A Comprehensive Comparison Of The 1973 Code Of Criminal Procedure And The Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita 2023

Author: LawSphereX

Category: Criminal Law

Published: 2026-08-23T16:59:24.242006+00:00

Updated: 2026-08-26T17:12:43.793+00:00

A COMPREHENSIVE COMPARISON OF THE 1973 CODE OF

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE AND THE BHARATIYA NAGARIK

SURAKSHA SANHITA 2023

Bhagyashri Rajiv Gandhi & Shivani Savita, Shree L. R. Tiwari College of Law

ABSTRACT

This paper presents a comprehensive comparison effort to update and adapt the legal system to address the evolving needs of modern Indian society, encompassing various crimes and their corresponding punishments, which are effective in addressing sexual offences against women. Violence against women undoubtedly stems from significant power imbalances between men and women. And also analyse the legislative modifications made to The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, which will now be known as The Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. It also highlights that the legal interpretation and application of these provisions can differ from case to case, depending on evolving legal standards and precedents. IPC 1860, CrPC

1973 and IEA 1872 and BNS 2023, BNSS 2023, and BSS 2023.

The comparative table highlights manly focused of the differences and new additions in the BNSS 2023, which was formulated to support the new laws of BNS, BSS and BNSS 2023. This aims to establish forensic evidence with a greater emphasis on electronic evidence and fingerprint impressions in BNSS 2023.

Keywords: Sexual offences, Criminal laws, CrPC 1973, BNSS 2023.

INTRODUCTION

The current Indian criminal procedure is derived from the British Raj, which includes the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, which served as the foundation for the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 ("CrPC"). The Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 ("BNSS") replaces the previous CrPC and will go into effect on July 1, 2024. The BNSS also intends to develop a more rapid and efficient judicial system capable of addressing the persistent difficulties of complex procedures, case backlog, poor conviction rates, a lack of technological adoption, and delayed justice delivery. Above all, the BNSS's primary goal is to safeguard citizens from unfair exploitation of the system, which is possible due to existing flaws in the current criminal legal structure.

The BNSS mostly preserves the provisions of the existing CrPC, however, it aims to simplify the criminal procedure, reduce trial duration, enhance investigatory powers of the police, implement timelines for procedure, etc.... Positive Changes The recently implemented BNSS has brought about a number of beneficial developments, against common belief. In spite of the possibility of overlaps—one provision possibly falling under more than one category we can group them under five major categories. A. Elimination of Expired and Harsh Terms

Contrary to a number of valid criticisms regarding the inanity of renaming anything, there are instances in which the practice can be a fantastic countermeasure against stigma. The BNSS deserves special recognition for its replacement of outdated and offensive terms like "lunatic person" and "person of unsound mind. " More tactful phrases like "having an intellectual disability" or "person with mental illness" have taken the place of all such expressions. This is evident in Section 198 of the CrPC, which is similar to Section 219(1)(a) of the BNSS. A as Chapter XXVII, or Chapter 27, of the BNSS [Provisions as to Accused Persons with Mental Illness], wherein the Mental Healthcare Act of 2017 is referenced appropriately in all relevant sections. The phrase "mental health establishment" has appropriately replaced the term "lunatic asylum.

" similar modification has been made to Section 357 of the BNSS, which corresponds

to Section 318 of the CrPC. Significantly, the introduction of Chapter XXV or 25 of the CrPC [Provisions relating to Accused Persons of Unsound Mind] has been made. A few additional out-of-date allusions have been eliminated, including the deletion of Section

10 and the non-existent designation of "Assistant Sessions Judges." Likewise, any references

to the word "advocate" have appropriately been replaced with the word "pleader. " Another phrase that has been dropped is "thug," and sections 201 of the BNSS, which is a direct match to Section 181 of the CrPC, no longer relate to offences committed by "thugs. " However, removing any mention of the Metropolitan Area or magistrates is one such divergence that will call for real reforms to be made locally. The former presidential towns of Ahmedabad, Calcutta, Madras, and Bombay were designated as "metropolitan areas" under Section 8 of the CrPC. The governments in question may also classify any other large cities in a similar manner. "Metropolitan Magistrates" are the title given to judicial magistrates in certain places as one of the main effects of the same. Finally, this unnecessary distinction has been eliminated under the new BNSS.

This would imply that a judicial judge functioning in any region of the nation would be recognised as such and would not, depending on the city, be referred to as a "metropolitan magistrate. " Moreover, BNSS eliminates an outdated clause, Section 153 of the CrPC, which gave police the authority to enter any location and search it without a warrant in order to check the accuracy of scales and other measuring devices. A further harmful clause, Section 64 of the CrPC, which limited the delivery of summonses to

an adult "male" family member, has been changed. Similarly, applications for suspension or remission filed by "males" exclusively who were older than eighteen (18) were scrutinised more closely under Section 432 of the CrPC. Now, as stated in BNSS Sections 66 and 474, respectively, the term "male" has been appropriately removed. B. Clarity in some procedures

Additionally, the new code considerably modifies and clarifies the position to be taken with regard to Proclaimed criminals. Prior to the 2005 Amendment, Section 82(4) of the CrPC only allowed for the declaration of a "Proclaimed offender" in relation to nineteen specific IPC offences: "302, 304, 364, 367, 382, 392, 393, 394, 395, 396, 397, 398, 399, 400, 402, 436, 449, 459, or 460." This resulted in circumstances where an individual could not be designated as a Proclaimed criminal if they continuously avoided court summonses or warrants for any other

offence under the IPC's general penal code or any other special statute. Now that this seemingly arbitrary list of parts has been removed, anyone accused of a crime carrying a sentence of more than ten years in prison or higher a proclaimed offender may be designated for special offences. Comparably, the BNSS has a new section 356 that outlines a thorough process for holding an investigation or trial in the event that no one has been designated as a "Proclaimed offender. " Even while the necessity of such severe actions as designating someone as a proclaimed offender may be questioned, the code has at least made the implementation of such measures' procedural requirements more clear for the time being.

Finally, disagreements over the calculation of the statute of limitations have been resolved by providing a detailed explanation to Section 516 of BNSS, which corresponds to Section 468 of CrPC. Another provision that has been made clearer is Section 462(1) of the BNSS, which is equivalent to Section 421(1) of the CrPC. Coercive measures against those who are fined for violations are covered by this section. By adding the phrase "but no such payment has been made," they can now only be used against those who haven't paid the required amount. To make clear the meaning of some terms in the law, a new section 479 has been introduced right at the beginning of the new chapter that governs "Bail," or Chapter XXXV. This section provides a clear explanation of the terms "Bail," "Bond," and "Bail Bond" But the author also claims that words like "Surety" ought to have been defined here.

While the practice of capital punishment or death sentence by itself is inhumane and out of place in several democracies, Indian criminal justice system still recognises the same. In this regard, the procedural code has finally prescribed a detailed procedure for ‘Mercy Petitions in Death Sentence cases’ by the addition of Section 473. C. Modifications and/or progressive safeguards

BNSS is also adapting to the times by implementing modifications to the application of forensic science in criminal investigations. By changing Section 311A of the CrPC or Section 349 of the BNSS, it is now possible to obtain voice and finger print samples in addition to specimen signatures and handwriting samples, as opposed to only these in the previous version of the code. Since Section 293(4) (g) of the CrPC only allowed the federal government to inform scientific experts, state governments are now allowed to do the same in accordance with the amended Section 329(4) (g) of the BNSS.

In this regard, Section 176 of the BNSS or Section 157 of the CrPC may contain the most significant legal amendment overall. By introducing a new subsection (3), it is now required for a forensic team to visit the scene, gather samples, and record the procedure on video when the police learn of the conduct of a crime carrying a sentence longer than seven years. Even after the term "victim" was specified for the first time in the CrPC in 2009, several protections that would have improved their circumstances were still absent. By adding some modifications to the same, BNSS moves this goal in the appropriate way. For example, a proviso has been inserted to Section 232 of BNSS, which corresponds to Section 209 of CrPC, stating that an application filed by the victim must also be sent to the Sessions Court during the committal procedures.

Likewise, copies of records, such as police reports, that are required to be provided to victims or their advocates under Section 230 of the BNSS or Section 207 of the CrPC, must also be provided. In the past, in complaint cases, if the complainant wasn't present, the accused would be released. The amended Section 272 of BNSS, which corresponds to Section 249 of CrPC, now allows the complainant to be fairly represented because the magistrate may allow the complainant to be present for up to 30 days prior to clearing the accused. In a similar vein, the court must give the victim's request for a withdrawal of prosecution consideration. In order to do this, a proviso matching to Section 321 of the CrPC has been added to Section 360 of the BNSS.

In complaint instances, not only victims but even accused parties have been afforded a chance to be heard. A new clause has been added to Section 200 of the CrPC or Section 223 of the BNSS, requiring the accused to be heard before magistrates can take cognisance of their complaints. In Section 193(3) of the BNSS, which corresponds to Section 173(2) of the CrPC, a new clause (ii) has been inserted, requiring the police to notify the victim or informant of the investigation's status within 90 days. The insertion of Section 398, which requires all state governments to announce a witness protection program, is another noteworthy modification to the procedural legislation. But according to the author, rather than leaving it up to the individual states' discretion, the new law should have included certain guidelines as a stopgap within the BNSS rules itself. Both the

Ministry of Home Affairs Draft Guidelines and the decisions rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, in cases like Mahender Chawla v. Union of India, (2019) 14 SCC 615, could have served as precedent. Two new provisos have been added to Section 183(6)(a) of BNSS, which corresponds to Section 164(5A)(a) of the CrPC, adding further protections for judicial magistrates recording statements. First of all, a female judge ought to record a woman's remark if one is made. Second, the magistrate is required to record the statement of any person accused of a major offence, meaning that the accused could face a sentence of more than ten years in jail. The clause that provides protections for female arrestees under subsection (1) of Section 43 of BNSS, which is equivalent to Section 46 of CrPC, has been amended.

Information about this woman's arrest must now be shared with her friends or family. A further measure to protect individuals detained on the basis of a warrant outside of the

jurisdiction in which it was obtained is the inclusion of subsection (2) in Section 82 of BNSS, which is equivalent to Section 80 of CrPC. This modification requires that information about an arrested individual be provided to the relevant authorities in the district in which the individual typically resides. By adding a proviso to Section 190(1) of BNSS, which corresponds to Section 170(1) of CrPC, a beneficial change has been made. Therefore, the police are not required to make an arrest just to get an accused person to appear before a judicial judge if the investigation is finished but not yet submitted as a police report. The recent modification appears to be consistent with the significant ruling rendered by the Honourable Supreme Court of India in the case of Satender Kumar Antil v. CBI, (2022) 10 SCC 51.

In the Chapter governing the granting of bail, BNSS has included a new provision, Section

483. Prior to the Arunachal Pradesh State Amendment, this was known as Section 437A.

Accordingly, the accused will have to execute a bond in order to appear in court the following day, either before the trial or the appeal ends. Since the individuals in question do not need to be detained right away in order to ensure their appearance in court, this could have a good effect. Additionally, BNSS has changed the parameters of anticipatory bail grants. Certain clauses that

might have been seen as impeding the successful issuance of anticipatory bail have been eliminated. In particular, the proviso to Section 438(1), Sections 438(1A) and 438(1B) of the CrPC have been eliminated, and the amended Section 484 of the BNSS makes no reference of them. These provisions came with burdensome requirements, such ensuring the physical presence of an accused person seeking anticipatory bail or providing “the Public Prosecutor with a reasonable opportunity of being heard” at the hearing of the application. While it might occasionally be required to provide the prosecutor with this information or to arrange for a physical presence, it shouldn't have been required, as it was in the CrPC. An intermediate solution would have involved replacing the word "may" in both of these deleted clauses with the word "shall.

" In accordance with Section 436A of the CrPC, modifications have also been made under Section 481 of the BNSS. A proviso to subsection (1) means that, instead of the previous punishment of half, a first-time offender awaiting trial can now be eligible for required bail after serving only one-third of the sentence. In order to implement this correction, Section 481 has been amended with subsection (3), which states that the jail superintendent's responsibility is to request the release of qualified inmates. The insertion of Section 105 to the BNSS, which requires police conducting searches under Section 185 (formerly Section 165 of the CrPC) to electronically record the proceedings and submit them to the relevant magistrate, offers a significant precaution. This would guarantee that no abuses occur during police search operations.

Likewise, in accordance with Section 185(5) of the BNSS, copies of any records discovered after such a search must now be forwarded to the relevant magistrate within 48 hours. There had previously been no such time constraint. The addition of a proviso to Section 195(1) of BNSS, which corresponds to Section 175(1) of CrPC on the authority of police to summon people, is another humane change. This proviso states that vulnerable individuals will no longer be required to “attend at any place other than the place where they reside”. The goal of the new law is to broaden the scope of legal assistance services. Legal aid was previously granted “in a trial before the Court of Session” under Section 304(1) of the CrPC. Nevertheless, this has been superseded by "in a trial or appeal before a Court" in the amended section 341(1) of the BNSS, greatly expanding its scope.

The author believes that the drafters

passed up a chance to completely overhaul India's legal assistance system. Some of the recommendations made in reports by the Law Commission of India, NALSA, and other organisations should have been included. Of particular note is the input provided by two of the most prominent retired judges of the Indian Supreme Court, Honourable Mr. Justice P. N. Bhagwati and Honourable Mr. Justice V. R. Krishna Iyer. In addition, the code is being updated with certain other compassionate amendments to show mercy to first-time offenders for less serious offences and to concurrently address the growing number of prisoners awaiting trial. For instance, penalties have been drastically lowered for first-time offenders in Section 293 of BNSS, which corresponds to Section 265E of CrPC and deals with case disposition in plea bargaining procedure.

Under Sections 293(c) and 293(d) of the BNSS, they can now be punished to 1/4th and 1/6th of the minimum punishment, as opposed to 1/2 and 1/4th punishment, respectively. D. Electronic/Digital alternatives for existing processes

D. Digital and electronic substitutes for current procedures as part of our commitment to

creating a digital India, the BNSS has included a historic new Section 532. Accordingly, all trials, enquiries, and proceedings, as well as the recording of relevant evidence, party exams, summons and warrant issuing, service, and execution, among other procedures, can now be completed electronically. A few of the particular adjustments made section-by-section to implement this are:

Summons may now also be served electronically, according to the proviso added to Section 64(2) of BNSS, which corresponds to Section 62 of CrPC. A summons that is served electronically and its digital communication are likewise deemed valid under BNSS Sections 70(3) and 71(2). • Issuing summons/warrants under ‘Issue of process’ as given in Section 227 of BNSS corresponding to Section 204 of CrPC. • Notices by executive magistrates under Section 134 of CrPC and now Section 153 of BNSS can be served online. • Supply of police report and other investigation related documents under Sections 173(7)

and 207 of CrPC can be done digitally as per Sections 193(8) and 230 of BNSS • Order of confirmation of Death Sentence under Section 412 of BNSS or Section 371 of CrPC. • Reading of Charges to the accused under Sessions Trial as per Section 251(2) of BNSS corresponding to Section 228(2) of CrPC. Prosecution evidence may now be recorded digitally, in accordance with amendments made to Sections 254 and 265 of the BNSS, which translate to Sections 231 and 242 of the CrPC. Curiously enough, the analogous area for defence evidence has not received the same express respect. Although it is possible to argue that the basic explanation provided by Section 532 already covers all of these procedures, including "defence evidence," why were specific modifications required solely for "prosecution evidence"?

Section 157 of the CrPC allows for the electronic recording of police statements made during an investigation, which further contributes to the notable cause of ease of inquiry. This was accomplished by amending the relevant Section 176(1) of the BNSS with a proviso having the same effect. According to the insertion of clause (ii) to Section 173(1), which relates to Section

154 CrPC, even FIRs can be lawfully registered using electronic communication.

Another modification that is evident is that Section 182 of the CrPC, which addressed the process for "Offences committed by letters etc.," has been appropriately updated to incorporate "electronic communication" in accordance with Section 202 of the BNSS. According to the amended Section 499 of the BNSS or Section 451 of the CrPC, electronic records of the custody and disposition of perishable property during trial must now be kept. E. Expediting processes and/or making processes time-bound

Through the addition of Section 336 of the BNSS, a very timely provision has been included to speed up trials. The author of any report or document created by an investigator, scientific expert, or public servant who is intended to be admitted into evidence in court must appear in person. However, the court may order the successor officer of that person to appear owing to unavoidable circumstances like retirement, death, excessive delay, etc. in procuring such person. Another move made to speed up trials is that, in cases involving summonses, a

magistrate may now discharge an accused person after noting the reasons in accordance with amended Section 274 of the BNSS or Section 251 of the CrPC. of groundless accusations. BNSS has acknowledged the role of other laws and agencies on several occasions. For example, under the amended comparable Section 303(2) of BNSS, the "Central government in cases instituted by its central agency" can now pass a notification regarding inmates, whereas before only state governments could do so under Section 268(2) of CrPC. The fact that special judges, who are akin to (Additional) Sessions Judges, may be appointed under a number of laws, including the NDPS Act of 1985 and the POCSO Act of 2012, is now being acknowledged by procedural law.

This line refers to "any other law for the time being in force" in Section 249 of the BNSS, which is equivalent to Section 226 of the CrPC and deals with "opening case for prosecution" in a sessions trial. The same wording has also been inserted to the amended Section 343(2) of the BNSS and Section 306(2) of the CrPC to indicate that special judges may have been appointed in accordance with other legislation. Referencing an agency under the "Delhi Special police Establishment," Sections 418 and 419 of the BNSS relate to Sections 377 and 378 of the CrPC Act, 1946" have been deleted, and "any agency under any Central Act" has taken its place. Many proceedings under this code, both judicial and executive, have now been mandated to become time-bound by providing maximum time limits in which they must be done.

Some of the specific section-wise changes implementing this are: • A new proviso to Section 157 of BNSS, which corresponds to Section 138 of CrPC, requires that proceedings for a "Conditional order for removal of nuisance" under Section 152 of BNSS or 133 of CrPC be completed within 90 days. • The BNSS's section 174, which replaces section 155, mandates that police notify the relevant parties about non-cognizable offences every two weeks. • By replacing the phrase "without delay" with "within seven days," the new section 184(6), which is equivalent to the previous section 164A (6), places a time limit on the medical examination of a rape victim. • When a police inquiry is conducted during a trial under Section 193(9) or 173(8) of the CrPC, it must be finished in 90 days.

When conducting an inquest under Section 174 of the CrPC or Section 194 of the BNSS, the police are expected to transmit their findings to the relevant District/Executive magistrate within a day. • The completion of "committal proceedings" by the magistrate to the session’s court under Section 232 of the BNSS, which is equivalent to Section 209 of the CrPC, is required to be finished within ninety days of the date of taking cognisance. This can be extended with written justification for a maximum of 180 days. • The accused must now receive a copy of the police report and other papers within 14 days of the date of production or appearance, under Section 230 of the BNSS, which is equivalent to Section 207 of the CrPC.

There used to be no deadline for the same since section 207 only stated "without Section 218(1) of the BNSS, which is equivalent to Section 197(1) of the CrPC and refers to the "Prosecution of Judges and Public Servants," has an interesting caveat added to it that aims to shorten the time required for these prosecutions. This proviso states that the required sanction will be presumed to have been granted by the government if the relevant government does not make a decision within 120 days. The new BNSS code has time-bound some processes for both Sessions and Magistrate trials. Within 60 days of committal, the accused must file an application if he wants to be released from custody in a Sessions trial in accordance with Section 250 of the BNSS, which is equivalent to Section 227 of the CrPC.

Nonetheless, the author believes the statement that discharge will not occur if charges have already been prepared ought to have been made clear. According to the addition to Sections 251(1)(b) and 263(1) of BNSS, which correspond to Sections 228(1)(b) and 240(1) of CrPC, even the charges under Sessions Trial and Magistrate Trial in warrant cases now need to be prepared within 60 days of the first hearing on charge. Following the conclusion of the arguments, the Session Court is required by Section 258 of BNSS, which is equivalent to Section 235 of CrPC, to provide a decision about acquittal or conviction within 30 days. This deadline may only be extended to 60 days with specific justification. Subsection (7) of Section 269 of BNSS, which corresponds to Section 246 of CrPC, is a crucial addition to expedite various trial proceedings.

It allows the prosecution to close evidence if witnesses fail to appear despite taking all reasonable steps.

After a trial, parties' problems often don't end because they may have to wait an eternity to receive a copy of the verdict. The verdict in every trial must be rendered within 45 days of the trial's conclusion, in accordance with Section 392(1) of the BNSS or Section 353(1) of the CrPC. Within seven days of the judgment's announcement, the aforementioned ruling must be posted online by adding a proviso to either Section 392(4) of the BNSS or Section 353(4) of the CrPC. The magistrate court must issue an order for the effective disposal, custody, and delivery of perishable property pending trial within thirty days in accordance with the recently added paragraph 5 to Section 499 of BNSS, which corresponds to Section 451 of CrPC.

According to the addition to An innocent buyer of stolen goods must be compensated "within six months" of the date of passing of any compensation order to that effect, according to Section 501 of the BNSS or Section 453 of the CrPC. Previously, no such time frame was given. Negative Changes Although the majority of BNSS modifications can be deemed as beneficial and/or appropriate, several alterations to the criminal process have also given rise to serious issues. As was already established, there has been a drive for forensic science to be used more often in criminal proceedings, although some provisions are concerning. For example, under a proviso inserted to Section 349 of the BNSS, which corresponds to Section 311A, a magistrate may now request specimens or samples, such as fingerprint, voice, or handwriting samples, from any person who has never been arrested before.

Previously, this would not have been possible if the subject had not been taken into custody as part of an inquiry. While it's possible to argue that doing so will lessen needless arrests for the sole purpose of collecting samples, ideally, sample taking should only be done very carefully and when it is absolutely necessary for a study. The insertion of a new subsection (3) to Section 43, "Arrest how made," of BNSS, is another worrying measure. The use of handcuffs is now officially reinstated thanks to this new clause. On the one hand, it could be argued that in critical circumstances, the use of handcuffs becomes essential, and their absence could seriously obstruct an inquiry. However, this clause may be in conflict with the 1979 Supreme Court decision in Sunil Batra v. Delhi Administration, AIR

1980 SC 1579, which sharply criticised the indiscriminate use of handcuffs, due to the section's

narrowing, as demonstrated in BNSS. Additionally, the BNSS adds a new Section 107 that grants broad authority for property attachment and seizure. Police are given the authority to have the If an accused person's property is thought to be connected to illegal behaviour, it will be taken and forfeited. Future judicial interpretation and application of this clause would necessitate careful examination. As was previously said, the new law expressly recognises the role of the central government in accelerating investigations on many occasions. But before, Section 435 of the CrPC merely obliged the states to "consult" with the central government when debating the authority of the State government to remit or commute a sentence. As of right now, "concurrence" has replaced the phrase "consultation" in Section 478 of the BNSS.

This could result in circumstances where different state government’s claim that the Centre’s will has superseded their exclusive authority. A curious change which has been observed in the law as compared to the older code is that it

has become significantly harder to successfully prosecute public servants. Notwithstanding the proviso added to Section 218(1) of BNSS by which ‘deemed sanction’ for prosecution is granted in case of state inaction, several other provisions have in fact made the process harder. Some of the following changes further substantiate this argument. For instance: • The two new provisos added to Section 151(2) of BNSS corresponding to Section 132(2) of CrPC. • Addition of a new subsection (4) to Section 175 of BNSS corresponding to Section 156 of CrPC. • Addition of a new subsection (3) to Section 210 of BNSS corresponding to Section 190 of CrPC. • Addition of a proviso at the end of Section 223 of BNSS corresponding to Section 200 of CrPC. While Section 481 of the BNSS has seen some excellent additions, other revisions have proven

to be rather problematic. For instance, the list of offences that have been rendered ineligible for parole under section 481(1) has been greatly increased by the addition of the phrase "life imprisonment" to the section. Likewise, the author believes that the addition of subsection 481(2) diminishes the significance of the entire section, which is why it is concerning. This means that if "an investigation, inquiry, or trial in more than one offence or in multiple cases are pending against a person," the section would not apply. Nevertheless, in actuality, for the great majority of under trials, the accused is always facing concurrent proceedings, which renders the respite illusory for them. Curiously, the new law has included a new provision that, if not used appropriately, might allow for a great deal of misuse.

According to BNSS, Section 173's insertion of a new subsection (3) corresponds to Section 154 of the CrPC, which states, "Information in cognisable cases. " This new clause allows the police to "proceed with investigation when there exists a prima facie case" for offences carrying a sentence of three to seven years in jail. When pursuing a case, authorities may first perform a preliminary investigation to verify the existence of a prima facie case. The historic decision in Lalita Kumari v. Uttar Pradesh Govt. by the Constitutional Bench aimed to definitively resolve precisely this kind of ambiguity. An additional modification is the removal of the final phrase from Section 157(2) of CrPC, which refers to "the fact that he will not investigate the case or cause it to be investigated," from Section 176(2) of BNSS, which deals with "Procedure for Investigation.

" In the past, the informant in a case was meant to be informed when police decided not to pursue an investigation. This was intended to guarantee that an informant—a crucial participant in a criminal trial and investigation—was kept informed. In addition, the Hon'ble Supreme Court acknowledged this reality in the Bhagwant Singh vs. Commissioner of Police case (AIR

1985 SC 1285), where the Apex Court underlined the significance of informant/victim that

resulted in the development of the "Protest Petition" as a legal remedy. However, by removing this sentence, BNSS has affected an informant's rights during the course of the inquiry. Positive modifications have been made to the clause governing "Anticipatory Bail," as was previously mentioned. But a judge might have taken into consideration a number of considerations listed in the original section 438(1) of the CrPC, which corresponds to Section 484(1) of the BNSS, while evaluating such an application. All of these previously supplied elements have been eliminated by the new provision. Even while it can be claimed that the

judge has more authority in granting or refusing such bail, anticipatory bail orders run the risk of being even more ambiguous or opaque in the absence of any guiding principles. Positive changes have been made to the section that governs "Anticipatory Bail," as was already indicated. When assessing an application of this kind, however, a court might have taken into account several factors specified in the original section 438(1) of the CrPC, which is equivalent to Section 484(1) of the BNSS. The new clause removes all of these previously provided items. Predictive bail orders face the potential of becoming even more unclear or opaque in the lack of guiding principles, even though it can be argued that the judge has more jurisdiction to grant or refuse such bail.

The remand procedure, which is outlined in Section 167 of the CrPC and corresponds to the new Section 187 of the BNSS, has undergone perhaps the most concerning modification in the entire procedural code. The following new phrase is also used by BNSS in Section 187(2) and is reproduced below: "... the accused's detention in any manner that the Magistrate deems appropriate, for a maximum of fifteen days in total or in portions, at any point during the first forty or sixty days of the detention period of sixty or ninety days, as applicable, as stipulated in sub-section (3).

" Strangely, the new clause in Section 187(3) of the BNSS, which corresponds to Section 167 (2)(a) of the CrPC, does not make use of the Is it possible to interpret the words "otherwise than in custody of the police" to suggest that someone might be placed in police custody for the duration of the inquiry, which is 60 or 90 days? A new proviso to Section 187(5) of BNSS, which corresponds to Section 167(2) of CrPC, is

also introduced by the bill. Below is a reproduction of the same: Furthermore, it is stipulated that no one may be held anywhere other than a police station under policy custody, a jail under judicial custody, or a location designated as a prison by the federal government or a state government. The author claims that this is a reaction to the "Gautam Navlakha v.s NIA" cases. Defendants argued among other things that Section 167(2) may be read to encompass "house arrest" as well. The same is no longer possible with the addition of this proviso.

KEY CHANGES BROUGHT BY THE BHARATIYA NAGARIK SURAKSHA

SANHITA, 2024...

Section Authorises the State Government to appoint any police officer (not below the rank of Superintendent of Police or equivalent) as a Special Executive Magistrate, in addition to an Executive Magistrate.... Section Increases the power of fine imposition of a Magistrate of first class from Rs. 10,000 to Rs. 50,000, and of a Magistrate of second class from Rs. 5,000 to Rs. 10,000. These two classes have also been empowered with imposing community service as a form of sentence.... Section 35(7) The aged and infirm persons have been protected from arrest, providing that no arrest shall be made in case of an offence punishable for less than three years if the person is infirm or above the age of 60 years, without prior permission of the officer not below the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police....

Section 84 Provides that proclaimed offender can be declared in all the offences which are punishable with imprisonment of 10 years or more, or with life imprisonment, or with death... Section 145 Provides that the proceedings for maintenance can be initiated against a person at the place where either their dependent father or mother resides.... Section 173 Introduces the provision of filing of Zero FIR, when information that discloses the commission of an offence outside the limits of a police station is received by the police, it shall be entered in the book to be kept by such officer. Further, the provision for lodging information through electronic communication (e-FIR) has been added with the enabling provision that the signature of the person giving such information be taken within 3 days before the e-FIR is taken on record....

Section 179(1) Protects the rights of the aged and infirm as witnesses where no person above the age of 60 years or a person with acute illness will be required to attend at any place other than where they reside....

comprehensive witness protection scheme had been underscored by the Malimath Committee and various Law Commission Reports, including the 14th, 154th, 172nd, 178th, and 198th Reports.... Deletions Provisions contained under the CrPC, dealing with ‘Metropolitan areas’ and ‘Metropolitan Magistrates’ have been omitted from the BNSS. The post of Judicial Magistrate of third-class and Assistant Sessions Judge was omitted to bring uniformity. Section 144-A of the CrPC which conferred power on the District Magistrate and the State Government to prohibit the carrying of arms in procession or mass drill or mass training has been deleted. In conclusion The BNSS is not an arrow shot in the dark, but an empirically derived legislation with a clear goal in mind, to protect the nagarik (citizen) in criminal proceedings and not hinder the rights of the victim or of the accused person..

The initiatives taken under the BNSS also ensure its effectiveness, be it the introduction of sentence guidelines to prevent discretionary sentencing or balancing the rights of all stakeholders involved in a proceeding. The Sanhita also accords the much-needed technological advancement in the justice delivery system of the country and bringing justice to the citizens rather than the citizens having to seek justice in a prolonged, frustrating and exhausting manner. As was previously mentioned, there aren't many unintentional mistakes in the new law. One such example is the clause permitting discharge applications following the druggeting of charges. These are simply fixable with a few textual changes. Most of the adjustments are necessary and generally well-intentioned.

In general, the author would classify them into five categories: Eliminating outdated and hurtful terminology; bringing clarity to certain processes; implementing progressive protections and/or modifications; offering digital or electronic substitutes for current procedures; and speeding up processes and/or setting deadlines for procedures. Few of the changes, though, are unquestionably concerning. Expanding the reach of investigative powers under search and seizure, obtaining samples from a broader range of

individuals, limiting the power of commutation, reintroducing preliminary inquiry prior to filing a formal complaint, reintroducing handcuffs, and last but not least, alterations to the remand process are a few of the highly problematic aspects that need to be carefully considered. To enhance the effectiveness of any procedural law, the criminal justice administration should ideally incorporate additional safeguards, greater finance, and improved infrastructure. The name of the act itself appears to have been modified as part of the decolonisation process (from a 1973 statute), and all references to the word "code" have been replaced with the word "Sanhita." On the other hand, some might counter that it still appears colonial because certain problematic elements are still there, such as the broad discretion given to the authorities in making arrests and conducting investigations.