Punjab & Haryana High Court’s Interpretation of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023
On July 3, 2024, the Punjab and Haryana High Court made a landmark decision by interpreting a provision of the newly enforced Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS). This legislation, along with the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita and Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, came into effect on July 1, 2024, marking a significant shift in legal procedures.
The court was confronted with a critical issue soon after BNSS was enacted: whether a criminal revision petition, initially filed under the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), should now be governed by BNSS or the CrPC, especially considering the delay in filing was only condoned after BNSS took effect.
The specific case involved petitions filed up to June 30, 2024, under the CrPC along with applications seeking condonation of delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, which were pending as of July 1, 2024. The key question was whether these petitions, once the delay was condoned, should fall under the purview of the CrPC or BNSS.
Court’s Interpretation and Decision
Justice Anoop Chitkara, delivering the court’s opinion, referred to Section 531 of BNSS. This section explicitly states that pending appeals, applications, trials, inquiries, or investigations should continue under the provisions of the CrPC as if BNSS had not yet come into force. Therefore, any legal proceedings initiated and registered under the CrPC regime would continue to be governed by the CrPC.
The Court emphasized the importance of Section 6 of the General Clauses Act, which safeguards rights, privileges, obligations, and liabilities acquired or incurred under repealed enactments. It clarified that such legal proceedings and remedies would remain unaffected by the repeal and would continue to be governed by the old law.
Case Background and Ruling
The case involved a revision petition challenging a conviction under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The petitioner had cited confinement in jail as the reason for exceeding the limitation period by 38 days in challenging the Sessions Court’s judgment.
Justice Chitkara acknowledged the petitioner’s grounds for condoning the delay as valid and extended the time to file the appeal. The Court’s decision underscored the principle that the procedural laws applicable on the date when the limitation period expired would govern the revision petition.
Conclusion
Conclusion
The Punjab and Haryana High Court’s decision sets a significant precedent for interpreting transitional provisions between the old CrPC and the new BNSS. It ensures continuity and clarity in legal proceedings during the transition period, affirming that rights and liabilities accrued under the old laws are protected and continue to be adjudicated under those laws.
