The Delhi High Court and the Punjab & Haryana High Court interpreted the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Samhita (BNSS) for the first time, following its enactment alongside two other criminal laws.
NEW DELHI: On July 2: The Delhi High Court and the Punjab & Haryana High Court interpreted the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Samhita (BNSS) for the first time, following its enactment alongside two other criminal laws. Both courts had to determine whether pending cases should proceed under the old procedures of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC), or under the new BNSS regime.
In the Delhi High Court, Justice Pratibha M Singh applied Section 531 of the BNSS to a trademark suit involving KG Marketing India. Despite arguments over the authenticity of evidence, she decided to continue proceedings under the CrPC, as the application against KG Marketing was filed before BNSS came into force. The court dismissed the suit and imposed costs on KG Marketing.
Meanwhile, at the Punjab & Haryana High Court, Justice Anoop Chitkara addressed a delay application in a criminal revision petition filed post-BNSS enactment. Citing Section 6 of the General Clauses Act, he ruled that since the petition and delay application were filed under CrPC rules, they should proceed under CrPC provisions, treating the BNSS as if it had not yet come into effect for this case.
In December 2023, Mandeep Singh, who was serving a sentence after being convicted in a cheque-bouncing case by a Sessions court, filed a revision petition at the Punjab & Haryana High Court under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC).
These petitions must typically be filed within 90 days of the conviction, but Singh’s petition was delayed by 38 days due to his imprisonment. To address this, Singh filed an application for ‘condonation of delay’ under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, citing his imprisonment as the reason for the delay.
READ ALSO: New Criminal Laws BNS, BNSS, and BSA 2023 to be Enforced from 1st July 2024
Justice Anoop Chitkara acknowledged that without condoning the delay, technically, no criminal revision petition was pending before the court. He accepted the delay application early in the decision on July 2.
However, he noted a complication: the CrPC had been repealed and replaced by the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Samhita (BNSS) in the intervening period. Given that the BNSS applies only to cases arising after July 1, as per Section 531, the question arose whether it would apply to Mandeep Singh’s case, which technically came into existence after this date.
To resolve this, Justice Chitkara invoked Section 6 of the General Clauses Act, 1897, which addresses the “Effect of repeal.” This section ensures that rights, obligations, legal proceedings, and remedies initiated under the repealed law continue unaffected as if the repealing act had not been passed.
READ ALSO: BNSS Mandates Forensic Analysis, Puts Pressure on Centre and State Labs: Cal HC
Therefore, despite the repeal of the CrPC, Justice Chitkara decided that since Singh’s petition and delay application were initiated under the CrPC regime, they would proceed under CrPC provisions as if the BNSS had not come into force for this case.
FOLLOW US FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES ON YOUTUBE
