Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query.....!
Scanned Judgements…!
Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query.....!
Scanned Judgements…!
Sec 356 BNSS (likely corresponding to BNS offence provisions like defamation, Sec 356(2)) applies post-2023 enforcement for transitioned complaints; procedure via Sec 223 BNSS ensures notice/hearing pre-cognizance, emphasizing fair process in private defamation cases. ["Basanagouda R. Patil S/o Ramanagouda Patil vs Shivananda S. Patil S/o Sidramappa Patil - 2025 0 Supreme(Kar) 576"] ["Basanagouda R. Patil (Yatnal) S/O Ramanagouda Patil VS Shivananda S. Patil S/O Sidramappa Patil - 2024 0 Supreme(Kar) 300"] ["SRI BASANAGOUDA R PATIL (YATNAL) vs SRI SHIVANANDA S PATIL - Karnataka"]
India's criminal justice system underwent a major overhaul with the introduction of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, replacing the colonial-era Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), 1973. One common query from legal practitioners, accused persons, and researchers is: Sec 356 of BNSS – what does it entail, and how does it function in practice?
This blog post delves into Section 356 of BNSS, drawing from available judicial interpretations and analogous provisions under the old CrPC. While direct, high-confidence references to BNSS Section 356 remain limited in reviewed case law, we explore procedural parallels, common pitfalls, and practical implications. Note: This is general information based on documented analyses and should not be construed as legal advice. Always consult primary statutes and qualified counsel for specific cases.
Section 356 of the BNSS pertains to procedural aspects in criminal trials, particularly the recording of evidence, language requirements, and compliance mandates. However, comprehensive judicial discussions specifically on this provision are scarce in the examined documents. No direct text, quotations, or substantive explanations of BNSS Section 356 appear, with tangential mentions often confusing it with substantive offences under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023. For instance, one reference initially labels an offence under BNS Section 356(2) as BNSS but clarifies it as substantive law, not procedure. Basanagouda R. Patil (Yatnal) S/O Ramanagouda Patil VS Shivananda S. Patil S/O Sidramappa Patil - 2024 0 Supreme(Kar) 300Basanagouda R. Patil S/o Ramanagouda Patil vs Shivananda S. Patil S/o Sidramappa Patil - 2025 0 Supreme(Kar) 576
This highlights a key distinction:- BNSS: Procedural code (replaces CrPC).- BNS: Substantive offences (replaces IPC).
Without explicit holdings on BNSS Section 356, practitioners must refer to the bare Act or emerging precedents. Analogies from CrPC Section 356 provide valuable guidance, as BNSS largely mirrors CrPC with modern updates.
Under the CrPC, Section 356 imposed strict rules for recording evidence, emphasizing language and method to ensure fairness. These provisions were deemed mandatory (imperative), and non-compliance could render evidence inadmissible.
Key judicial insights include:- Mandatory Recording and Admissibility: When the imperative legal requirements as envisaged by Sections 356 and 360 of the Code are not fulfilled it cannot be said that the statement so recorded can constitute evidence within the meaning of Sec. 33 and Sec. 3 of the Evidence Act. State Of J. &K. VS Sultan Guru - 1977 0 Supreme(J&K) 44- Language Compliance: Section 356(2) CrPC required evidence to be recorded in a language understood by the accused, with translation if needed. In one case: evidence of Ex. 22 has been recorded only in English; accused knew only Gujarati and since it does not appear about translation of his evidence having been explained to him in Gujarati trial according to him is vitiated in law – That according to him would be a breach of clause (2) of sec. 356 of Criminal Procedure Code. CHHOTU ALIAS PARIA CHHAGAN VS STATE - 1963 0 Supreme(Guj) 17 - However, no prejudice rule applies: Errors may be cured under Section 537 CrPC if the accused effectively participated (e.g., cross-examination). CHHOTU ALIAS PARIA CHHAGAN VS STATE - 1963 0 Supreme(Guj) 17- Vitiation of Proceedings: The Magistrate is bound to record evidence in the manner prescribed by Sec. 356. The provisions of this section are imperative and where a Magistrate omits to record evidence prescribed by the Section, there is material error sufficient to set aside the proceedings. State Of J. &K. VS Sultan Guru - 1977 0 Supreme(J&K) 44
These rulings underscore procedural rigor, likely carrying over to BNSS Section 356.
While Section 356 BNSS lacks direct coverage, related BNSS provisions offer context:- Cognizance on Complaints (BNSS Section 223): Before taking cognizance of offences (e.g., mislabelled BNS 356(2)), magistrates must examine complainants and witnesses on oath. Issuing notice to the accused without this step is erroneous: no cognizance of an offence shall be taken by the Magistrate without giving the accused an opportunity of being heard. Basanagouda R. Patil (Yatnal) S/O Ramanagouda Patil VS Shivananda S. Patil S/O Sidramappa Patil - 2024 0 Supreme(Kar) 300Basanagouda R. Patil S/o Ramanagouda Patil vs Shivananda S. Patil S/o Sidramappa Patil - 2025 0 Supreme(Kar) 576
Other BNSS mentions in case law focus on bail and jurisdiction:- Bail under BNSS Section 480(1) cannot be granted solely on sickness claims if jail facilities suffice. K.N. Anand Kumar S/o T. D. Nandappan Pillai Vs State Of Kerala - 2025 Supreme(Ker) 552- Statutory bail under BNSS Section 187(3) for NDPS cases where max punishment is 10 years, regardless of antecedents. Mohammed Sajjid S/o Abdul Gafoor VS State Of Kerala - 2025 Supreme(Ker) 110
These illustrate BNSS's emphasis on sequential, fair procedures – principles potentially aligning with Section 356.
Section 356 appears in unrelated contexts, leading to mix-ups:- IPC Section 356: Assault or criminal force on public servants (e.g., police assisting nazir without court order not protected). Baleshwar Ojha VS State Of Bihar - 1997 Supreme(Pat) 401RAJU vs STATE OF RAJASTHAN THROUGH P.P- Municipal Acts: Publication of bylaws with vernacular translation and drum proclamation. Parmeshwar Mahaseth VS State Of Bihar - 1957 0 Supreme(Pat) 137- Revenue Codes: Appeals from Nazim's orders. Onkar VS Ramrakh - 1956 Supreme(Raj) 280- Income Tax/Service Rules: Unrelated procedural references. Commissioner Of Income Tax VS Happy Medical Stores - 1989 Supreme(Pat) 341Divya Goswami VS State Of U. P. - 2020 Supreme(All) 960
Such overlaps emphasize verifying the statute: BNSS for procedure, not IPC/BNS.
In trials under BNSS:- Ensure Compliance: Record evidence in the accused's language; translate accurately to avoid inadmissibility.- Exceptions: Non-prejudicial omissions may not vitiate trials. CHHOTU ALIAS PARIA CHHAGAN VS STATE - 1963 0 Supreme(Guj) 17- Recommendations: For complaints, sequence: sworn examination → notice → cognizance. Consult BNSS text for Section 356 specifics.
| Aspect | CrPC Section 356 | Likely BNSS Section 356 ||--------|------------------|-------------------------|| Nature | Imperative evidence recording | Similar procedural mandate || Language | Accused-understood, with translation | Expected continuity || Consequence of Breach | Evidence inadmissible; proceedings vitiated | Analogous, unless no prejudice || Cure | Section 537 if no failure of justice | BNSS equivalents |
As BNSS implementation evolves, stay updated via primary sources and High Court/Supreme Court rulings. For tailored advice, engage a legal expert.
#BNSS #Section356 #CriminalLaw
BNSS 2023. 12. Swinging back to the facts of the case the concerned Court has passed the following order: BNSS , 2023, against the petitioner - accused for alleged offence under Section 356 of BNSS , 2023. ... This complaint is filed against the Accused alleging the offence P/U/Sec.500, 501, 502 of IPC. This complaint was filed on 11.07.2023 i.e., after coming into force of the BNSS , 2023. As such as provided U/Sec.531 of Section 356 of a href="./....
Swinging back to the facts of the case the concerned Court has passed the following order: “This complaint is filed against the Accussed alleging the offence P/U/Sec.356(2) of BNS, 2023. ... 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. ... In the considered view of this Court, it is the clear purport of Section 223 of ....
Swinging back to the facts of the case the concerned Court has passed the following order: “This complaint is filed against the Accussed alleging the offence P/U/Sec.356(2) of BNS, 2023 ... 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. ... Issue notice to the Accused as per proviso to section 223 of BNSS, 2023.....
The first contention that the permission granted under Sec.356 of the Act is permanent and there was no necessity for applying afresh for such permission whenever there is a transfer of rights of the property is unsustainable in view of the fact that the licence which has been issued under Sec.356 of ... Application was made for issue of licence under Sec.355 of the Pondicherry Municipal Decree (Levy and Validation of Taxes, Duties, Cesses and Fees) Act, 1973 (Act 1 of 1973) and for permission under #HL....
On the other hand the observations made by a Division Bench of Singh High Court in A.I.R. 1932 Singh 145 are noticeable which are to the effect that inquiries under chapter 12 of the Code are governed by Sec. 356. The Magistrate is bound to record evidence in the manner prescribed by Sec. 356. ... When the imperative legal requirements as envisaged by Sections 356 and 360 of the Code are not fulfilled it cannot be said that the statement so recorded can constitute evidence within the meaning of #HL_STAR....
The trial court has framed the charges for the offences under Sec.356 and 379 IPC. ... .356, 379, 511 IPC. ... Statement of under: usual investigation, police filed charge-sheet before the concerned court/Magistrate for offence under Sec
explained to him in Gujarati trial according to him is vitiated in law – That according to him would be a breach of clause (2) of sec ... . 356 of Criminal Procedure Code – Other objection taken by him is that as contemplated in clause (1) of sec. 361 of Criminal Procedure ... That according to him would be a breach of clause (2) of sec. 356 of the Criminal Procedure Code. ... Sompura then contended that the learned Sessions Judge has not complied with the provisions contained in sec. 356#HL_E....
.356 of the Act. ... Learned counsel urged that the notification was not published in the Bihar Gazette and further it was not published in the manner provided in Sec.356 of the Bihar and Orissa Municipal Act. ... Mere proclamation of the notification by beat of drum by posting copies thereof, as laid down in Sec.356, is not sufficient for the simple reason that most of the residents of different wards of the Dairbhanga Municipality may be residing at different places. ... ... Sec.#HL....
Sec. 356 of the Land Revenue Code, Tonk, Vol. II, clearly lays down that the order of the Nazim shall be appealable to the Revenue Minister. ... The learned Additional Commissioner heard the necessary parties including Pratapa, Gainda and thereafter remanded the case to the Collector with the direction that the procedure laid down in sec. 356 of the Tonk State Code be complied with. ... The Commissioner heard the parties on 17.2.51 and returned the papers to the Collector inviting his attention to sec. ....
Public Prosecutor and the counsel for private opposite-party submitted that the Nazir who was entrusted with the execution of the warrant was also with opposite-party No. 2 and as such, obstruction and assault also appears to have been made against Nazir so as to attract an offence under Sec. 356, I.P.C ... As regards, the other contentions, no doubt the offences under Sec. 341 and 323, I.P.C. are quite independent of the offence under Sec. 353 but neither the report of the Nazir regarding delivery of possession nor the ....
After his release, his son openly stated in the media that he was happy because his father usually will not go to the hospital and he thanked the defacto complainant in that case for filing a complaint so that a full body checkup of his father could be conducted because of his arrest. This was published in all newspapers and media. This is not only an insult to the defacto complainant, but a reminder to the judiciary also, while considering bail applications, when the person is in hospital. The brief fact of the case is that, with the intention to make wrongful gain and to cause a wrongful l....
23. The counsel for the petitioner took me through the Annexure-A1 order passed by the 1st Addl. Sessions Judge, Ernakulam. The counsel submitted that, the application was filed under Sec. 187(3) of the BNSS before the sessions judge. Even then, the learned Sessions Judge did not consider the same. When an application is filed under Sec. 187(3) of the BNSS, it is the duty of the court to consider that contention. The learned Sessions Judge dismissed the application mainly for the reason that the petitioner has antecedents. Simply because the petitioner has antecedents or he is an h....
This is also the ratio of decision of Hon'ble Supreme court in the case of Ehsan Khalid vs. Thus, the State Government is entitled to make pragmatic adjustments and policy decision, which may be necessary or called for under the prevalent peculiar circumstances. Union of India and others, 2014 (13) SCC 356 (Paras-8 and 9).
Union of India and others, 2014 (13) SCC 356 (Paras-8 and 9). This is also the ratio of decision of Hon'ble Supreme court in the case of Ehsan Khalid vs.
This court in terms of Sec. 356(2) of the Act called for the present reference. Thus, the view of the Tribunal was challenged before this court in two Taxation Cases, T. C. No. 323 of 1980 (see [1990] 185 ITR 284) and the present T. C. No. 96 of 1981. Both the cases hinged on the question whether Zaibunnisa was covered by the scheme propounded by the Central Board of Direct Taxes. The Tribunal having refused to refer a case to the High Court, the Revenue moved this court for calling for a reference.
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
