquittal, convicted the appellant and directed the trial judge to hear him and impose sentence. The Supreme Court set out Section 235 CrPC alongside its BNSS counterpart, Section 258 (para 9). It held that a court convicting an accused for the first time must itself hear him on sentence: a trial court under Section 235(2), and an appellate court reversing an acquittal under Section 386(a) CrPC, which "cannot relegate the matter to the court below only for the purpose of imposing a sentence" (para 19). It set aside that part of the High Court's judgment, restored the appeals to the High Court and directed it to hear the convict on sentence; the appeals were partly allowed (paras 20–22). It was decided under the CrPC.

Which law applies to your case

Section 531(2)(a) BNSS provides that a trial pending immediately before 1 July 2024 is to be continued in accordance with the CrPC "as if this Sanhita had not come into force". On a reading of that text, a Sessions trial pending on that date continues under Sections 225 to 237 CrPC, without the BNSS time limits. For offences committed before 1 July 2024 but tried later, see which law applies to an offence before 1 July 2024.

Frequently asked questions

Which BNSS sections replace Sections 225 to 237 CrPC?

Sections 248 to 260 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 replace Sections 225 to 237 CrPC in the same order, each old number plus 23: Section 225 is now 248, Section 235 is now 258 and Section 237 is now 260. They form Chapter XIX of the BNSS, 'Trial before a Court of Session', and apply from 1 July 2024.

Is there now a time limit for a Sessions Judge to deliver judgment?

Yes. Section 258(1) BNSS requires the Judge to give judgment 'as soon as possible, within a period of thirty days from the date of completion of arguments, which may be extended to a period of forty-five days for reasons to be recorded in writing'. Section 235(1) CrPC set no period.

Can witnesses give evidence by video in a Sessions trial under the BNSS?

Yes. The proviso to Section 254(1) BNSS allows the evidence of a witness to be recorded by audio-video electronic means, and Section 254(2) allows the deposition of any public servant to be taken the same way. Section 231 CrPC had no such provision. The discretion to defer cross-examination moves from Section 231(2) CrPC to Section 254(3) BNSS.

Can the victim's own lawyer conduct the prosecution in a Sessions case?

No. Section 248 BNSS repeats Section 225 CrPC: the prosecution in every Sessions trial 'shall be conducted by a Public Prosecutor'. Under Section 338(2) BNSS a privately instructed advocate acts under the Public Prosecutor's directions and may, with the Court's permission, submit written arguments after the evidence closes. The Supreme Court applied the old provisions to the same effect in Shiv Kumar v. Hukam Chand ([1999] Supp. 2 S.C.R. 81).

Must the accused be heard on sentence after conviction?

Yes. Section 258(2) BNSS, like Section 235(2) CrPC, requires the Judge, unless he releases the accused on probation or after admonition (now Section 401 BNSS), to hear the accused on sentence before passing it. In Santa Singh v. State of Punjab ([1977] 1 S.C.R. 229) the Supreme Court set aside a death sentence passed without that hearing and remanded the case for a fresh hearing on sentence.

How long does the Judge have to frame a charge in a Sessions case?

Where the offence is exclusively triable by the Court of Session, Section 251(1)(b) BNSS requires the Judge to frame the charge in writing 'within a period of sixty days from the date of first hearing on charge'. Section 228 CrPC had no period. The charge must then be read and explained to the accused, who may be present physically or through audio-video electronic means (Section 251(2)).

What changed in Section 237 CrPC on defamation of high functionaries?

It is now Section 260 BNSS, and applies to cases taken up on a Public Prosecutor's complaint under Section 222(2) BNSS (formerly Section 199(2) CrPC). The procedure is unchanged, but the compensation a Court of Session may order against the person defamed, where it finds no reasonable cause for the accusation, rises from one thousand to five thousand rupees (Section 260(4)).

Do the new time limits apply to a Sessions trial pending on 1 July 2024?

Section 531(2)(a) BNSS provides that a trial pending immediately before 1 July 2024 is to be continued in accordance with the CrPC as if the BNSS had not come into force. On a reading of that text, a Sessions trial pending on that date continues under Sections 225 to 237 CrPC, which contain no thirty-day judgment limit or sixty-day charge limit.

Related

• Sections 227 and 239 CrPC vs Sections 250 and 262 BNSS — Discharge
• Sections 206–209 CrPC — Petty offences and commitment to the Court of Session
• Sections 218–224 CrPC vs Sections 241–247 BNSS — Joinder of charges
• Sections 238–250 CrPC vs Sections 261–273 BNSS — Trial of warrant cases
• Sections 24–25A CrPC — Public Prosecutors
• Discharge application and charge-framing deadlines
• CrPC to BNSS master comparison table

Sources

• Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (Gazette of India text): Sections 18, 222, 232, 234(7), 248–260, 338, 351, 401, 531.
• Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (original India Code text, with footnotes and State amendments): Sections 199, 209, 211, 225–237, 360.
• Santa Singh v. State of Punjab — judgment_md 1977_1_229_241_EN.md; report PDF.
• Shiv Kumar v. Hukam Chand and Anr. — judgment_md S_1999_2_81_88_EN.md; report PDF.
• State of Kerala v. Rasheed — judgment_md 2018_13_587_602_EN.md; report PDF.
• Mukesh Kumar Yadav v. The State (UT of Andaman & Nicobar Islands) — judgment_md Diary_27227-2026_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.