Jurisdiction in criminal law determines which court has authority to try a particular offence. It encompasses territorial jurisdiction (where), subject-matter jurisdiction (what), and pecuniary/sentencing jurisdiction (how much). A trial before a court lacking jurisdiction is a nullity.
Legal Framework
| Provision | Subject |
|---|---|
| S.7 BNSS | Territorial divisions |
| S.12 BNSS (formerly S.16 CrPC) | Local jurisdiction of Judicial Magistrates |
| S.13 BNSS (formerly S.17 CrPC) | Subordination of Magistrates |
| S.22-28 BNSS (formerly S.177-184 CrPC) | Place of inquiry or trial |
| S.29 BNSS (formerly S.183 CrPC) | Offence committed on journey or voyage |
| S.30 BNSS (formerly S.188 CrPC) | Offence not committed in India |
| S.31 BNSS | Place of trial for offences triable together |
| S.32 BNSS | Power to order committal to particular court |
| S.33-34 BNSS (formerly S.407-408 CrPC) | Power of High Court and Sessions Judge to transfer cases |
Why: Jurisdiction is a matter of public law and cannot be conferred by consent. An accused cannot be tried at a place where neither the offence was committed nor any part of the cause of action arose. This protects the accused from being dragged to distant forums.
Territorial Jurisdiction (S.22-28)
General Rule (S.22)
Every offence shall ordinarily be inquired into and tried by a court within whose local jurisdiction it was committed.
Exceptions:
| Situation | Rule | Section |
|---|---|---|
| Offence committed partly in one district, partly in another | Either district has jurisdiction | S.23 BNSS |
| Offence of kidnapping/abduction | Where taken from, or carried to, or found | S.24 BNSS |
| Offence committed during journey | Any place through which the thing/person passed | S.29 BNSS |
| Acts forming one transaction | Any court having jurisdiction over any component act | S.25 BNSS |
| Offence includes criminal conspiracy | Place of conspiracy or place of commission | S.26 BNSS |
| Uncertain where committed | Court where accused is found, or resides, or is in custody | S.27 BNSS |
| Offence committed outside India | As if committed at the place of trial (per CG notification) | S.30 BNSS |
Why: Rigid insistence on the place of commission would defeat justice in cases involving continuous offences, multiple locations, or uncertain situs. The exceptions ensure the criminal cannot escape by operating across jurisdictional boundaries.
Subject-Matter Jurisdiction
Subject-matter jurisdiction is determined by the First Schedule read with the sentencing power of each court:
| Offence Category | Triable By |
|---|---|
| Offences punishable with death | Court of Session only |
| Offences punishable with life imprisonment | Court of Session only |
| Offences punishable with 7+ years | Court of Session (committed by Magistrate) |
| Offences punishable up to 7 years | CJM or Magistrate as per First Schedule |
| Offences punishable up to 3 years | JMFC |
| Offences punishable up to 1 year | JMSC |
| Summary trial eligible offences | Any Magistrate exercising summary powers (S.283) |
Powers of Criminal Courts
Inherent Powers (S.528 BNSS, formerly S.482 CrPC)
Nothing in BNSS shall limit or affect the inherent powers of the High Court to make such orders as may be necessary:
- To give effect to any order under BNSS
- To prevent abuse of process of any court
- To secure the ends of justice
Why: Statutory provisions cannot foresee every situation. Inherent powers fill gaps where the statute is silent, ensuring justice is not defeated by procedural rigidity.
Powers of Sessions Court (S.8 BNSS)
- Try any offence (subject to committal)
- Pass any sentence authorized by law including death
- Take cognizance on committal
- Conduct trial de novo if necessary
Powers of CJM (S.10 BNSS)
- Try offences within sentencing limit (7 years)
- Commit cases to Sessions where sentence required exceeds power
- Withdraw cases from subordinate Magistrates
- Transfer cases between Magistrates
Transfer of Cases (S.33-34 BNSS)
| Authority | Power | Grounds |
|---|---|---|
| Sessions Judge | Transfer between Magistrates in district | Convenience, expeditious trial |
| High Court | Transfer between districts/states | Fair trial impossible, apprehension of bias |
| Supreme Court | Transfer between states | Art.142 read with Cr.P.C/BNSS provisions |
Illustrations
-
Jurisdiction cannot be created by consent: Anil lives in Jaipur. He allegedly cheated Bina in a business deal: the contract was signed in Jaipur, the money was transferred from a Jaipur bank, and Bina received the fake goods in Jaipur. Bina files a complaint in Chennai (where she moved recently) hoping it will be harder for Anil to attend hearings. The Chennai court has no jurisdiction because the offence has no connection to Chennai. Even if Anil does not object, the court cannot try the case. Jurisdiction is not created by consent.
-
Multi-district transaction: Deepak conspires in Pune to forge documents. His associate Farhan uses the forged documents in Nagpur. The victim discovers the fraud in Mumbai. Under S.25 BNSS, courts in Pune (conspiracy), Nagpur (overt act), or Mumbai (effect) all have jurisdiction because the acts form one transaction.
-
Journey offence: A passenger is pickpocketed on the Delhi-Agra Expressway. The bus passed through Faridabad, Mathura, and Agra. Under S.29 BNSS, any court along the route (Faridabad, Mathura, or Agra) has jurisdiction. The victim can file an FIR at whichever station is most convenient.
Recall Check
- What is the general rule for place of trial under S.22?
- In which situations can an offence be tried at a place other than where it was committed?
- What are the three purposes for which inherent powers under S.528 can be exercised?
Key Cases
Purushottam Dass Dalmia v. State of WB (1961) Purushottam-Dass-Dalmia-v-State-of-WB-1961 Issue: Whether a composite offence can be tried at any place where a component act occurred. Rule: Where acts forming one transaction are committed in different jurisdictions, any court having jurisdiction over any such act can try the entire offence. Held: A conspiracy hatched in one state with overt acts in another can be tried in either jurisdiction. S.25 BNSS codifies this principle.
Trisuns Chemical Industry v. Rajesh Agarwal (1999) Trisuns-Chemical-v-Rajesh-Agarwal-1999 Issue: Which court has jurisdiction when a cheque is dishonored (offence under S.138 NI Act)? Rule: The offence is committed at the place where the cheque is dishonored (i.e., the drawee bank's location or where the payee receives the dishonor notice). Held: Jurisdiction lies where the cause of action arises; for cheque dishonor, where the payee presents the cheque or where the cheque is returned unpaid.
Distinctions
| Parameter | Territorial Jurisdiction | Subject-Matter Jurisdiction |
|---|---|---|
| Determined by | Place of commission (S.22 BNSS) | Nature/punishment of offence (First Schedule) |
| Can be cured? | Transfer possible (S.33-34 BNSS) | Cannot be conferred by consent |
| Consequence of error | Irregularity (may be curable) | Nullity (proceedings void ab initio) |
| Governed by | S.22-31 BNSS | S.6-10 BNSS read with First Schedule |
| Example | Murder in District A tried in District B | JMSC trying murder (death sentence offence) |
Flashcards
Q: What is the general rule for place of trial? A: S.22 BNSS: offence shall ordinarily be tried by a court within whose local jurisdiction it was committed.
Q: Under S.25 BNSS, when can offences committed in different districts be tried at one place? A: When acts form one transaction, any court having jurisdiction over any component act may try the whole.
Q: What is S.528 BNSS (formerly S.482 CrPC)? A: Inherent powers of the High Court to prevent abuse of process or secure ends of justice.
Q: Who can transfer cases between districts? A: The High Court under S.34 BNSS.
Q: What happens if a court without subject-matter jurisdiction tries a case? A: The proceedings are a nullity (void ab initio).
Q: Where is the offence of cheque dishonor tried? A: At the place where the cheque is dishonored (drawee bank) or where payee receives the return memo.
Exam Scenario
A conspires in Mumbai to commit fraud. B, A's agent, executes the fraudulent transaction in Delhi. C, the victim, receives the forged documents in Kolkata. The police at Mumbai register an FIR. A challenges Mumbai court's jurisdiction arguing the fraud was committed in Delhi. Advise.
Under S.25 BNSS, where acts constituting an offence or forming part of one transaction are committed in different local areas, the offence may be inquired into or tried by a court having jurisdiction over any of those areas. The conspiracy was hatched in Mumbai (a component act), the execution occurred in Delhi (another component act), and the effect was felt in Kolkata. Courts in Mumbai, Delhi, or Kolkata all have jurisdiction. Per Purushottam Dass Dalmia v. State of WB, the place of conspiracy is a valid jurisdictional basis. Mumbai court's jurisdiction is proper. A's challenge fails.