Sections 291–294 CrPC vs Sections 326–330 BNSS — Medical Depositions, Expert Reports and Formal Proof of Documents

In India, Sections 326 to 330 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) replaced Sections 291 to 294 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) from 1 July 2024. The core rules carry over; Section 330 adds a thirty-day limit for admitting or denying documents and bars calling an expert whose report is undisputed.

At a glance

These are procedural provisions; no First Schedule classification is involved. Neighbouring provisions: Section 332 BNSS (evidence of formal character on affidavit, CrPC 296) and Section 334 (previous conviction or acquittal how proved, CrPC 298).

What changed

• Modified — Section 330(1) (CrPC 294(1)): the call to admit or deny now carries a time limit. The BNSS adds "soon after supply of such documents and in no case later than thirty days after such supply", followed by a new first proviso: "the Court may, in its discretion, relax the time limit with reasons to be recorded in writing".
• New — second proviso to Section 330(1): "no expert shall be called to appear before the Court unless the report of such expert is disputed by any of the parties to the trial". Section 294 CrPC had no equivalent.
• Minor edit — Section 330(1) wording: "the prosecution or the accused, as the case may be, or the pleader for the prosecution or the accused" becomes "the prosecution or the accused or the advocate for the prosecution or the accused".
• Minor edit — Section 330(2) and (3): the list of documents is in such form "as the State Government may, by rules, provide" (the India Code CrPC text reads "as be prescribed by the State Government"); "in inquiry" becomes "in any inquiry", "this Code" becomes "this Sanhita", and "the person to whom it purports to be signed" becomes "the person by whom it purports to be signed". The proviso letting the Court require the signature to be proved is unchanged.
• Modified — Section 328(1) (CrPC 292(1)): "under the hand of any such officer of any Mint …" becomes "under the hand of a gazetted officer of any Mint …". The list of offices (Mint, Note Printing Press, Security Printing Press including the officer of the Controller of Stamps and Stationery, Forensic Department or Division of Forensic Science Laboratory, Government Examiner of Questioned Documents, State Examiner of Questioned Documents) is unchanged, and the officer must still be one the Central Government specifies by notification. "As the case may be" is dropped.
• Minor edit — Section 328(2) and (3): in sub-section (3), "sections 123 and 124 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872" becomes "sections 129 and 130 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023", and "as the case may be" is dropped.
• Expanded — Section 329(4)(g) (CrPC 293(4)(g)): "any other Government scientific expert specified, by notification, by the Central Government" becomes "any other scientific expert specified or certified, by notification, by the State Government or the Central Government". The word "Government" before "scientific expert" is dropped from clause (g), "or certified" is added, and the State Government becomes a notifying authority.
• Minor edit — Section 329(1) to (3) and (4)(a) to (f): the same words, with "Code" replaced by "Sanhita". The six named experts are unchanged, including "the Director, Haffkeine Institute, Bombay".
• Minor edit — Section 327 (CrPC 291A): the proviso's cross-references move from "section 21, section 32, section 33, section 155 or section 157 … of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872" to "section 19, section 26, section 27, section 158 or section 160 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023", and "as the case may be" is dropped.
• Minor edit — Section 326 (CrPC 291): "The deposition of civil surgeon" becomes "The deposition of a civil surgeon", and "Code" becomes "Sanhita". The India Code CrPC text also prints a Gujarat State amendment (Gujarat Act 31 of 2017) inserting "or, as the case may be through the medium of Electronic Video Linkage" in Section 291(1); Section 326 BNSS does not contain those words.

Statutory text (relevant extract)

Extract, Section 294(1) CrPC (repealed from 1 July 2024):

Where any document is filed before any Court by the prosecution or the accused, the particulars of every such document shall be included in a list and the prosecution or the accused, as the case may be, or the pleader for the prosecution or the accused, if any, shall be called upon to admit or deny the genuineness of each such document.

Extract, Section 330(1) BNSS with its provisos:

… shall be called upon to admit or deny the genuineness of each such document soon after supply of such documents and in no case later than thirty days after such supply:

Provided that the Court may, in its discretion, relax the time limit with reasons to be recorded in writing:

Provided further that no expert shall be called to appear before the Court unless the report of such expert is disputed by any of the parties to the trial.

How it works

Section 326 — medical depositions. A deposition of a civil surgeon or other medical witness is admissible without calling the deponent if it was either (a) taken and attested by a Magistrate in the presence of the accused, or (b) taken on commission under Chapter XXV. Under Section 326(2) the Court "may, if it thinks fit" summon and examine the deponent, and "shall" do so on the application of the prosecution or the accused — so either side can insist on cross-examination.

Section 327 — identification reports. A report of identification of a person or property under the hand of an Executive Magistrate may be used as evidence without calling the Magistrate. The proviso protects the rules of evidence: a statement of a suspect or witness inside the report that falls under Sections 19 (admissions), 26 (statements of persons who cannot be called), 27 (evidence in a former proceeding), 158 (impeaching credit) or 160 (former statements to corroborate) of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 (BSA) can be used only in accordance with those sections. As with Section 326, the Court "shall" summon the Magistrate on the application of either side.

Section 328 — Mint, press and questioned-document reports. The report must be under the hand of a gazetted officer of a listed office whom the Central Government has specified by notification, on a matter "duly submitted to him for examination and report". The Court may summon the officer, but not to produce the records behind the report (proviso to 328(2)); without the permission of the head of the office, the officer may not give evidence from unpublished official records or disclose the tests applied (328(3)).

Section 329 — Government scientific experts. Four steps:

1. The expert must be one of those in Section 329(4): a Chemical Examiner or Assistant Chemical Examiner to Government; the Chief Controller of Explosives; the Director of the Finger Print Bureau; the Director, Haffkeine Institute, Bombay; the Director, Deputy Director or Assistant Director of a Central or State Forensic Science Laboratory; the Serologist to the Government; or another scientific expert specified or certified by notification.
2. The matter or thing must have been "duly submitted to him for examination or analysis and report in the course of any proceeding" under the Sanhita.
3. The report "may be used as evidence" (329(1)); unlike Sections 326 to 328, sub-section (1) does not add the words "although … not called as a witness".
4. The Court "may, if it thinks fit" summon the expert (329(2)); an expert who cannot attend may depute a responsible officer conversant with the facts, unless the Court has expressly directed personal appearance (329(3)).

Section 330 — admission and denial of documents. Every document filed by either side goes into a list in the form the State Government provides by rules. The opposite side (or its advocate) must admit or deny the genuineness of each document within thirty days of supply, unless the Court relaxes the limit for recorded reasons. Where genuineness is not disputed, the document may be read in evidence without proof of signature (330(3)), subject to the Court's discretion to require proof.

What this means in practice

For the prosecutor

• The thirty-day period in Section 330(1) runs from "supply of such documents", not from a date the Court fixes.
• Check that a forensic report comes from a Section 329(4) expert, or from a gazetted officer notified under Section 328(1). On a reading of the text, a report outside those lists does not get the benefit of either section, so its author may need to be examined (compare Ramkirat Munilal Goud below).
• A report that the defence does not dispute need not be proved by calling its author: the second proviso to Section 330(1) says no expert "shall be called" in that case.

For the defence advocate

• Admit or deny every document on the list within thirty days of supply, or apply for relaxation with reasons. On a reading of Section 330(1), a document not disputed may be read in evidence without formal proof, and an expert whose report is not disputed will not be called — so a failure to dispute can cost the right to cross-examine the expert. The Court's power under Section 329(2) to summon an expert "if it thinks fit" remains.
• For medical depositions (Section 326) and identification reports (Section 327), the Court "shall" summon the deponent or Magistrate on the accused's application. Make that application where the deposition or report is contested.
• Defence documents are also covered: Section 330(1) applies to documents filed "by the prosecution or the accused".

For the trial judge: reasons must be recorded if the thirty-day limit is relaxed (first proviso to Section 330(1)).

Judgments that still matter

State of Himachal Pradesh v. Mast Ram, [2004] Supp. 4 S.C.R. 269 (2004 INSC 509) — 10 September 2004. B.N. Agrawal and H.K. Sema JJ. (judgment by Sema J.) allowed the State's appeal, set aside the High Court's acquittal and restored the conviction under Section 302 IPC. The High Court had rejected a ballistic report signed by a junior scientific officer of the Central Forensic Science Laboratory, Chandigarh, because he was not an officer named in Section 293(4) CrPC. The Supreme Court called that reasoning fallacious: the report was under the hand of a Government scientific expert, and Section 293(1) allows such a report to be used as evidence; sub-section (4) means the Court accepts documents issued by the officers enumerated "without examining the author" (report page 273; the report prints no paragraph numbers). Section 329(1) and (4) BNSS repeat these words.

Shamsher Singh Verma v. State of Haryana, [2015] 12 S.C.R. 234 (2015 INSC 860) — 24 November 2015. Dipak Misra and Prafulla C. Pant JJ. (judgment by Pant J.) allowed an accused's appeal against orders refusing to let a defence compact disc be played for the public prosecutor to admit or deny and be sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory. The Court held that the object of Section 294 CrPC "is to accelerate pace of trial by avoiding the time being wasted by the parties in recording the unnecessary evidence" (para 11), that a compact disc is a document, and that admission or denial need not be obtained personally from the accused — an endorsement by defence counsel, or by the public prosecutor on a defence document, is sufficient compliance (para 14). The orders below were set aside and the application allowed (para 17).

In Re: To Issue Certain Guidelines Regarding Inadequacies and Deficiencies in Criminal Trials, [2021] 4 S.C.R. 100 — 20 April 2021. In a suo motu writ, a three-Judge Bench (S.A. Bobde CJI, L. Nageswara Rao and S. Ravindra Bhat JJ.) finalised the Draft Rules of Criminal Practice, 2021 and directed all High Courts to incorporate them within six months (para 19(a)). The Court said trial courts should hold a preliminary case-management hearing after charge, consider whether the parties can admit any document, including reports of experts, and that "the exercise of admission/denial may be carried out under Section 294, Cr. PC, for which a specific date may be fixed" (para 17; Draft Rule 19(i)). Section 330 BNSS now puts an outer limit of thirty days from supply on that exercise.

Post-2024 judgments

Ramkirat Munilal Goud v. State of Maharashtra, [2025] 6 S.C.R. 513 (2025 INSC 702) — 7 May 2025. Vikram Nath, Sanjay Karol and Sandeep Mehta JJ. (judgment by Mehta J.) allowed the appeals against a conviction and death sentence and acquitted the appellant (paras 78-79). On a soil-comparison report, the Court observed that there was "no evidence to show" that the expert's observations were admissible ipso facto under Section 293 CrPC, "which is equivalent to Section 329 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023", and noted that the expert who prepared it was not examined (para 72).

Putai v. State of Uttar Pradesh, [2025] 8 S.C.R. 2108 (2025 INSC 1042) — 26 August 2025. The same Bench (judgment by Mehta J.) allowed the appeals, quashed the High Court judgment and the trial court's judgment of conviction and order of sentence (for offences including rape and murder), and acquitted the appellants (paras 81-82). A supplementary DNA report had been tendered during the High Court appeal with the affidavit of a Deputy Director, FSL, who was not connected with the report. The Court held it "could not have been proved through an affidavit": referring to "Section 293 of CrPC (Section 329 of BNSS, 2023)", it said only evidence of a formal nature can be given on affidavit, and a DNA report is "substantive piece of evidence" (para 75). If the prosecution wanted to rely on it, it had to recall and re-examine the expert who issued it (para 76). The provision that allows formal evidence by affidavit is, on the text, Section 332 BNSS (Section 296 CrPC).

Which law applies to your case

Section 531(2)(a) BNSS provides that any trial, inquiry or appeal 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, documents and expert reports in such a trial are governed by Sections 291 to 294 CrPC, without the thirty-day limit and expert proviso of Section 330 BNSS; proceedings begun on or after 1 July 2024 follow Sections 326 to 330 BNSS. See which law applies to an offence before 1 July 2024.

Frequently asked questions

What is the BNSS equivalent of Section 293 CrPC? Section 329 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 replaces Section 293 CrPC. A report under the hand of a listed Government scientific expert, such as a Chemical Examiner, the Director of the Finger Print Bureau or a Director, Deputy Director or Assistant Director of a Forensic Science Laboratory, may be used as evidence, and the Court may summon the expert. Clause (4)(g) now covers any scientific expert specified or certified by notification by the State Government or the Central Government.

What changed in Section 330 BNSS compared with Section 294 CrPC? Section 330(1) BNSS requires the prosecution, the accused or their advocate to admit or deny the genuineness of each listed document soon after supply of the documents and in no case later than thirty days after such supply; the Court may relax the limit with reasons recorded in writing. A second proviso says no expert shall be called to appear unless the expert's report is disputed by any party. Section 294 CrPC had neither provision.

Must a forensic expert always be examined as a witness? No. Under Section 329(1) BNSS a report of a listed Government scientific expert may be used as evidence in any inquiry, trial or other proceeding, and under Section 329(2) the Court may summon and examine the expert if it thinks fit. The second proviso to Section 330(1) BNSS adds that no expert is to be called unless the report is disputed by a party. In Ramkirat Munilal Goud (2025) the Supreme Court declined to treat a soil-comparison report as admissible ipso facto where there was no evidence to show it fell within Section 293 CrPC and its author was not examined.

Can a document be read in evidence without proving the signature? Yes, if its genuineness is not disputed. Section 330(3) BNSS allows such a document to be read in evidence in any inquiry, trial or other proceeding without proof of the signature of the person by whom it purports to be signed, though the Court may in its discretion require the signature to be proved. Section 294(3) CrPC was to the same effect.

Who must admit or deny documents under Section 330 BNSS — the accused personally? Section 330(1) BNSS calls on the prosecution or the accused or the advocate for the prosecution or the accused. Construing Section 294 CrPC, the Supreme Court held in Shamsher Singh Verma v. State of Haryana (2015) that an endorsement of admission or denial by defence counsel, or by the public prosecutor on a defence document, is sufficient compliance, and that a compact disc is a document.

Can a DNA or FSL report be proved by an officer's affidavit? In Putai v. State of Uttar Pradesh (2025) the Supreme Court held that a supplementary DNA report could not be proved through the affidavit of an FSL officer who was not connected with it, because only evidence of a formal nature can be given on affidavit and a DNA report is substantive evidence. The provision allowing formal evidence on affidavit is Section 332 BNSS (Section 296 CrPC).

Which law applies to a trial that began before 1 July 2024? Section 531(2)(a) BNSS provides that a trial or inquiry pending immediately before the BNSS came into force is to be continued in accordance with the CrPC as if the Sanhita had not come into force. On a reading of that text, Sections 291 to 294 CrPC, without the thirty-day limit of Section 330 BNSS, govern documents and expert reports in such a trial.

Related

• Section 45 Evidence Act vs Section 39 BSA — Expert Opinion
• Section 207 CrPC vs Section 230 BNSS — Supply of Police Report and Documents
• Mandatory forensic evidence collection and videography under the BNSS
• Sessions trial: CrPC 225-237
• Section 313 CrPC vs Section 351 BNSS — Examination of the Accused
• CrPC to BNSS master table

Sources

• Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (Gazette text): Sections 326 to 334 and 531.
• Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (India Code text): Sections 291, 291A, 292, 293, 294 and 295 to 297, with amendment footnotes and the Gujarat State amendment to Section 291.
• Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 (Gazette text): Sections 19, 26, 27, 129, 130, 158 and 160 (cross-references in Sections 327 and 328 BNSS).
• Judgments read in full text: State of Himachal Pradesh v. Mast Ram (S_2004_4_269_278_EN.md); Shamsher Singh Verma v. State of Haryana (2015_12_234_242_EN.md); In Re: To Issue Certain Guidelines Regarding Inadequacies and Deficiencies in Criminal Trials (2021_4_100_121_EN.md); Ramkirat Munilal Goud v. State of Maharashtra (2025_6_513_544_EN.md); Putai v. State of Uttar Pradesh (2025_8_2108_2135_EN.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.