The second proviso to Section 232 of the BNSS does not prevent committal courts from considering pending applications prior to committal.

ORDER :

V.G.Arun, J.

The short yet interesting question arising for consideration is whether the 2^nd proviso to Section 232 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 ( BNSS ) prohibits the committal court from considering interlocutory applications filed before it. The facts, in brief, are as under;

The petitioner is the accused in Crime No.1806 of 2024 registered at the Punalur Police Station, now pending as C.P.No.21 of 2025 before the JFCM-II, Punalur. His application for renewal of passport is not being considered by the learned Magistrate in view ofSection 232 of BNSS .

2. Heard, Adv.Nidhin Raj Vettikkadan for the petitioner, Adv.Ajith Murali, the Public Prosecutor, Adv.O.M.Shalina, the DSGI and Dr.B. Kalam Pasha, who, on request, assisted the court.

3. In order to answer the question involved, it is essential to understand the difference between Section 232 of BNSS and Section 209 of Cr.P.C, the corresponding provision in the repealed Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The aforementioned provisions are extracted hereunder for convenience;

“232. Commitment of case to Court of Session when offence is triable exclusively by it.—When in a case instituted on a police report or otherwise, the accused appears or is brought before the Magistrate and it appears to the Magistrate that the offence is triable exclusively by the Court of Session, he shall—

(a) commit, after complying with the provisions of Section 230 or Section 231 the case to the Court of Session, and subject to the provisions of this Sanhita relating to bail, remand the accused to custody until such commitment has been made;

(b) subject to the provisions of this Sanhita relating to bail, remand the accused to custody during, and until the conclusion of, the trial;

(c) send to that Court the record of the case and the documents and articles, if any, which are to be produced in evidence;

(d) notify the Public Prosecutor of the commitment of the case to the Court of Session:

Provided that the proceedings under this section shall be completed within a period of ninety days from the date of taking cognizance, and such period may be extended by the Magistrate for a period not exceeding one hundred and eighty days for the reasons to be recorded in writing:

Provided further that any application filed before the Magistrate by the accused or the victim or any person authorised by such person in a case triable by Court of Session, shall be forwarded to the Court of Session with the committal of the case.

“209. Commitment of case to Court of Session when offence is triable exclusively by it.—When in a case instituted on a police report or otherwise, the accused appears or is brought before the Magistrate and it appears to the Magistrate that the offence is triable exclusively by the Court of Session, he shall—

(a) commit, after complying with the provisions of Section 207 or Section 208, as the case may be, the case to the Court of Session, and subject to the provisions of this Code relating to bail, remand the accused to custody until such commitment has been made;

(b) subject to the provisions of this Code relating to bail, remand the accused to custody during, and until the conclusion of, the trial;

(c) send to that Court the record of the case and the documents and articles, if any, which are to be produced in evidence;

(d) notify the Public Prosecutor of the commitment of the case to the Court of Session.”

(underline supplied)

4. A comparison of the provisions reveals that the only change brought about by Section 232 BNSS is the incorporation of two provisos. Here, we are concerned about the 2^nd proviso, as per which applications filed before the committal Magistrate, in a case triable by the Court of Session, are to be forwarded to th