S.210(1)(c) BNSS| Court Not Obligated To Record Witness Statement Or Call Aggrieved Party To Take Cognizance Of Offence: P&H High Court
The Punjab & Haryana Excessive Court docket has clarified that below Part 210(1)(c) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), a Justice of the Peace isn’t obligated to report the assertion of any witness or name the aggrieved social gathering earlier than taking cognizance of an offence or issuing course of.
For context, Part 210(c) BNSS states that the Justice of the Peace can take cognizance of offence upon data obtained from any individual apart from a police officer, or upon his personal data, that such offence has been dedicated
Justice Sanjay Vashisth in his order elucidated, “for taking cognizance u/s 210(1)(c) of BNSS, 2023 and to problem course of, it isn’t compulsory over the Court docket to report statements of the witnesses and even to name for the aggrieved social gathering.”
The Court docket added that, naked studying of the supply is “solely primarily based upon the satisfaction” of the Justice of the Peace, who involves know of taking place of some offence, on his personal and even upon data from any individual, apart from the police officer.
Not solely this, Justice of the Peace can take cognizance solely on the premise of his personal data additionally for committing an offence, and thereupon, no particular process is required to be adopted or adopted earlier than issuance of course of vis-à-vis the suspect, the courtroom added.
“Nonetheless, even in a warrant case, if thinks match, Justice of the Peace can direct the accused to be introduced earlier than it just by issuing summon for look by advantage of Part 227(1)(b) of BNSS, 2023,” added the bench.
The Court docket additional mentioned that to have a comparative research of entitlement of accused to boost objection u/s 211 (Switch on utility of accused) with that of first proviso to Part 223 of BNSS, 2023, it could now be safely understood that laws has already taken discover of the false acquisition, if any, as a result of in each the conditions summoned individual/accused has been granted alternative of listening to prematurely to proceed additional.
These observations have been made whereas listening to a plea difficult the summoning order handed by a Justice of the Peace in custodial loss of life case. 4 police officers who have been summoned in case pertaining to Sections 103, 238, 340 learn with Part 190 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS) (corresponding Sections 302, 201, 470/471 r/w 149 IPC), had challenged the order.
Within the current case, the Cognizance was taken by the Justice of the Peace below 210(1)(c) of BNSS which states that cognizance might be taken by him upon data obtained from any individual apart from a police officer, or upon his personal data, that such offence has been dedicated.
After listening to the submissions, the Court docket mentioned that the Justice of the Peace’s energy to take cognizance u/s 210(1)(c) is unique, unbiased and of holistic worth.
“To take away any doubt or apprehension of biasness of the summoned accused, laws has inserted Part 211 making it compulsory over the Justice of the Peace to apprise the summoned accused of his proper to file objection after which to proceed as per the consequential instructions issued by the Chief Judicial Justice of the Peace in that behalf,” it added.
The Court docket mentioned that within the current case, petitioners have assumed that with out following the process given below Chapter XVI, they might not have been summoned by the Justice of the Peace.
“Whereas, from the naked studying of the provisions, it’s clear that energy to take cognizance u/s 210(1)(c) is unique and unbiased, nevertheless, on summoning of the accused, it could be topic to the obligatory compliance of Part 211 of BNSS, 2023,” it added.
The Court docket pointed that the petitioners have been issued the method u/s 227(1)(b) of BNSS, 2023, which says that even in warrant instances, “if Justice of the Peace thinks it acceptable, accused might be summoned to be introduced earlier than it for the aim of look solely.”
“Undoubtedly, earlier than resorting to the stage of issuing course of, as within the current case additionally, it’s compulsory over the involved Justice of the Peace to have sufficient materials earlier than it for satisfying itself of taking place of the offence(s) to resort to its energy,” it mentioned.
Justice Vahishth highlighted that apprehension of the petitioners that there isn’t a assertion or doc to be equipped to them appears to be unfounded, as a result of the impugned order, which is detailed one, clearly means that there was sufficient materials earlier than the Justice of the Peace whereas taking cognizance on judicial facet and it’s solely on the premise of Justice of the Peace’s satisfaction that course of has been issued for graduation of the proceedings.
“Additionally it is settled proposition of legislation that accused has no locus standi at this stage, the place Justice of the Peace has to take a call, as as to if course of is required to be issued to the accused or not,” it mentioned.
Whereas inspecting the impugned summoning order, the Court docket seen {that a} checklist of the family members of the deceased and the variety of their depositions is talked about.
It included an outline of the statements made by 4 family members of the deceased. Statements of 12 witnesses, i.e., police officers, Advocate Surya Kant Singla, three Medical Officers, one Forensic Knowledgeable, two newspaper studies, and three Nodal Officers have additionally been recorded, it famous.
“Earlier than reaching to the stage of Part 231 of BNSS, 2023, it could’ be assumed that on reaching to an acceptable stage, provision of legislation wouldn’t be complied with. As of now, it seems that prosecution would undoubtedly depend on the statements recorded and materials collected by the Judicial Justice of the Peace in the course of the course of inquiry. However within the current case, the accused haven’t even waited to achieve to that stage and has approached this Court docket prematurely with out having any alleged grievance for violation talked about below Part 231(iii) of BNSS, 2023,” the courtroom mentioned.
The excessive courtroom mentioned that after it’s noticed that judicial inquiry carries wider scope than the inquiry conduced below Part 194 BNSS, allegation of the petitioners that the Justice of the Peace, who carried out judicial inquiry couldn’t himself train the ability of taking cognizance below Part 210(1)(c) of BNSS, 2023, can be discovered to be baseless.
Furthermore, summoned accused could be free to precise his apprehension of any bias within the objection utility, if any, is regarded as filed below Part 211 of BNSS, 2023, it added.
Accordingly, excessive courtroom held that there isn’t a infirmity within the Justice of the Peace’s order, which it mentioned appeared to have been handed in accordance with the provisions of BNSS, 2023.
Title: Navpreet Singh and others v. State of Punjab
Mr. P.S. Ahluwalia, Advocate, Ms. Bhavi Kapur, Advocate and Mr. Prince Goyal, Advocate for the petitioner(s).
Mr. Amandeep Singh, DAG, Punjab.
