Cases Filed Before July 1, 2024, Will Be Investigated As Per CrPC And Not BNSS: Bombay High Court

In a significant order, the Bombay High Court's Goa bench recently held that in cases lodged before July 1, 2024, the provisions of the now repealed Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) will apply to the investigations and not the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS).

Single-judge Justice Bharat Deshpande rejected the argument that since the new law has come in, the cases lodged prior to July 1, will have to be investigated as per the newly enforced BNSS.

"A plain and simple reading of this provision and more particularly the saving clause ie. Sub Section 2(a) of section 531 of the BNSS, 2023, would clearly go to show that the pending investigation immediately before the date on which the said 'Sanhita' comes into force shall be disposed of/continued, held or made as the case may be in accordance with the CrPC 1973 as in force immediately before such commencement as if this Sanhita has not come into force," the judge said.

Thus the saving clause in Section 531 of BNSS 2023 clearly and unambiguously saves the investigation pending prior to commencement of the BNSS 2023, the bench added.

The bench noted that the FIR in the instant case lodged on June 14, 2024, under sections 409 (criminal breach of trust), 420 (cheating), 477A (falsification of accounts) and 120B (criminal conspiracy) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), whereas, the BNSS came into force from July 1, 2024.

"Thus, the investigation commenced immediately on registration of FIR as provided under Section 157 of the CrPC which provides about the procedure for investigation. Such investigation must continue as provided under the provisions of the CrPC. under the Chapter XII till submission of the report of the Police Officer under Section 173 of CrPC to the concerned Court. Thus, on registration of the FIR prior to the provisions of BNSS 2023 coming into force, the investigation began and was pending. Such pending investigation is clearly saved under the provisions of Section 531 of the BNSS 2023 and the same must conclude under the provisions of CrPC, as if provisions of BNSS 2023 are not on the Statute Book or had not come into force," the bench held.

Another aspect the bench dealt with was whether a bail application filed after July 1, 2024, would be decided under the CrPC or the BNSS.

On this issue, Justice Deshpande said, "No further debate would be now required since the provisions of Section 531 of BNSS and the discussion with regard to the repeal and saving clause would clearly depict that from the date of implementation of BNSS 2023 i.e. July 1, 2027, provisions of CrPC, 1973 shall be repealed. The saving clause only saves any appeal, application, trial, inquiry or investigation pending as on July 1, 2024. Thus, any application filed as on July 1, 2024 or thereafter shall be governed by the provisions of BNSS 2023 for the simple reason that by that date, the provisions of CrPC 1973 stands repealed."

The judge, further held that the High Court does have 'inherent powers' to grant anticipatory bail to an accused person under the new law.

"There is absolutely no need of further discussion in respect of the power of the Session Court or of this Court with regard to grant of ad interim relief pending application for bail in anticipation of arrest. Such power clearly exists as inherent power under the provision of grant of bail. However, it is also clear that even while granting ad interim relief, there has to be a subjective satisfaction of the Court and such ad interim relief should be on certain conditions and not blanket. It is required to be considered on the premise of Article 21 of the Constitution of India which is clearly traceable with an intent to protect life and liberty of a person and more particularly to avoid unnecessary arrest as well as to avoid any harassment in the hands of investigating agency," Justice Deshpande held.

Appearance:

Advocates Rizwan Merchant, Gaurish Agni, Ramiz Shaikh, Nihal Kamat. Harshil Gandhi and Kishan Kavlekar appeared for the Petitioner.

Public Prosecutor Shailendra Bhobe along with Additional Public Prosecutor Nikhil Vaze represented the State.

Case Details: Chowgule and Company Pvt. Ltd. vs State of Maharashtra (Criminal Writ Petition 618 of 2024)

Click Here To Read/Download Judgment