Sections 406–412 CrPC vs Sections 446–452 BNSS — Transfer of Criminal Cases

In India, Sections 446 to 452 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) replaced Sections 406 to 412 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) from 1 July 2024. The grounds for transfer are unchanged; compensation for a frivolous or vexatious transfer application is now uncapped in the Supreme Court and High Court, and capped at ten thousand rupees before a Sessions Judge.

At a glance

These sections create no offence, so no First Schedule classification applies. Chapter XXXI of the CrPC ("Transfer of Criminal Cases") is Chapter XXXIII of the BNSS.

What changed

• Modified — Section 446(3) (CrPC 406(3)): "such sum not exceeding one thousand rupees as it may consider appropriate" becomes "such sum as it may consider appropriate". Sub-sections (1) and (2) are word for word the same.
• Modified — Section 447(7) (CrPC 407(7)): "such sum not exceeding one thousand rupees as it may consider proper" becomes "such sum as it may consider proper".
• Minor edit — Section 447(4): the accused applicant may be directed to execute "a bond or bail bond" for any compensation, for "a bond, with or without sureties".
• Minor edit — rest of Section 447: "this Code" becomes "this Sanhita"; clause (1)(i) refers to Sections 197 to 205 for Sections 177 to 185 (place of inquiry and trial); the separators after clauses (a) and (b) become semicolons; sub-section (5) reads "merits of the application" for "merits of the applications"; sub-section (6) reads "subordinate Court" and "interest of justice" in lower case, and the remand proviso refers to Section 346 for Section 309; sub-section (9) reads "any order of the Government under section 218" for "any order of Government under section 197".
• Modified — Section 448(3) (CrPC 408(3)): CrPC applied Section 407(7) to the Sessions Judge "as if for the words 'one thousand rupees' … the words 'two hundred and fifty rupees' were substituted". Section 448(3) applies Section 447(7) "as if for the word 'sum' occurring therein, the words 'sum not exceeding ten thousand rupees' were substituted".
• Minor edit — Section 449 (CrPC 409): sub-section (1) reads "from, or recall any case or appeal which he has made over to a Chief Judicial Magistrate subordinate to him" — "any Assistant Sessions Judge or" is dropped. "This Code" becomes "this Sanhita" in (3). The India Code CrPC heading reads "Session Judge"; the BNSS heading reads "Sessions Judges".
• Minor edit — Section 450 (CrPC 410): sub-section (2) refers to Section 212(2) for Section 192(2); the heading ends "Judicial Magistrates".
• Minor edit — Section 451 (CrPC 411): "Sub- Divisional Magistrate" becomes "Sub-divisional Magistrate". The powers are unchanged.
• Minor edit — Section 452 (CrPC 412): Sections 448 to 451 for Sections 408 to 411.

Statutory text (relevant extract)

Extract, Section 408(3) CrPC (repealed from 1 July 2024), closing words:

… except that sub-section (7) of that section shall so apply as if for the words "one thousand rupees" occurring therein, the words "two hundred and fifty rupees" were substituted.

Extract, Section 447 BNSS, sub-section (1)(a) and the proviso to sub-section (2):

(a) that a fair and impartial inquiry or trial cannot be had in any Criminal Court subordinate thereto; or

Provided that no application shall lie to the High Court for transferring a case from one Criminal Court to another Criminal Court in the same sessions division, unless an application for such transfer has been made to the Sessions Judge and rejected by him.

Extract, Section 448(3) BNSS, closing words:

… except that sub-section (7) of that section shall so apply as if for the word "sum" occurring therein, the words "sum not exceeding ten thousand rupees" were substituted.

How it works — choosing the forum and the ground

1. Within a sessions division — apply to the Sessions Judge (Section 448(1)), who may transfer "any particular case" from one Criminal Court to another in the division where "expedient for the ends of justice". The Sessions Judge may also act on the lower Court's report or on his own initiative (448(2)).
2. Within the State — apply to the High Court (Section 447). The grounds are that (a) a fair and impartial inquiry or trial cannot be had in a subordinate Court; (b) a question of law of unusual difficulty is likely to arise; or (c) an order is required by the Sanhita, will tend to the general convenience of parties or witnesses, or is expedient for the ends of justice. The High Court may order that an offence be tried by a Court not qualified under Sections 197 to 205 but otherwise competent; transfer a case or appeal, or a class of them, to a Court of equal or superior jurisdiction; commit a case to a Court of Session; or try it itself. For a transfer within one sessions division, the Sessions Judge must have been approached and have refused first (proviso to 447(2)).
3. Across States — apply to the Supreme Court (Section 446), on the application of the Attorney-General of India or "a party interested".
4. Formalities (Sections 446(2), 447(3)–(5)): the application is by motion supported by affidavit or affirmation (except where the Attorney-General or the Advocate-General applies); an accused applicant must give the Public Prosecutor written notice with the grounds, and no order on the merits may be made until "at least twenty-four hours have elapsed" after that notice.
5. Pending the application (Section 447(6)): a stay of the subordinate Court's proceedings is discretionary, and does not touch the power of remand under Section 346.
6. Costs of failure (Sections 446(3), 447(7), 448(3)): if the application is dismissed as frivolous or vexatious, compensation may be ordered to any person who opposed it.
7. Internal redistribution (Sections 449–451): Sessions Judges, Chief Judicial Magistrates, Judicial Magistrates and Executive Magistrates may withdraw, recall or make over cases within their own hierarchy, and must record reasons (Section 452).

What this means in practice

For the accused or complainant seeking transfer

• Frame the application around the statutory grounds and the fair-trial test in Maneka Sanjay Gandhi (below): relative convenience alone is not enough. Where convenience is relied on, Section 447(1)(c) speaks of "the general convenience of the parties or witnesses", not the applicant's alone.
• Before the High Court, show that the Sessions Judge was approached and refused where the transfer is within one sessions division.
• The compensation exposure for a frivolous or vexatious application is now uncapped in the High Court and the Supreme Court and up to ten thousand rupees before a Sessions Judge. On a reading of the text, the cost of a speculative transfer application has risen.
• An accused applicant in the High Court or before a Sessions Judge may be asked for "a bond or bail bond" to secure that compensation (Sections 447(4), 448(3)).

For the prosecution

• The twenty-four-hour notice rule in Section 447(5) protects the Public Prosecutor; an order on the merits made earlier is contrary to its words.

For the trial court

• A pending transfer application does not stop remand under Section 346 even where a stay is granted (proviso to Section 447(6)).

Judgments that still matter

Maneka Sanjay Gandhi & Anr. v. Rani Jethmalani, [1979] 2 S.C.R. 378 — 23 November 1978. V.R. Krishna Iyer, P.S. Kailasam and A.D. Koshal JJ. (judgment delivered by Krishna Iyer J.) dismissed a petition under Section 406 CrPC to move a defamation prosecution from Bombay to Delhi. The Court held that "Assurance of a fair trial is the first imperative of the dispensation of justice", and that the central criterion is not "the hypersensitivity or relative convenience of a party" but something "more substantial, more compelling, more imperilling" from the point of view of public justice (report p. 380). It noted that normally "the complainant has the right to choose any court having jurisdiction and the accused cannot dictate where the case against him should be tried" (p. 380). Persistent turbulence endangering a party, or a regional atmosphere destroying neutrality, may warrant transfer (pp. 381–382), but the allegations did not make a fair trial impossible (p. 383). It asked the trial court to consider liberally exempting the accused from personal appearance and left her free to renew the motion (pp. 383–384). The report shows no paragraph numbers.

K. Anbazhagan v. Superintendent of Police & Ors., [2003] Supp. 5 S.C.R. 610 (2003 INSC 642) — 18 November 2003. S.N. Variava and H.K. Sema JJ. allowed petitions under Section 406 CrPC and transferred two Prevention of Corruption Act cases from the Special Court at Chennai to a Special Court to be constituted by the State of Karnataka (report p. 632), with directions for a special public prosecutor and protection of witnesses. The Court held that "party interested" in Section 406(2) is "of a wide import" and not limited to a party to the proceedings, so a political opponent was a party interested (p. 620). It found "justifiable and reasonable apprehensions of miscarriage of justice and likelihood of bias" (p. 621), noting that 76 witnesses had been recalled, and stated that "Free and fair trial is sine qua non of Article 21 of the Constitution" (p. 629). The report shows no paragraph numbers. Section 446(2) BNSS repeats "a party interested".

Jai Balaji Industries Ltd. & Ors. v. M/s HEG Ltd., 2025 INSC 1362 — 28 November 2025. J.B. Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan JJ. decided transfer petitions filed "under Section 446 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023" (para 3). A cheque-dishonour complaint had been returned by the Metropolitan Magistrate at Kolkata, after evidence under Section 145(2) of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 had begun, and was then before the Judicial Magistrate First Class at Bhopal. Holding that a fresh contest at Bhopal "would amount to a procedural impropriety" (para 78), the Court transferred the case back to Kolkata "to meet the ends of justice", to resume from the stage before the return (para 80), and allowed the lead petition, disposing of the connected transfer petitions in the same terms (para 82). It is an application of Section 446 BNSS, whose operative words — "expedient for the ends of justice" — repeat Section 406 CrPC.

Because Sections 446(1)–(2), 447(1)–(6) and 448(1)–(2) repeat the operative words of Sections 406 to 408 CrPC, judgments construing those words remain relevant on a reading of the text.

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, a transfer application pending on that date is decided under Sections 406 to 408 CrPC, with their compensation caps; for a fresh application made later in a trial still running under the CrPC, the provision does not state the answer in terms. See which law applies to an offence before 1 July 2024.

Frequently asked questions

What is the BNSS equivalent of Section 406 CrPC? Section 446 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 replaces Section 406 CrPC. The Supreme Court may transfer a particular case or appeal from one High Court to another, or from a Criminal Court under one High Court to a Criminal Court of equal or superior jurisdiction under another, where it is expedient for the ends of justice, on the application of the Attorney-General of India or a party interested.

What changed in the transfer provisions under the BNSS? The grounds and procedure are the same. The change is in compensation for a frivolous or vexatious application: Sections 446(3) and 447(7) BNSS drop the one-thousand-rupee cap for the Supreme Court and the High Court, and Section 448(3) raises the Sessions Judge's cap from two hundred and fifty rupees to ten thousand rupees. Section 447(4) also refers to "a bond or bail bond" instead of "a bond, with or without sureties".

On what grounds can the High Court transfer a criminal case? Under Section 447(1) BNSS, where a fair and impartial inquiry or trial cannot be had in a subordinate Criminal Court, where a question of law of unusual difficulty is likely to arise, or where an order is required by the Sanhita, will tend to the general convenience of the parties or witnesses, or is expedient for the ends of justice. It may act on the lower Court's report, a party's application or its own initiative (Section 447(2)).

Must I apply to the Sessions Judge before the High Court? Yes, for a transfer within the same sessions division. The proviso to Section 447(2) BNSS says no application lies to the High Court to transfer a case from one Criminal Court to another in the same sessions division unless an application has been made to the Sessions Judge and rejected by him. The Sessions Judge's own power is in Section 448(1).

Does filing a transfer petition stop the trial? Not automatically. Under Section 447(6) BNSS the High Court may stay the proceedings in the subordinate Court pending the application, on such terms as it thinks fit, if satisfied it is necessary in the interest of justice. The stay does not affect the subordinate Court's power of remand under Section 346. Section 448(3) applies the same rule to applications before the Sessions Judge.

Who can ask the Supreme Court to transfer a case? Section 446(2) BNSS allows the Attorney-General of India or "a party interested" to apply, by motion supported by affidavit or affirmation unless the applicant is the Attorney-General or the Advocate-General of the State. In K. Anbazhagan v. Superintendent of Police (2003) the Supreme Court gave "party interested" in the same words of Section 406 CrPC a wider meaning than "party to the proceedings" and held a political opponent to be one.

Which law governs a transfer application in a case pending since before 1 July 2024? Section 531(2)(a) BNSS provides that an application, trial or appeal pending immediately before 1 July 2024 is disposed of or continued in accordance with the CrPC as if the BNSS had not come into force. On a reading of that text, a transfer application already pending then is decided under Sections 406 to 408 CrPC, including their compensation caps. For a new application made later in a CrPC-era case, the provision does not answer the question in terms.

Related

• Place of inquiry and trial: CrPC 177–189 vs BNSS 197–209
• Adjournments and day-to-day trial: CrPC 309 vs BNSS 346
• Criminal courts: CrPC 3–11 and 194 vs BNSS 3–9 and 214
• The judgment: CrPC 353–365 vs BNSS 392–406
• Offence before 1 July 2024 — which law applies
• CrPC to BNSS master table

Sources

• Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (Gazette text): Sections 446 to 452 and 531, with the headings of Sections 197, 212, 218 and 346.
• Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (India Code text): Sections 406 to 412.
• Judgments read in full text: Maneka Sanjay Gandhi v. Rani Jethmalani (1979_2_378_384_EN.md); K. Anbazhagan v. Superintendent of Police (S_2003_5_610_633_EN.md); Jai Balaji Industries Ltd. v. M/s HEG Ltd. (Diary_24362-2025_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.