Sections 353–365 CrPC vs Sections 392–406 BNSS — The Judgment

In India, Sections 392 to 406 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) replaced Sections 353 to 365 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) from 1 July 2024. The main changes: a deferred judgment must be pronounced "not later than forty-five days", uploaded on the Court's portal within seven days as far as practicable, and may be heard by video.

At a glance

None of these sections creates an offence, so no First Schedule classification applies.

What changed

• Modified — Section 392(1) (CrPC 353(1)): "at some subsequent time of which notice shall be given" becomes "at some subsequent time not later than forty-five days of which notice shall be given". The section does not say from when the forty-five days run; one reading is that they run from the termination of the trial, but the text does not say so.
• New — proviso to Section 392(4): "the Court shall, as far as practicable, upload the copy of the judgment on its portal within a period of seven days from the date of judgment."
• Expanded — Section 392(5) (CrPC 353(5)): an accused in custody is brought up to hear the judgment "either in person or through audio-video electronic means".
• Minor edit — rest of Section 392: "pleader(s)" becomes "advocate(s)" in sub-sections (1), (4) and (7); the proviso to (6) reads "more accused persons than one" for "more accused than one" and drops the comma after "Provided that"; sub-section (8) refers to Section 511 BNSS for Section 465 CrPC.
• Minor edit — Section 393 (CrPC 354): "this Code" becomes "this Sanhita"; the Indian Penal Code becomes the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 in clauses (1)(c) and (2); cross-references in sub-section (6) move from Sections 117, 138(2), 125, 145 and 147 to Sections 136, 157(2), 144, 164 and 166.
• Omitted — Section 355 CrPC: the abbreviated record of particulars kept by a Metropolitan Magistrate has no counterpart; the word "Metropolitan" does not appear in the BNSS text.
• Expanded — Section 394 (CrPC 356): Section 356(1) CrPC applied only to a person convicted under Sections 215, 489A–489D or 506 (seven-year form) of the Indian Penal Code, or Chapters XII, XVI or XVII, with three years or upwards, and again convicted under those provisions. Section 394(1) applies on a repeat conviction for "any offence punishable with imprisonment for a term of three years or upwards". Sub-section (2) now reads "shall also apply to criminal conspiracies to commit such offences and to the abetment" (CrPC: "with reference to the offences named therein, apply also to … abatement"). The references to Section 506 and Chapter XVI were inserted into Section 356 by Act 25 of 2005 with effect from 23 June 2006.
• New — Section 398: "Every State Government shall prepare and notify a Witness Protection Scheme for the State with a view to ensure protection of the witnesses."
• Identical — Section 399 (CrPC 358): the one-thousand-rupee cap (substituted in the CrPC for "one hundred rupees" by Act 25 of 2005) and the thirty-day default term are unchanged.
• Minor edit — Section 400 (CrPC 359): "pleader's fees" becomes "advocate's fees".
• Minor edit — Section 401 (CrPC 360): "bond, with or without sureties" becomes "bond or bail bond"; "behaviour" becomes "behavior"; "Indian Penal Code" becomes "Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023" and "two years, imprisonment" becomes "two years’ imprisonment" in sub-section (3); sub-section (6) refers to Sections 140, 143 and 414 for Sections 121, 124 and 373; sub-section (10) names the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 for the Children Act, 1960. The eligibility thresholds are unchanged.
• Minor edit — Section 402 (CrPC 361): Section 401 for Section 360; the Juvenile Justice Act for the Children Act.
• Minor edit — Section 403 (CrPC 362): "this Code" becomes "this Sanhita". The bar on alteration or review is otherwise word for word the same.
• Expanded — Section 404 (CrPC 363): a second proviso to sub-section (5) allows the Court, "on an application made in this behalf by the Prosecuting Officer", to provide the Government "free of cost, a certified copy of such judgment, order, deposition or record". Sub-section (3) refers to Section 136 for Section 117. The heading drops "the" before "accused". Karnataka had inserted a similar proviso into Section 363 CrPC (Karnataka Act 19 of 1985).
• Expanded — Section 405 (CrPC 364): "and the accused so requires" becomes "and if either party so requires".
• Identical — Section 406 (CrPC 365).

Sections 395 to 397 (compensation, the victim compensation scheme and treatment of victims) are covered on the victim compensation page.

Statutory text (relevant extract)

Extract, Section 353(1) CrPC (repealed from 1 July 2024), as printed in the India Code text ("or original jurisdiction" is a misprint of "of"):

The judgment in every trial in any Criminal Court or original jurisdiction shall be pronounced in open Court by the presiding officer immediately after the termination of the trial or at some subsequent time of which notice shall be given to the parties or their pleaders,—

Extract, Section 392 BNSS, sub-section (1) opening words and the proviso to sub-section (4):

(1) The judgment in every trial in any Criminal Court of original jurisdiction shall be pronounced in open Court by the presiding officer immediately after the termination of the trial or at some subsequent time not later than forty-five days of which notice shall be given to the parties or their advocates,—

Provided that the Court shall, as far as practicable, upload the copy of the judgment on its portal within a period of seven days from the date of judgment.

Extract, Section 403 BNSS:

Save as otherwise provided by this Sanhita or by any other law for the time being in force, no Court, when it has signed its judgment or final order disposing of a case, shall alter or review the same except to correct a clerical or arithmetical error.

How it works — the steps from verdict to record

1. Pronouncement (Section 392(1)): in open Court by the presiding officer, by (a) delivering the whole judgment, (b) reading out the whole judgment, or (c) reading out the operative part and explaining the substance in a language the accused or the advocate understands.
2. Authentication (Section 392(2)–(3)): the judgment, or its transcript, is dated and signed, every page signed.
3. Access (Section 392(4)): where only the operative part is read, the whole judgment or a copy must be "immediately made available for the perusal of the parties or their advocates free of cost"; the portal upload follows within seven days, as far as practicable.
4. Presence (Section 392(5)–(7)): an accused in custody hears it in person or by audio-video electronic means; absence of a party or a defect in notice does not by itself invalidate the judgment.
5. Contents (Section 393): points for determination, decision and reasons; the offence, section and sentence, or a direction to set an acquitted accused at liberty. "Special reasons" are required for a death sentence (393(3)), and reasons for a sentence under three months for an offence punishable with one year or more (393(4)).
6. Orders ancillary to sentence (Sections 394–401): notifying address, compensation, costs, and release on probation or after admonition. Where the Court could have used Section 401, the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 or the Juvenile Justice Act but does not, Section 402 requires it to record "special reasons".
7. Finality (Section 403): once signed, no alteration or review except for a clerical or arithmetical error.
8. Copies and translation (Sections 404–406): copies to the accused, affected persons and now the Government; translation where either party requires; a copy of the finding and sentence to the District Magistrate.

What this means in practice

For the accused and defence advocate

• Note the forty-five-day limit in Section 392(1). The section does not state its starting point or any consequence for missing it; on one reading of the text, the limit runs from the termination of the trial.
• An accused sentenced to imprisonment is entitled to a copy "immediately after the pronouncement … free of cost" (Section 404(1)); where the judgment is appealable, a certified copy on application is also free (Section 404(2)).
• In a case eligible under Section 401 — for example a first offender, not under twenty-one, convicted of an offence punishable with seven years or less — press for release on probation and insist on "special reasons" under Section 402 if it is refused.

For the victim and complainant

• In a complaint case for a non-cognizable offence, ask for costs under Section 400, which may include "advocate's fees" the Court considers reasonable.
• Section 405 now lets "either party" require a translation of a judgment recorded in a language other than the Court's language.

For the prosecution

• The Prosecuting Officer can now apply under the second proviso to Section 404(5) for a free certified copy of the judgment, order, deposition or record for the Government.

For the trial court

• A recall application dressed as "clarification" is barred unless the order has a clerical or arithmetical error (Section 403; Parmeshwar Ramlal Joshi, below). An operative part pronounced without a written, signed judgment is not a judgment (Ajay Singh, below).

Judgments that still matter

Anil Rai & Ors. v. State of Bihar, [2001] Supp. 1 S.C.R. 298 (2001 INSC 342) — 6 August 2001. R.P. Sethi J. delivered the judgment and K.T. Thomas J. added a separate concurring opinion on delay in pronouncing reserved judgments in the High Court. Sethi J. read "some subsequent time" in Section 353(1) CrPC as contemplating judgment without undue delay, and said it "can at the most be stretched to a period of six weeks and not beyond that time in any case" (report p. 308). Sethi J. set out guidelines for High Courts (pp. 309–310), which Thomas J. reiterated for emphasis (pp. 325–327). Section 392(1) BNSS now puts a statutory figure, forty-five days, where Anil Rai stated six weeks.

Ajay Singh & Anr. v. State of Chhattisgarh & Anr., [2017] 1 S.C.R. 286 (2017 INSC 35) — 6 January 2017. Dipak Misra and Amitava Roy JJ. dismissed appeals by accused whose acquittal had been recorded in the order sheet "as per judgment separately typed" when no signed judgment existed. The Court held that Section 353 makes it "imperative" to pronounce the judgment in open court in one of the three modes (para 16), and that "If the judgment is not complete and signed, it cannot be a judgment in terms of Section 353 CrPC" (para 17). The trials were treated as pending (para 19); the appeals were dismissed and the court to which the High Court had transferred the cases was directed to proceed (para 27). Section 392 BNSS repeats the three modes and the signing requirements, so on a reading of the text the holding bears equally on it.

State of Rajasthan v. Parmeshwar Ramlal Joshi & Ors., [2025] 10 S.C.R. 354 (2025 INSC 1205) — 8 October 2025. Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta JJ. allowed the State's appeals against Rajasthan High Court orders that recalled a reasoned order in a Section 528 BNSS petition and then transferred an investigation to the CBI. The Court stated that "a criminal Court has no power to recall or review its own judgment. The only permissible action is to correct or rectify clerical errors by virtue of Section 403 BNSS [Section 362 CrPC]" (para 26). Finding no clerical error (para 27), it quashed both orders (para 29) and left the complainant to challenge the earlier orders as per law (para 30).

Pila Pahan @ Peela Pahan & Ors. v. State of Jharkhand & Anr., 2026 INSC 604 — 29 May 2026. Surya Kant CJI and Joymalya Bagchi J., in writ petitions by prisoners whose appeals had long been reserved, observed that the Court had issued directions on outer limits for pronouncement by High Courts "owing to the statutory lacuna in this regard, a situation not faced by the Trial Courts", citing Section 353(1) CrPC and Section 392 BNSS (para 15, footnote 4). Under Article 142 it issued binding directions to all High Courts, including a maximum of three months from reserving judgment to pronouncement (para 16). Those directions govern High Courts; Section 392 governs trial courts.

Milind S/o Ashruba Dhanve & Ors. v. State of Maharashtra, [2026] 4 S.C.R. 565 (2026 INSC 355) — 10 April 2026. J.K. Maheshwari and Atul S. Chandurkar JJ. identified Section 401 BNSS as the provision corresponding to Section 360 CrPC and contrasted Section 360 with the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958: Section 360 draws age and gender distinctions and has no supervisory mechanism (paras 27–29). It noted divergent opinions of the Court on how the two operate together (para 32). Holding that Section 4 of the 1958 Act extends to an offender sentenced to fine only, it released three appellants on probation and one after admonition (paras 42–43).

Which law applies to your case

Section 531(2)(a) BNSS provides that an 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 text, the judgment in a trial pending on that date is governed by Sections 353 to 365 CrPC, and Section 392's forty-five-day and portal rules apply to trials begun under the BNSS. See which law applies to an offence before 1 July 2024.

Frequently asked questions

What is the BNSS equivalent of Section 353 CrPC? Section 392 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 replaces Section 353 CrPC. It keeps the three modes of pronouncing a judgment in open Court, but adds that a judgment pronounced after the trial must be pronounced at a subsequent time "not later than forty-five days", that the Court shall as far as practicable upload it on its portal within seven days, and that an accused in custody may hear it through audio-video electronic means.

Is there now a time limit to pronounce a criminal judgment? Yes, for trial courts. Section 392(1) BNSS requires the judgment to be pronounced immediately after the termination of the trial or at some subsequent time "not later than forty-five days", with notice to the parties or their advocates. The section does not state the point from which the forty-five days run. Section 353(1) CrPC fixed no period; in Anil Rai v. State of Bihar (2001) Sethi J. said the subsequent time could at the most be stretched to six weeks.

Can a criminal court review or recall its own judgment under the BNSS? No. Section 403 BNSS repeats Section 362 CrPC: once a Court has signed its judgment or final order disposing of a case, it shall not alter or review it except to correct a clerical or arithmetical error, save as otherwise provided by the Sanhita or another law. In State of Rajasthan v. Parmeshwar Ramlal Joshi (2025) the Supreme Court applied Section 403 BNSS and quashed a High Court order that recalled a reasoned order under the label of a clerical mistake.

Is an accused entitled to a free copy of the judgment? Yes. Under Section 404(1) BNSS an accused sentenced to imprisonment must be given a copy free of cost immediately after pronouncement. Under Section 404(2) a certified copy, or a translation, must be given on application, free of cost where the judgment is appealable by the accused. A new second proviso to Section 404(5) lets the Court give the Government a free certified copy on the Prosecuting Officer's application.

What changed about translation of a judgment? Section 405 BNSS requires a translation into the language of the Court to be added to the record where the original judgment is recorded in a different language "and if either party so requires". Section 364 CrPC gave that right only where "the accused so requires", so the prosecution can now ask for it too.

Can the accused hear the judgment by video link? Yes, if in custody. Section 392(5) BNSS says an accused in custody shall be brought up to hear the judgment pronounced "either in person or through audio-video electronic means". Section 353(5) CrPC required the accused in custody to be brought up, with no alternative. An accused not in custody must still attend under Section 392(6), subject to the same exceptions.

Is Section 360 CrPC on probation still available? Its text continues as Section 401 BNSS, with "bond, with or without sureties" replaced by "bond or bail bond", the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita in place of the Indian Penal Code and the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 in place of the Children Act, 1960. Section 401(10) keeps the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 unaffected, and Section 402 still requires special reasons where the Court does not use these powers.

Which law governs a judgment in a trial pending on 1 July 2024? Section 531(2)(a) BNSS provides that a trial or appeal pending immediately before the BNSS came into force is to be disposed of or continued in accordance with the CrPC as if the BNSS had not come into force. On a reading of that text, the judgment in such a trial is governed by Sections 353 to 365 CrPC, not by the forty-five-day and portal rules of Section 392 BNSS.

Related

• Victim compensation: CrPC 357–357C vs BNSS 395–397
• Appeal against acquittal: CrPC 372, 378 vs BNSS 413, 419
• Appeals in petty cases: CrPC 374–376 vs BNSS 415–417
• Inherent powers of the High Court: CrPC 482 vs BNSS 528
• Offence before 1 July 2024 — which law applies
• CrPC to BNSS master table

Sources

• Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (Gazette text): Sections 392 to 406 and 531.
• Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (India Code text): Sections 353 to 365, with the amendment footnotes to Sections 356 and 358 and the Karnataka amendment to Section 363.
• Judgments read in full text: Anil Rai v. State of Bihar (S_2001_1_298_327_EN.md); Ajay Singh v. State of Chhattisgarh (2017_1_286_304_EN.md); State of Rajasthan v. Parmeshwar Ramlal Joshi (2025_10_354_367_EN.md); Pila Pahan v. State of Jharkhand (Diary_18465-2025_Judgment.md); Milind S/o Ashruba Dhanve v. State of Maharashtra (2026_4_565_592_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.