In A First, Punjab & Haryana High Court Interprets Provision Of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita
Aiman J. Chishti
3 July 2024 12:29 PM GMT
The Punjab and Haryana High Court has passed its first order interpreting a provision of the newly enforced Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS).
BNSS, along with Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita and Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam came into effect from July 1, 2024. Not soon thereafter, on July 2, the High Court was faced with the dilemma whether a criminal revision petition filed before it would be governed by the now repealed CrPC or the BNSS.
Though the revision plea was filed when Code of Criminal Procedure was in force, the delay in filing it was condoned only after BNSS came into force. So technically, unless the delay was condoned, no criminal revision petition was pending before the Court.
Thus, the question before the Court was whether the time-barred petitions filed up to June 30, 2024 under CrPC, accompanied with applications for condonation of delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act which were pending as of July 1, 2024, would be governed under the CrPC or BNSS, if the delay is condoned.
Justice Anoop Chitkara said,
"Section 531 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 explicitly specifies that pending appeals shall be disposed of or continued as if the new law had not yet taken effect, following the provisions of CrPC. The petition and the accompanying application seeking an extension of time were filed and registered in the registry of this Court when CrPC, 1973 was in force and were pending on the 1st of July 2024; hence, they would fall under the scope of section 531(2)(a) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. Therefore, based on the above, this petition shall have to be adjudicated under S. 401 of the CrPC, 1973 and not under S. 442 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023."
"S.531 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, makes it crystal clear that all the appeals, applications, trials, inquiries, or investigations pending on or before 30th June 2024, would continue to be governed under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973", the Court added.
Court also referred to Section 6 of General Clauses which "makes it apparent that no right privilege, obligation, or liability acquired, accrued, or incurred under any enactment which has been repealed shall be affected by such repeal. Clause (e) makes it evident that any legal proceeding or remedy regarding such right privilege, obligation, liability penalty, forfeiture, or punishment shall remain unaffected and governed by the old Act."
It further highlighted that, "the effect of condonation of delay is that the delay is forgiven, and the plea is treated as filed within the limitation period; thus, it would relate back to the date on which the limitation expired. The said date would be the determining factor, and the procedure that was applicable on that date would apply to the revision."
The Court was hearing a revision petition challenging the conviction under Section 138 Negotiable Instrument Act. As per the application, the reasons for the delay were the petitioner's confinement in jail, which resulted in exceeding the limitation for challenging the judgment of Sessions Court by 38 days.
The Court opined that "these are sufficient grounds to condone the delay in filing the revision petition and extend the time to file the appeal." Consequently it condoned the delay.
Mandeep Singh vs Kulwinder Singh and another.
Mr. P.S. Sekhon, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Abhay Gupta, Advocate for respondent No.1.
Mr. T.P.S. Walia, A.A.G., Punjab and Ms. Swati Batra, D.A.G., Punjab.
