"Punjab & Haryana High Court's Groundbreaking Ruling on BNSS and CrPC"

 

Landmark Ruling by the Punjab & Haryana High Court on the Applicability of BNSS vs CrPC

In a recent and pivotal judgment, the Punjab & Haryana High Court has clarified how the new Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023 interacts with the now-repealed Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), 1973. This ruling stems from a case involving Mandeep Singh, convicted under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act—a provision that deals with the dishonor of cheques.

Case Background:

Mandeep Singh, after being convicted, sought to file a criminal revision petition under Section 401 of the CrPC. However, the petition was filed 38 days after the deadline stipulated under the CrPC. Crucially, Singh filed this petition after July 1, 2024, the date on which the BNSS replaced the CrPC. The court had to decide whether the petition would be adjudicated under the BNSS or the CrPC. This decision was critical, as the new BNSS brought significant procedural changes, and there was uncertainty about how cases already underway would be treated under the new legal framework.

Key Rulings:

1.     Application of the CrPC: The court ruled that the case would be governed by Section 401 of the CrPC, not Section 442 of the BNSS. Since the FIR and trial had commenced under the CrPC, and the petition was filed within the framework of the old law, the court chose to adjudicate it under the CrPC.
2. General Clauses Act: The court referred to Section 6 of the General Clauses Act, which provides guidance on the effect of repealing laws. Section 6 ensures that, unless explicitly stated, the repeal of a statute does not affect:
 - Ongoing legal proceedings initiated before the repeal.
 - Rights or liabilities acquired under the old statute.
3. Citing Precedent: The court also referenced prior judgments, particularly the case of National Planners v. Contributories (AIR 1958 Punjab 230), to underline that changes in procedural law should not disrupt ongoing cases unless the legislature explicitly intends otherwise.

 

Broader Implications:

This decision sets an important precedent, providing clarity on how the courts will manage the transition from the CrPC to the BNSS. The ruling ensures that cases that were in progress before the enactment of the BNSS will continue under the CrPC. However, any new petitions or appeals filed after July 1, 2024 must follow the procedures laid out in the BNSS.

Similar High Court Rulings:

The Punjab & Haryana High Court is not the only court to address this transitional issue.

Other high courts, including those in Kerala and Rajasthan, have issued similar rulings:
- Kerala High Court in Abdul Khader v. State of Kerala (CRL.A. 1186/2024): The court ruled that even if the trial was conducted under the CrPC, any appeals filed after July 1, 2024, must follow the BNSS. The court also provided flexibility for appeals with procedural defects to be corrected without being dismissed outright.

- Rajasthan High Court in Krishan Joshi v. State of Rajasthan: This case dealt with the interpretation of Section 531(2)(a) of BNSS, where the court held that ongoing investigations and inquiries initiated before the enactment of BNSS must continue under the CrPC. This ruling clarified that procedural changes would not retroactively apply to investigations that began under the CrPC.

Apex Court's Interpretations:

While no explicit Supreme Court ruling on the CrPC-BNSS transition has surfaced yet, the general legal doctrine governing such transitions aligns with the Repeal and Savings clauses provided in both the CrPC and BNSS. The General Clauses Act serves as a guiding principle in these transitions, ensuring that ongoing legal proceedings are not unfairly disrupted by new procedural laws.
In the past, the Supreme Court has consistently upheld the principle that procedural laws apply prospectively, meaning new procedures cannot be applied to actions already initiated under older laws. This principle helps maintain legal certainty and fairness in transitions between old and new legal regimes.

Conclusion:

The Punjab & Haryana High Court’s ruling provides critical clarity on the procedural application of the CrPC and BNSS. The court's reliance on the General Clauses Act and earlier judgments ensures that ongoing cases will not face procedural upheaval due to the introduction of the BNSS. For legal practitioners, this ruling highlights the importance of understanding the transitional provisions between legal frameworks and how courts navigate these complexities. This judgment will likely serve as a reference point in future cases where procedural transitions from the CrPC to the BNSS come into question.