PART II
Trial of warrant cases by Magistrates
In Part II concerning the trial of warrant cases by Magistrates, procedural rules are structured around how the case originated—whether on a police report or through a private complaint.
In a warrant case instituted on a police report, the official police investigation record is readily available to both the court and the accused, whereas such a pre-existing record does not exist in cases instituted otherwise than on a police report (private complaints).
Consequently, specific statutory provisions are necessary in private complaint cases to ensure the accused is informed of the prosecution’s allegations before being required to defend themselves.
The Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) divides these magistrate warrant trial rules into three groups: provisions mainly applicable to cases instituted on a police report under Sections 261 to 266 BNSS; provisions exclusively applicable to cases instituted otherwise than on a police report under Sections 267 to 270 BNSS; and general provisions applicable to all warrant cases under Sections 271 to 273 BNSS.
Trial of warrant cases instituted on a police report
(1) Supply of copies to the accused.
Under Section 261 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), when a warrant case instituted on a police report commences and the accused appears or is brought before the Magistrate, the court must satisfy itself that the accused has been supplied with copies of all key investigation documents as mandated by Section 230 BNSS.
These include the police report, the FIR, and all witness statements recorded during the investigation that the prosecution intends to rely upon.
However, legal precedent notes that the accused’s right to claim copies under former Section 207 CrPC (now Section 230 BNSS) is not an indefeasible or absolute right, balancing procedural fairness with judicial discretion.
(2) Discharge of the accused.
Under Section 262 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS)—formerly Section 239 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC)—the discharge of an accused in a magistrate warrant trial is a statutory right evaluated through three mandatory preliminary steps: reviewing the police report and documents supplied under Section 230, examining the accused physically or via audio-video electronic means if necessary, and hearing arguments from both the prosecution and defence to determine if the charge is groundless.
If the Magistrate finds the accusation groundless, the court must discharge the accused while recording its reasons in writing.
To claim discharge, the accused must appear before the court at the charge-framing stage, and under Section 262(1) BNSS, any discharge application must be filed within a strict deadline of 60 days from the date copies of case documents are supplied.
(3) Framing of charge.
Under Section 263(1) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), if after evaluating the case materials, examination, and preliminary arguments, the Magistrate forms the opinion that there is ground for presuming the accused committed an offense within the court’s competency to try and adequately punish, the Magistrate must frame a written charge against the accused within 60 days from the date of the first hearing on charge.
Furthermore, the court has an obligation not to automatically frame charges just because the prosecution instituted the case; rather, the responsibility rests entirely on the court to independently apply its judicial mind to determine whether formal charges are warranted.
(4) Explaining the charge to the accused.
Under Section 263(2) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), after the formal charge has been framed by the court, it must be read out and explained to the accused person so that they clearly comprehend the nature of the allegations.
The court is then required to ask the accused whether they plead guilty to the offence charged or choose to claim trial, serving as a critical procedural safeguard to ensure the accused is given a direct opportunity to record their plea before the trial proceeds.
(5) Conviction on plea of guilty.
Under Section 264 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), if the accused person pleads guilty after the formal charge is explained, the Magistrate is mandated to record the plea in writing.
However, the admission does not result in an automatic conviction; the law uses the term “may,” reserving judicial discretion for the Magistrate to decide whether to convict the accused on that admission or to continue with the trial process.
(6) Fixing the date for the examination of witnesses.
Under Section 265(1) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), if the accused refuses to plead, fails to plead, claims to be tried, or if the Magistrate exercises discretion not to convict the accused on a plea of guilty, the court must schedule and fix a date for the examination of prosecution witnesses.
Furthermore, pursuant to Section 265(2) BNSS, upon receiving an application from the prosecution, the Magistrate has the discretion to issue a summons to any witness, directing them to attend the court proceedings or produce required documents or evidentiary materials.
(7) Evidence for the prosecution.
Under Section 265(3) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), the examination of prosecution witnesses begins on the scheduled trial date, where the Magistrate records all prosecution evidence and retains the authority to defer or recall witness cross-examination as well as permit examination through State-notified audio-video electronic means.
The general procedural rules governing the recording of evidence—including taking down testimony (S. 310), reading it back to witnesses (S. 313), noting witness demeanor (S. 315), specifying court language (S. 312), and providing interpretation to the accused (S. 314)—mirror standard Sessions trial procedures.
Furthermore, under Section 310(1) and (2) BNSS, if physical or other incapacity prevents the Magistrate from personally recording or dictating evidence, an appointed court officer may take down the testimony under direct judicial supervision provided a formal certificate of incapacity is attached, while witness evidence may also be recorded through audio-video electronic means in the presence of the accused person’s advocate.
(8) Steps to follow the prosecution evidence.
Following the completion of prosecution evidence in a trial, two critical procedural steps must be executed under the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS).
First, pursuant to Section 352 BNSS, the prosecution presents its oral arguments and submits a written memorandum of arguments detailing its case.
Second, under Section 351(1)(b) BNSS, the Magistrate directly examines the accused person, affording them a vital opportunity to personally explain any incriminating circumstances arising from the prosecution’s evidence before the trial advances to the defense stage.
(9) Evidence for the defence.
Under Section 266 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), once the prosecution evidence and examination of the accused are completed, the accused is called upon to enter their defense and present evidence, with the right to request court process to compel witness attendance or document production.
While the Magistrate must issue such process upon request, they retain authority under Section 266(2) BNSS to refuse applications meant for delay, vexation, or defeating justice, provided written reasons are recorded.
Furthermore, re-summoning witnesses previously cross-examined requires demonstrating necessity for justice, subject to High Court revisionary oversight under Section 442 BNSS.
The BNSS also allows defense witness examination via audio-video electronic means, empowers the court under Section 266(3) BNSS to order the accused to deposit witness expenses, requires any written statement submitted by the accused to be made part of the trial record, and mandates that defense evidence be recorded under standard trial evidence procedures.
(10) Steps to follow the defence evidence.
Following the completion of defence evidence in a trial, the proceeding advances to the concluding stages, which involve the court’s power to call material witnesses and the presentation of final arguments by both parties.
Under these statutory provisions, the court maintains discretionary authority to summon any material witness or examine any person present if necessary for a just decision, after which both the prosecution and defence deliver final oral arguments and submit written argument memorandums.
As noted in the text, these procedural steps regarding court witnesses and oral or written arguments are covered in detail in earlier sections under the heads “Power of the court to summon any material witnesses or to examine persons present” and “Arguments: Oral and written”.
Trial of warrant cases instituted otherwise than on a police report
(1) Preliminary hearing of the prosecution case.
In warrant cases instituted otherwise than on a police report—such as private complaints—Section 267(1) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) mandates that when the accused appears or is brought before the court, the Magistrate must conduct a preliminary hearing to listen to the prosecution and record all evidence produced to support the charge.
Additionally, under Section 267(2) BNSS, the Magistrate holds the discretionary power, upon an application by the prosecution, to issue legal summonses compelling any witness to appear in court or produce required documents and physical evidence necessary to establish the case.
(2) Discharge of the accused.
Under Section 268 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS)—formerly Section 245 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC)—the Magistrate has statutory authority to discharge an accused person in a warrant case instituted otherwise than on a police report.
Pursuant to Section 268(1) BNSS, after taking all preliminary prosecution evidence, the Magistrate shall discharge the accused if the recorded evidence fails to establish a case that would warrant a conviction if unrebutted.
Alternatively, under Section 268(2) BNSS, the Magistrate may discharge the accused at any earlier stage if the allegations are groundless ab initio or if examining remaining witnesses would not materially strengthen the prosecution’s case; however, early discharge is improper if a prima facie case is evident.
In either situation, the Magistrate must exercise this power judicially rather than arbitrarily and is legally required to record detailed written reasons for the discharge order.
(3) Framing of charge.
Under Section 269(1) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), the Magistrate is required to frame a written charge against the accused after taking all or part of the prosecution evidence, provided there is sufficient ground to presume that the accused committed the offense.
This procedural step applies when the Magistrate is legally competent to try the case and holds the jurisdiction to impose an adequate punishment for the alleged offense.
To meet the legal standard for framing a charge, the prosecution evidence presented up to that point must be robust enough that, if left unrebutted by the defense, it would justify a conviction.
(4) Explaining the charge and the plea of the accused.
Under Section 269(2) and (3) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), once a formal charge is framed against the accused, it must be read over and explained clearly to them to ensure full understanding of the allegations.
The accused is then asked whether they plead guilty or claim trial; if a plea of guilty is entered, the Magistrate records the admission and retains the legal discretion to convict the accused on that plea.
This procedural step of reading the charge, recording the plea, and potentially convicting upon an admission of guilt follows the exact same legal protocol applied in warrant cases instituted on a police report.
(5) Choice of the accused to recall prosecution witnesses.
Under Section 269(4) and (5) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), if the accused refuses to plead guilty, claims trial, or is not convicted on a plea of guilty, the Magistrate must require the accused to state whether they wish to recall and cross-examine any prosecution witnesses whose evidence has already been recorded.
This declaration is generally made at the start of the next hearing, though the Magistrate may require the decision immediately if written reasons are provided.
If the accused specifies any prosecution witnesses, the court will recall them for defense cross-examination and subsequent prosecution re-examination before discharging them from the proceedings.
(6) Evidence for the prosecution.
Under Section 269(6) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), after previously examined prosecution witnesses are recalled, any remaining prosecution witnesses are called to give evidence, undergo cross-examination and re-examination, and are subsequently discharged.
If the prosecution calls witnesses whose names were not disclosed prior to the framing of charges, the Magistrate must grant the accused reasonable time to prepare for their cross-examination.
Furthermore, courts have full discretion to accept supplementary lists of prosecution witnesses under Section 267 and Section 269(6) BNSS (formerly Sections 244 and 246(6) CrPC), provided this discretion is exercised judiciously, recorded in writing, and strictly prevents harassment of the accused.
Notably, Section 269(7) BNSS introduces a new statutory rule: if a prosecution witness cannot be produced for cross-examination despite all reasonable efforts, that witness is deemed unexamined due to unavailability, allowing the Magistrate to close prosecution evidence in writing and proceed with the case based on remaining materials on record.
(7) Evidence for the defence.
Under Section 270 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), the accused is formally called upon to enter their defense and produce evidence only after the completion of prosecution evidence, the submission of prosecution arguments, and the judicial examination of the accused under Section 351 BNSS (formerly Section 313 CrPC).
The statutory framework strictly prohibits the accused from leading defense evidence prior to the closure of the prosecution’s case and the examination of the accused, a sequential rule which the Supreme Court noted Parliament could amend.
The operational procedures, rules, and post-evidence stages for defense evidence in private complaint cases apply with equal force as in cases instituted on a police report (Section 266 BNSS), including the court’s power to summon material witnesses and the submission of final oral and written arguments.
(8) Special course to be adopted by the Magistrate.
Under the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), specific procedural courses are outlined when a Magistrate encounters jurisdictional limits or sentencing constraints during an inquiry or trial.
If a Magistrate lacks jurisdiction or identifies that another magistrate or the Chief Judicial Magistrate (CJM) should try the matter, Section 361 BNSS mandates staying proceedings and referring the case to the CJM for reassignment or committal.
Should it appear before judgment that the offense requires trial by a Sessions Court, Section 362 BNSS dictates immediate committal.
Furthermore, under Section 364 BNSS, if a Magistrate finds an accused guilty but cannot legally impose a sentence severe enough, the Magistrate must forward the accused (and any guilty co-accused) to the CJM, who holds full authority to re-examine witnesses, record further evidence, and pass a lawful judgment.
Finally, under Section 363 BNSS, repeat offenders facing charges under Chapter X or XVII of the Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 carrying 3+ years imprisonment following a previous conviction of similar severity must be sent to the CJM or committed to the Sessions Court along with any joint co-accused—unless the presiding Magistrate possesses sufficient sentencing power or discharges the co-accused.
Common provisions regarding conclusion of trial
(1) Acquittal or conviction.
Under Section 271 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), the conclusion of a trial occurs after all defense evidence is presented and final arguments are heard, requiring the Magistrate to deliver a formal judgment.
In cases where charges were framed, if the Magistrate determines that the accused is not guilty, an order of acquittal must be officially recorded under Section 271(1) BNSS.
Conversely, if the accused is found guilty, Section 271(2) BNSS mandates that the Magistrate must first hear the accused on the question of sentence prior to passing a lawful sentence.
The comprehensive legal guidelines concerning the delivery, pronouncement, language, and structural contents of such judgments are codified separately under Sections 392 to 406 of the BNSS.
(2) Procedure in case of previous conviction.
Under Section 271(3) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) and its accompanying proviso, strict safeguards are established to ensure that allegations of a past conviction do not prejudice the trial for the current offense.
The Magistrate is explicitly prohibited from reading out, requiring a plea on, or allowing the prosecution to reference any alleged previous conviction charged under Section 234(7) BNSS unless and until the accused has first been convicted of the primary offense under Section 271(2) BNSS.
Once a conviction for the immediate offense is formally recorded, if the accused does not admit to the previous conviction, the Magistrate may take dedicated evidence regarding the alleged past offense and must record a definitive finding on the matter.
(3) Compensation for an accusation made without reasonable cause.
Under Section 273 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), a Magistrate discharging or acquitting an accused person has statutory authority to address false or groundless accusations by directing the complainant to show cause why compensation should not be awarded to the accused.
If the complainant’s explanation is unsatisfactory, the Magistrate can issue a reasoned order fixing compensation, provided the amount does not exceed the maximum fine the Magistrate is legally empowered to inflict under Section 273(2) BNSS.
In the event of non-payment, Section 273(3) and (4) BNSS permit the Magistrate to impose a term of simple imprisonment not exceeding 30 days, governed by Section 8(6) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.
While payment of this compensation does not exempt the complainant from subsequent civil or criminal liabilities, Section 273(5) BNSS specifies that any compensation paid will be offset against damages awarded in any subsequent civil suit on the same matter.
These provisions apply equally to summons and warrant cases under Section 273(8) BNSS, with specific rules regarding appeals and payment timelines detailed under Section 273(6) and (7) BNSS.