Provisions Of IPC Would Apply To Offences Committed Before 1st July, Though Registered After Commencement Of BNS: Madras High Court

Justice G Jayachandran observed that if the saving clause under Section 531 of BNSS is restricted only to matters pending on or before July 1^st 2024, it will be contrary to the savings of right sand privileges acquired and ensured protection under Section 358 of the BNS and Section 4 of the General Clauses Act.

“If saving provided under Section 531(2)(a) of BNSS, 2023, is restricted only to matters pending on or before 01.07.2024, then a FIR or complaint regarding an occurrence prior to 01.07.2024, but registered after 01.07.2024 to be proceeded following the procedure under BNSS, 2023. This will be contrary to the saving of rights and privileges, acquired ensured protection under Section 358 of BNS, 2023 and Section 4 of General Clause Act,” the court observed.

The court noted that as per Section 358 of BNS (Repeal and Savings) and Section 6 of the General Clauses Act (Repeal), the rights, privilege, obligation or liability acquired, accrued, or incurred under the old law would not be affected in view of the repeal.

The court further noted that Section 531(2)(a) of the BNSS states that the CrPC would be repealed except in cases where any appeal, application, trial, inquiry, or investigation is pending immediately before the date on which the new law comes into force. The court observed that the word “pending” employed in the section should not be given a restrictive meaning and such a restrictive meaning would be prejudicial to the litigants.

“The word “pending” employed in Section 531(2)(a) of BNSS, 2023, cannot be given a restricted meaning ignoring Section 4 of the BNSS, 2023 and Section 358 of BNS. If such restricted meaning is given, it will be prejudicial to the litigants, whenever limitation is prescribed in one Act and not prescribed in another Act or different limitation is prescribed or if there is change in the procedure itself,” the court observed.

Thus, the court noted that the complaint that was registered by Babu Murugavel under Sections 499 and 500 of IPC was maintainable though it was registered after the new laws came into force. However, noting that Murugavel did not have locus to maintain the complaint, the court quashed the same.

Counsel for the Petitioner: Mr.P.Wilson, Senior Counsel for M/s P.Wilson Associates

Counsel for the Respondent: Mr.R. John Sathyan, Senior Counsel for M/s Nathan & Asso

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 406

Case Title: Mr.Muthuvelaydha Perumal Appavu @ M.Appavu v RM Babu Murugavel

Case No: Crl. O.P.No.25334 of 2024