Section 309 CrPC vs Section 346 BNSS — Adjournments and Day-to-Day Trial

In India, Section 346 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) replaced Section 309 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) on 1 July 2024. The day-to-day trial rule is unchanged; the new element is a cap of two adjournments, after hearing the other side and recording reasons, where circumstances are beyond a party's control.

At a glance

What changed

• Sub-section (1), day-to-day rule — Minor edit. "shall be continued from day-to-day until all the witnesses in attendance have been examined" becomes "from day-to-day basis until …". The exception — adjournment "beyond the following day" found "necessary for reasons to be recorded" — is unchanged.
• Proviso to sub-section (1), two-month limit — Modified. The period ("within a period of two months from the date of filing of the chargesheet") is unchanged. The IPC list (376, 376A, 376AB, 376B, 376C, 376D, 376DA, 376DB) becomes BNS sections 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 70 and 71. BNS section 71, "Punishment for repeat offenders", corresponds in heading to IPC section 376E, which the CrPC list did not include. BNS section 69 (deceitful means) is not listed.
• Sub-section (2), power to adjourn and remand — Identical. For reasons recorded, the Court may postpone or adjourn "on such terms as it thinks fit, for such time as it considers reasonable", and "may by a warrant remand the accused if in custody".
• First proviso, remand cap — Modified. "no Magistrate shall remand" becomes "no Court shall remand an accused person to custody under this section for a term exceeding fifteen days at a time".
• Second proviso — Identical. No adjournment without examining witnesses in attendance "except for special reasons to be recorded in writing".
• Third proviso — Minor edit. Same words — no adjournment "for the purpose only of enabling the accused person to show cause against the sentence" — but it now ends in a colon rather than a full stop.
• Last proviso, clause (a) — Identical. No adjournment at a party's request "except where the circumstances are beyond the control of that party".
• Last proviso, clause (b) — New. "where the circumstances are beyond the control of a party, not more than two adjournments may be granted by the Court after hearing the objections of the other party and for the reasons to be recorded in writing".
• Clauses (c) and (d) (were (b) and (c)) — Minor edit. "pleader" becomes "advocate"; otherwise the same.
• Explanations 1 and 2 — Identical. Reasonable cause for remand; costs as a term of adjournment.

History of Section 309 CrPC (from the India Code footnotes): the third proviso was inserted by Act 45 of 1978 (w.e.f. 18 December 1978); the last proviso by Act 5 of 2009 (w.e.f. 1 November 2010); sub-section (1) was substituted by Act 13 of 2013 (w.e.f. 3 February 2013); and the offence list was amended by Act 22 of 2018 (w.e.f. 21 April 2018).

Statutory text (relevant extract)

Extract, Section 309(2) CrPC, last proviso (repealed from 1 July 2024):

Provided also that— (a) no adjournment shall be granted at the request of a party, except where the circumstances are beyond the control of that party; (b) the fact that the pleader of a party is engaged in another Court, shall not be a ground for adjournment; …

Extract, Section 346(2) BNSS, last proviso:

Provided also that— (a) no adjournment shall be granted at the request of a party, except where the circumstances are beyond the control of that party; (b) where the circumstances are beyond the control of a party, not more than two adjournments may be granted by the Court after hearing the objections of the other party and for the reasons to be recorded in writing; (c) the fact that the advocate of a party is engaged in another Court, shall not be a ground for adjournment; …

How it works — the steps

1. Once witnesses are in attendance, continue day to day (Section 346(1)). Adjournment beyond the next day needs recorded reasons.
2. A witness who is present must be examined (second proviso to Section 346(2)). Adjourning without examining that witness needs "special reasons to be recorded in writing".
3. Party's request (clause (a)). Refused unless the circumstances are beyond that party's control.
4. Even then, a ceiling (clause (b)). At most two adjournments on that ground, each after hearing the other side's objections and with written reasons.
5. The advocate's other engagements are no ground (clause (c)).
6. Non-cooperation at the witness stage (clause (d)). If a party or advocate is absent or unready when a witness is present, the court may record the witness's statement and dispense with examination-in-chief or cross-examination.
7. Terms of adjournment (Explanation 2). Costs may be imposed on the prosecution or the accused.
8. Remand (Section 346(2) and first proviso). If the accused is in custody, the court may remand by warrant, for not more than fifteen days at a time; Explanation 1 describes a reasonable cause for remand.
9. Rape trials (proviso to Section 346(1)). For BNS sections 64 to 68, 70 and 71, the inquiry or trial "shall be completed within a period of two months from the date of filing of the chargesheet".

Neighbouring time limits in the BNSS: investigation of the same rape offences (except section 69 BNS, and adding listed POCSO offences) is to be completed within two months of the information being recorded (Section 193(2)); and after arguments the judgment is to be given within thirty days, extendable to forty-five for recorded reasons (Section 258(1)). See investigation and trial timelines.

What this means in practice

For the defence advocate

• Clause (b) limits adjournments sought on the ground of circumstances beyond control to two. On a reading of the text, the limit applies to adjournments "at the request of a party" under clause (a); it does not limit the court's own power under Section 346(2) to adjourn for recorded reasons.
• A diary clash with another court is not a ground (clause (c)). Shambhu Nath Singh held that an advocate's inconvenience is not a "special reason".
• If you are not ready when a witness is present, clause (d) lets the court record the witness and dispense with your cross-examination.

For the public prosecutor

• Adjournments sought by the prosecution are subject to the same clauses (a) to (d). In Mir Usman the Court also questioned why the victim was not the first witness examined and why 30 witnesses were proposed in a rape trial (order of 8 September 2025, para 6, as reproduced; order of 22 September 2025, paras 6-7).
• In a trial under BNS sections 64 to 68, 70 or 71, the two-month period runs from the filing of the chargesheet.

For the trial court

• Record reasons for any adjournment beyond the next day, special reasons in writing for not examining a witness present, and, under clause (b), the other party's objections and the reasons for each adjournment granted on the ground of circumstances beyond control.
• Mir Usman disapproved recording examination-in-chief in one month and cross-examination in a later month (para 21).

For a witness

• A witness who attends is to be examined that day unless the court records special reasons. The terms of an adjournment may include, "in appropriate cases, the payment of costs by the prosecution or the accused" (Explanation 2).

Judgments that still matter

State of U.P. v. Shambhu Nath Singh, [2001] 2 S.C.R. 854 — 29 March 2001. K.T. Thomas and R.P. Sethi JJ. (judgment by Thomas J.) set aside an acquittal recorded after a trial court closed the prosecution evidence when a witness, whose cross-examination had been repeatedly deferred, was absent. The Court held that once examination of witnesses starts, the court must continue day to day until all witnesses in attendance have been examined, and that "if a witness is present in court he must be examined on that day". It held that "inconvenience of an advocate is not a 'special reason'" for bypassing Section 309, and that where the accused or counsel does not cooperate the court may remand the accused, impose costs commensurate with the witness's loss, or, if the accused is absent while the witness is present, cancel bail. It directed the trial court to proceed with further examination of the witness and others. The report shows no paragraph numbers. The Court construed Section 309 as it stood before sub-section (1) was substituted in 2013; its reading of the second proviso (witnesses in attendance) concerns words repeated in Section 346(2) BNSS.

Vinod Kumar v. State of Punjab, [2015] 1 S.C.R. 504 — 21 January 2015. Dipak Misra and Rohinton Fali Nariman JJ. (judgment by Misra J.) upheld a bribery conviction where a witness, cross-examined a year and eight months after his examination-in-chief, had resiled from it. The Court recorded that the law "requires special reasons to be recorded for grant of time", said that "if the examination-in-chief is over, the cross-examination should be completed on the same day", and that deferring cross-examination for so long "is anathema to the concept of proper and fair trial" (para 41). The appeal was dismissed and the appellant's bail bonds cancelled (para 42).

The Central Bureau of Investigation v. Mir Usman @ Ara @ Mir Usman Ali, [2025] 9 S.C.R. 1490 (2025 INSC 1155) — 22 September 2025. On the CBI's petition to cancel bail in a rape case, J.B. Pardiwala and K.V. Viswanathan JJ. found that the victim's further cross-examination had been adjourned by four months after she fell ill in the witness box (para 4). The Court declined to set aside the bail (para 11). Referring to "Section 309 of the Cr.P.C. (now Section 346 of the BNSS, 2023)", it stated that once examination of witnesses starts the court must continue from day to day until all witnesses in attendance have been examined, and disapproved the practice of recording examination-in-chief and cross-examination in different months (paras 20-21). It suggested that the Chief Justices of the High Courts "may direct" their administrative side to issue a circular to district judiciaries — including that an advocate's convenience is not a special reason, and that the court may appoint amicus curiae, impose costs or cancel bail where the defence does not cooperate (para 37). It asked the trial court to make every endeavour to complete the trial by 31 December 2025 (para 40). Para 37 is framed as a suggestion to the High Courts, not a direction to trial courts.

Which law applies to your case

Section 531(2)(a) BNSS provides that a trial or inquiry pending immediately before 1 July 2024 is continued under the CrPC "as if this Sanhita had not come into force". On a reading of that clause, adjournments in such a trial are governed by Section 309 CrPC, without the two-adjournment cap in clause (b) of Section 346(2); trials under the BNSS follow Section 346. See which law applies to an offence before 1 July 2024.

Frequently asked questions

What is the BNSS equivalent of Section 309 CrPC? Section 346 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 replaces Section 309 CrPC from 1 July 2024. It keeps the rule that proceedings continue from day to day until all witnesses in attendance are examined, and adds a limit of two adjournments where circumstances are beyond a party's control.

How many adjournments can a party get under Section 346 BNSS? Under clause (a) of the last proviso to Section 346(2), no adjournment shall be granted at a party's request except where the circumstances are beyond its control. Under the new clause (b), even then not more than two adjournments may be granted, after hearing the other party's objections and for reasons recorded in writing. Section 309 CrPC had clause (a) but no numerical cap.

Can a trial be adjourned because the advocate is busy in another court? No. Clause (c) of the last proviso to Section 346(2) BNSS says the fact that the advocate of a party is engaged in another Court shall not be a ground for adjournment. Section 309 CrPC said the same of a "pleader". In State of U.P. v. Shambhu Nath Singh ([2001] 2 S.C.R. 854) the Supreme Court held that the inconvenience of an advocate is not a special reason for adjourning when witnesses are present.

Can the court adjourn when witnesses are present? Only for special reasons recorded in writing. The second proviso to Section 346(2) BNSS says that when witnesses are in attendance, no adjournment or postponement shall be granted without examining them, except for special reasons to be recorded in writing. The words are the same as in Section 309(2) CrPC.

Within what time must a rape trial be completed under the BNSS? The proviso to Section 346(1) BNSS says that where the inquiry or trial relates to an offence under BNS sections 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 70 or 71, it shall be completed within two months from the date of filing of the chargesheet. The CrPC proviso set the same two months for the IPC rape offences it listed; BNS section 71 (repeat offenders) is added, its IPC counterpart section 376E not having been listed.

Can a court remand the accused to custody when it adjourns a trial? Yes. Section 346(2) BNSS lets the court, when it postpones or adjourns, remand the accused by warrant if in custody, but its first proviso says no Court shall remand an accused person to custody under this section for a term exceeding fifteen days at a time. Section 309(2) CrPC placed the fifteen-day limit on a "Magistrate"; the BNSS applies it to any "Court".

What can a court do if the defence does not cross-examine a witness who is present? Under clause (d) of the last proviso to Section 346(2) BNSS, where a witness is present but a party or advocate is absent, or present but not ready to examine or cross-examine, the court may record the witness's statement and pass orders dispensing with examination-in-chief or cross-examination. Explanation 2 allows costs to be imposed as a term of adjournment.

Which law applies to adjournments in a trial that began before 1 July 2024? Section 531(2)(a) BNSS says a trial pending immediately before 1 July 2024 continues under the CrPC as if the BNSS had not come into force. On a reading of that clause, adjournments in such a trial are governed by Section 309 CrPC, without the two-adjournment cap in Section 346(2), while trials begun under the BNSS follow Section 346.

Related

• Timelines for investigation and trial under the new laws
• Witness testimony by video — BNSS vs CrPC
• Section 313 CrPC vs Section 351 BNSS — Examination of the Accused
• Rape — IPC 375-376E vs BNS 63-71
• CrPC to BNSS master table
• Sections 272–283 CrPC vs Sections 307–318 BNSS — Mode of Taking and Recording Evidence

Sources

• Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (Gazette text): Sections 193(2), 258, 346 and 531.
• Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (India Code text): Section 309, with its amendment footnotes and the Chhattisgarh State amendment.
• Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (Gazette text): Sections 64 to 71 (headings). Indian Penal Code, 1860: Section 376E (heading).
• Judgments read in full text: State of U.P. v. Shambhu Nath Singh (2001_2_854_863_EN.md); Vinod Kumar v. State of Punjab (2015_1_504_542_EN.md); The Central Bureau of Investigation v. Mir Usman (2025_9_1490_1514_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.