Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
M. Nagaprasanna, J.
Sri Basanagouda R. Patil (Yatnal) S/O Ramanagouda Patil – Appellant
Versus
Sri Shivananda S. Patil S/O Sidramappa Patil - Respondent
Criminal Petition No.7526 OF 2024
Decided On : 27-09-2024
Procedure - Defamation - BNSS Section 223 - The court interpreted Section 223 of the BNSS, emphasizing the necessity of examining the complainant on oath before issuing notice to the accused, thus ensuring the accused's right to be heard prior to cognizance.
Fact of the Case:
The respondent filed a complaint against the petitioner for allegedly making a defamatory speech at an election rally, invoking Section 223 of the BNSS. The petitioner challenged the procedure followed by the Magistrate in issuing notice to the accused before examining the complainant.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the Magistrate erred in issuing notice to the accused immediately upon filing the complaint, without first recording the complainant's sworn statement, which is required under Section 223 of the BNSS.
Issues: Whether the Magistrate's issuance of notice to the accused prior to examining the complainant on oath was in accordance with the procedural requirements of Section 223 of the BNSS.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the proper procedure under Section 223 mandates that the complainant must be examined on oath before any notice is issued to the accused, ensuring the accused's right to be heard.
Result: The petition is allowed, the impugned order is quashed, and the matter is remitted back to the Magistrate for fresh proceedings.
ORDER :
M.NAGAPRASANNA, J.
The petitioner is before this Court calling in question an order dated 16-07-2024 passed by the 42nd Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Benagluru in P.C.R. No.9136/2024.
2. Heard the learned counsel Sri. Venkatesh P. Dalwai, appearing for the petitioner and the learned counsel Smt. Niveditha C. Shivanaikar, appearing for the respondent.
3. Sans details, facts in brief, germane are as follows:
The respondent - a member of the legislative assembly registers a complaint against the petitioner before the jurisdictional Magistrate invoking Section 223 of the Bharatiya Nagarika Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (‘BNSS’ for short). The crux of the complaint is, the petitioner allegedly made a defamatory speech at an election rally. The issue in the lis at this juncture does not concern the merit of the compliant or its defence by the parties to the present lis. What has driven the petitioner to this Court in the subject petition is, a unique circumstance of interpretation of Section 223 of the BNSS.
4. Learned counsel Sri Venkatesh P Dalwai appearing for the petitioner would submit that the petition itself is preferred owing to a procedural aberration by the learned Magistrate. It is his contention that under Section 223 of the BNSS, the concerned Court has to issue notice to the accused prior to taking of cognizance. The Court has issued notice the moment complaint is filed by the respondent before the concerned Court. He would submit that this procedure is contrary to law.
5. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent would refute the submission by contending that the proviso to Section 223 of the BNSS mandates that prior to taking of cognizance the accused would be heard and it is no where said that notice should be issued only at a particular time either immediately after filing the complaint or recording of sworn statement, as the case would be. He would seek dismissal of the petition.
6. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions made by the respective learned counsel and have perused the material on record.
7. The registration of the private complaint for offences punishable under Section 356(2) of the BNSS is not in dispute. The fulcrum of the compliant was that the petitioner made a defamatory speech against the respondent at an election rally. The issue that is brought before the Court, at this juncture, is not on the merit of the matter. The complaint is filed by the respondent invoking Section 223 of the BNSS, which is Section 200 in the earlier regime - Cr.P.C. The moment complaint is registered, a notice is issued to the accused. Issuance of notice to the accused has driven the petitioner to this Court, in the subject petition, contending that it is contrary to the procedure to be adopted in law. Therefore, it becomes germane to notice certain provisions of the BNS 2023. Filing of the private complaint is dealt with under Section 223 of the BNSS, which was Section 200 of Cr.P.C., it reads as follows:
Provided that no cognizance of an offence shall be taken by the Magistrate without giving the accused an opportunity of being heard:
Provided further that when the complaint is made in writing, the Magistrate need not examine the complainant and the witnesses—
(a) if a public servant acting or purporting to act in the discharge of his official duties or a Court has made the complaint; or
(b) if the Magistrate makes over the case for inquiry or trial to another Magistrate under Section 212:
Provided also that if the Magistrate makes over the case to another Magistrate under Section 212 after examining the complainant and the witnesses, the latter Magistrate need
The court established that under Section 223 of the BNSS, a Magistrate must examine the complainant on oath before issuing notice to the accused, ensuring procedural fairness.
The issuance of notice to the accused prior to the examination of the complainant on oath violates the procedural requirements established under Section 223 of BNSS, 2023.
The court clarified that under Section 223(1) of BNSS, a Magistrate must examine the complainant and witnesses before taking cognizance and issuing notice to the accused.
The issuance of notice by a Magistrate without recording complainant statements contravenes statutory procedures, rendering the notice invalid.
The requirement for the accused to be heard before taking cognizance of an offence is now mandatory under Section 223 of the B.N.S.S., marking a critical procedural safeguard.
Recording complainant's sworn statement under Section 223 BNSS does not amount to taking cognizance; it is pre-cognizance material collection requiring accused hearing.
Cognizance of offences – Notice is to be issued to accused only after examination of Complainant and present witnesses.
The court emphasized that under Section 223(1) of BNSS, a Magistrate must examine the complainant and provide the accused an opportunity to be heard before taking cognizance of an offence.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
