Section 484 CrPC vs Section 531 BNSS — Repeal and Savings

In India, Section 531 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) repealed the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) from 1 July 2024, replacing its repeal-and-savings section, Section 484 CrPC. Section 531(2)(a) keeps any appeal, application, trial, inquiry or investigation pending immediately before that date under the CrPC, as if the BNSS had not come into force.

Section 484 CrPC was itself the clause that repealed the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898. Section 531 BNSS repeats its structure almost word for word, so judgments construing Section 484 construe the same words.

At a glance

What changed

• Modified — sub-section (1). "The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 (5 of 1898), is hereby repealed" becomes "The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 is hereby repealed" (the Gazette margin cites "2 of 1974", the CrPC's Act number).
• Minor edit — clause (2)(a). "this Code" → "this Sanhita" (twice); the Code named is the 1973 Code; "the old Code" → "the said Code". The five categories — "appeal, application, trial, inquiry or investigation" — and the four verbs — "disposed of, continued, held or made" — are unchanged.
• Omitted — the proviso to (2)(a). Section 484 carried a proviso that every inquiry under Chapter XVIII of the old Code pending at commencement "shall be dealt with and disposed of in accordance with the provisions of this Code". Section 531 has no proviso, so, on a reading of its words, every saved inquiry stays under the CrPC.
• Minor edit — clause (2)(b). "forms prescribed" → "forms provided by rules"; the deeming words "published, issued, conferred, prescribed, defined, passed or made" → "published, issued, conferred, specified, defined, passed or made"; "Old Code" → "said Code". The exclusion "not being appointments as Special Magistrates" and the phrase "corresponding provisions" are unchanged.
• Minor edit — clause (2)(c). "Old Code" → "said Code". The India Code CrPC text prints "in pursuance of such sanction of consent"; the BNSS reads "sanction or consent".
• Omitted — clause (2)(d). The CrPC provided that the old Code "shall continue to apply in relation to every prosecution against a Ruler within the meaning of article 363 of the Constitution". Section 531 has no such clause.
• Minor edit — sub-section (3). "the period prescribed" → "the period specified"; "Old Code" → "said Code"; "a longer period therefor is prescribed by this Code" → "is specified by this Sanhita". The rule itself is unchanged.

Statutory text (relevant extract)

Extract, Section 484(2)(a) CrPC (repealed from 1 July 2024):

if, immediately before the date on which this Code comes into force, there is any appeal, application, trial, inquiry or investigation pending, then, such appeal, application, trial, inquiry or investigation shall be disposed of, continued, held or made, as the case may be, in accordance with the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 (5 of 1898), as in force immediately before such commencement (hereinafter referred to as the old Code), as if this Code had not come into force:

Extract, Section 531 BNSS, sub-sections (1) and (2)(a):

(1) The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 is hereby repealed.

(2) Notwithstanding such repeal—

(a) if, immediately before the date on which this Sanhita comes into force, there is any appeal, application, trial, inquiry or investigation pending, then, such appeal, application, trial, inquiry or investigation shall be disposed of, continued, held or made, as the case may be, in accordance with the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, as in force immediately before such commencement (hereinafter referred to as the said Code), as if this Sanhita had not come into force;

How it works

1. The date. "The date on which this Sanhita comes into force" is 1 July 2024: footnote 1 to Section 1 of the official BNSS text records "1st July, 2024, [except the provisions of the entry relation to Section 106(2) in the first Schedule], vide notification No. S.O. 848(E), dated, 23rd day of February, 2024".

2. Clause (a) — what was pending. Was there an "appeal, application, trial, inquiry or investigation" pending "immediately before" 1 July 2024? "Inquiry" means "every inquiry, other than a trial, conducted under this Sanhita by a Magistrate or Court" (Section 2(1)(k) BNSS; Section 2(g) CrPC is to the same effect). If so, it is disposed of, continued, held or made under the CrPC "as in force immediately before such commencement", "as if this Sanhita had not come into force".

3. Clause (b) — what was already made. Notifications, orders, rules, sentences and appointments (except appointments as Special Magistrates) made under the CrPC and in force immediately before commencement are deemed made under "the corresponding provisions" of the BNSS.

4. Clause (c) — unused sanctions and consents. A CrPC sanction or consent on which no proceeding had begun is deemed given under the corresponding BNSS provision.

5. Sub-section (3) — expired periods stay expired. A longer BNSS period, or a BNSS power to extend time, does not revive a CrPC period that had expired on or before commencement.

6. The General Clauses Act, 1897. Section 6 saves investigations, legal proceedings and remedies on the repeal of a Central Act "unless a different intention appears"; Section 24 continues orders, rules and forms under a repealed and re-enacted Act "so far as it is not inconsistent with the provisions re-enacted". How they operate alongside Section 531 is not decided in any judgment read for this page.

What this means in practice

For an accused

• If your investigation, trial, appeal or application was pending on 1 July 2024, the procedure is the CrPC's (Section 531(2)(a)). On a reading of Natabar Parida (below), rights that turn on procedure during a saved investigation, such as default bail, are measured by the CrPC, not the BNSS.
• In Parvinder Singh (below), a PMLA complaint filed before 1 July 2024 but not yet taken up judicially was held not to be a pending "inquiry", so the pre-cognizance hearing in the first proviso to Section 223(1) BNSS applied to cognizance taken after that date.

For the prosecution and investigating agencies

• A sanction accorded under the CrPC before 1 July 2024 on which no proceeding began is saved by Section 531(2)(c). Where a proceeding is pending, Ramesh Chander Diwan (below) shows the Court refusing to switch to the BNSS sanction provision midstream.
• Notifications, orders and appointments made under the CrPC are deemed made under the corresponding BNSS provisions (Section 531(2)(b)); on a reading of Jagir Singh, the corresponding provision need not be identical.

For advocates

• Plead the saving clause expressly: identify what was pending on 1 July 2024, before whom, and at what stage. Whether a single case can move from the CrPC to the BNSS when a new stage begins (for example, a charge-sheet filed after that date in an investigation pending on it) is not decided in any judgment read for this page; any answer is a reading of Section 531(2)(a).

Judgments that still matter

Natabar Parida and Ors. v. State of Orissa, [1975] Supp. S.C.R. 137 (1975 INSC 165) — 16 April 1975. N.L. Untwalia and S. Murtaza Fazal Ali JJ. (judgment by Untwalia J.). The accused, arrested in March 1974, claimed release under the default-bail proviso to Section 167(2) of the 1973 Code, which came into force on 1 April 1974. The Court held that Section 484(2)(a) applied: "Immediately before the 1st day of April, 1974 the investigation of this case was pending", so it had to be continued under the old Code, and the accused "cannot claim to be released under proviso (a) to section 167(2) of the New Code" (report pp. 143–144; no paragraph numbers). The appeal was dismissed. Section 531(2)(a) BNSS repeats the words "investigation pending" and "continued".

P. Philip v. The Director of Enforcement, New Delhi and Anr., [1976] 3 S.C.R. 532 (1976 INSC 39) — 3 March 1976. R.S. Sarkaria and N.L. Untwalia JJ. (judgment by Sarkaria J.). The High Court had dismissed a revision as barred by Section 399(3) of the 1973 Code. The Court held that "application" in Section 484(2)(a), coming immediately after "appeal", "takes some colour from the collocation of words in which it occurs" and takes in a revision application pending before the Sessions Judge on commencement, which therefore had to be disposed of under the old Code (report pp. 534–535). It left open whether a purely interlocutory application is covered. It allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court's order and remitted the revision. The word "application" is repeated in Section 531(2)(a).

Jagir Singh v. Ranbir Singh and Anr., [1979] 2 S.C.R. 282 (1978 INSC 228) — 9 November 1978. Jaswant Singh and O. Chinnappa Reddy JJ. (judgment by Chinnappa Reddy J.). A maintenance order under Section 488 of the 1898 Code in favour of a son, who later attained majority, had been cancelled by the Magistrate under Section 127 of the 1973 Code; the High Court restored it. The Court held that under Section 484(2)(b) the order "must be deemed to be an order made under Section 125 of the new Code", because "to correspond" does not mean "to be identical with" but "to harmonise with" (report p. 290). Unlike Section 24 of the General Clauses Act, Section 484(2)(b) has no "not inconsistent" limitation. Being deemed a Section 125 order for all purposes, it could be cancelled under Section 127; the Court allowed the father's appeal and set aside the High Court's judgment (report p. 291). Section 531(2)(b) BNSS repeats "corresponding provisions".

Central Bureau of Investigation v. Ramesh Chander Diwan, [2025] 4 S.C.R. 1476 : 2025 INSC 539 — 22 April 2025. Dipankar Datta and Manmohan JJ. (judgment by Datta J.). The Court upheld the High Court's discharge of a public servant on deputation, in respect of the IPC offences, for want of sanction under Section 197 CrPC. The CBI asked for liberty to seek sanction under Section 218 BNSS (para 29). The Court declined: "In view of the provisions of Section 531 of the BNSS, the Cr. PC stands repealed; yet, pending proceedings are to be continued under the repealed law" (para 30). It reserved liberty to seek sanction under the CrPC and dismissed the appeals (para 31).

Parvinder Singh v. Directorate of Enforcement, [2026] 6 S.C.R. 486 : 2026 INSC 519 — 19 May 2026. M.M. Sundresh and N. Kotiswar Singh JJ. (judgment by Sundresh J.). An ED complaint under the PMLA filed on 24 June 2024 was numbered and listed; cognizance was taken on 2 July 2024 without hearing the accused. The Court said Section 531(2)(a) "saves the proceedings initiated under the CrPC, prior to the commencement of the BNSS", so that a proceeding initiated under the CrPC "must meet its logical conclusion under the CrPC itself", and that its object "is to avoid piecemeal application" of the two Codes (para 28). A substantive right under the BNSS enures to an accused "against whom none of the proceedings envisaged under Section 531(2)(a)" has been initiated (para 29). Numbering the complaint was a ministerial act, not an "inquiry" under Section 2(1)(k) BNSS (paras 34, 36), so the first proviso to Section 223(1) BNSS applied. The Court set aside the High Court's judgment and the cognizance order (para 39) and directed the Special Court to hear the appellant from the stage of cognizance within eight weeks (para 40). The holding arose on a PMLA complaint.

Why the older cases still matter. Section 531(2) and (3) repeat the operative words of Section 484(2) and (3), so, on a reading of the text, the 1975–1978 judgments construing them remain relevant. Parvinder Singh and Ramesh Chander Diwan apply Section 531 directly.

Which law applies to your case

For procedure, Section 531(2)(a) BNSS keeps matters pending on 1 July 2024 under the CrPC. For offences, Section 358(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 saves penalties and proceedings under the IPC "as if that Code had not been repealed"; for evidence, Section 170(2) of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 keeps pending matters under the Evidence Act; and Article 20(1) of the Constitution bars a greater penalty than the law in force at the time of the offence. How these apply to a given case, including conduct spanning 1 July 2024, is a reading of those provisions. See which law applies to an offence before 1 July 2024.

Frequently asked questions

What is the BNSS equivalent of Section 484 CrPC? Section 531 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 is the repeal and savings provision that replaced Section 484 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. Section 531(1) repeals the CrPC itself, and Section 531(2) and (3) save pending proceedings, existing orders and rules, unused sanctions and expired limitation periods. The BNSS came into force on 1 July 2024 under notification S.O. 848(E).

Does a case pending on 1 July 2024 continue under the CrPC? Section 531(2)(a) BNSS provides that if, immediately before the BNSS came into force, any appeal, application, trial, inquiry or investigation was pending, it shall be disposed of, continued, held or made in accordance with the CrPC as in force immediately before that date, as if the BNSS had not come into force. The section does not say that a pending trial moves to the BNSS.

Is an investigation pending on 1 July 2024 governed by the CrPC? Yes, the word "investigation" is in the list in Section 531(2)(a) BNSS. Construing the same words in Section 484(2)(a) CrPC, the Supreme Court in Natabar Parida v. State of Orissa ([1975] Supp. S.C.R. 137) held that an investigation pending when the 1973 Code came into force had to be continued under the old Code, so the accused could not claim release under the new Code's default-bail proviso.

What happens to orders, rules and notifications made under the CrPC? Under Section 531(2)(b) BNSS, notifications published, proclamations issued, powers conferred, forms provided by rules, local jurisdictions defined, sentences passed and orders, rules and appointments (other than appointments as Special Magistrates) made under the CrPC and in force immediately before 1 July 2024 are deemed made under the corresponding provisions of the BNSS. In Jagir Singh v. Ranbir Singh ([1979] 2 S.C.R. 282), construing the same words in Section 484(2)(b) CrPC, the Supreme Court held that "corresponding" does not mean identical.

Is a sanction given under the CrPC still valid after 1 July 2024? Section 531(2)(c) BNSS provides that a sanction accorded or consent given under the CrPC, on which no proceeding was commenced under the CrPC, is deemed given under the corresponding BNSS provision, and proceedings may be commenced under the BNSS on it. In CBI v. Ramesh Chander Diwan (2025 INSC 539), where proceedings were pending, the Supreme Court declined liberty to seek sanction under Section 218 BNSS and reserved liberty to seek it under the CrPC.

Does the BNSS revive a limitation period that expired under the CrPC? No. Section 531(3) BNSS provides that where the period specified for an application or other proceeding under the CrPC expired on or before the BNSS came into force, nothing in the BNSS enables it to be made or commenced only because the BNSS specifies a longer period or provides for extension of time.

What was dropped from Section 484 CrPC? Section 531 BNSS does not repeat the CrPC proviso that inquiries pending under Chapter XVIII of the 1898 Code be disposed of under the 1973 Code, or clause (d), which kept the 1898 Code for prosecutions against a Ruler within the meaning of article 363 of the Constitution. Both were tied to the 1898 repeal.

Related

• Offence before 1 July 2024 — which law applies
• Section 167 CrPC vs Section 187 BNSS — Remand and Default Bail
• Section 197 CrPC vs Section 218 BNSS — Sanction for Prosecution
• Section 200 CrPC vs Section 223 BNSS — Private Complaint Procedure
• Sections 467–473 CrPC vs Sections 513–519 BNSS — Limitation for Taking Cognizance
• CrPC to BNSS master table

Sources

• Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (Gazette text): Sections 2(1)(k), 223(1) and 531; commencement footnote to Section 1 in the official text (S.O. 848(E)).
• Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (India Code text): Sections 2(g) and 484.
• General Clauses Act, 1897: Sections 6 and 24.
• Judgments read in full text: Natabar Parida v. State of Orissa (S_1975_1_137_144_EN.md); P. Philip v. Director of Enforcement (1976_3_532_535_EN.md); Jagir Singh v. Ranbir Singh (1979_2_282_291_EN.md); CBI v. Ramesh Chander Diwan (2025_4_1476_1489_EN.md); Parvinder Singh v. Directorate of Enforcement (2026_6_486_508_EN.md). S.C.R. citations checked against the report PDF page headers.

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.