S.197-222 BNSS governs which court is competent to inquire into and try which offence. Jurisdiction is determined by (a) the nature and gravity of the offence, (b) the place of commission, and (c) the identity of the accused. Proceedings before a court lacking jurisdiction are a nullity.
Legal Framework
| Provision | Subject |
|---|---|
| S.197 | Ordinary place of inquiry and trial |
| S.198-206 | Special rules for particular offences |
| S.207 | Trial of accessory/abettor |
| S.208 | Offences committed by certain persons (public servants) |
| S.209 | Offences committed outside India |
| S.210 BNSS (formerly S.190 CrPC) | Cognizance of offences by Magistrates |
| S.218 | Sanction for prosecution of public servants |
| S.219-222 | Powers of courts regarding composition, compounding |
Why: Jurisdiction rules prevent forum shopping, ensure convenient trial, protect against harassment by distant prosecution, and ensure the court trying the case has adequate sentencing power.
Example: A pickpocket operates in Mumbai local trains. He picks a wallet on a train travelling between Dadar and Andheri. Which court has jurisdiction? Under S.211 BNSS (ordinary rule: where offence committed), both Dadar and Andheri courts qualify because the offence was committed during transit between two jurisdictions. Under S.213 (continuing offence/journey), the court of any place through which the train passed has jurisdiction. But a court in Pune where neither the accused lives nor the train passed has no jurisdiction even if the victim lives there. Jurisdiction follows the offence, not the people.
Rules Determining Court of Trial
By Gravity of Offence:
| Offence Category | Court Competent |
|---|---|
| Punishable with death | Court of Session only |
| Punishable with life imprisonment | Court of Session only |
| Punishable with 7+ years | Court of Session (committed by Magistrate) |
| Punishable up to 7 years | CJM or JMFC |
| Punishable up to 3 years | JMFC |
| Punishable up to 1 year | JMSC |
| Summary trial eligible (up to 3 years) | Magistrate exercising summary jurisdiction |
Committal to Sessions (S.232):
When a Magistrate takes cognizance of an offence triable exclusively by the Court of Session, the Magistrate shall commit the case to that court. The Magistrate's role is limited to:
- Taking cognizance
- Supplying copies of charge sheet and documents to accused (S.230)
- Committing the case
By Place of Commission:
General rule (S.197): Every offence tried by the court within whose jurisdiction it was committed. Exceptions apply per S.198-206 for continuing offences, journey offences, and composite transactions.
By Identity of Accused:
| Accused | Special Rule |
|---|---|
| Public servant (official duty) | S.218: prior sanction required |
| Member of Armed Forces | S.208: special procedure |
| Judge/Magistrate | S.208: government sanction |
| Foreign diplomat | Immunity under Vienna Convention |
Irregular Proceedings (S.502-509)
| Principle | Section | Rule |
|---|---|---|
| Non-compliance with S.200 (examination) | S.502 | Irregularity if no prejudice caused |
| Want of sanction | S.503 | Error of jurisdiction (not mere irregularity) |
| Irregular charge | S.504 | Does not vitiate unless prejudice shown |
| No charge framed | S.504 | Curable if accused understood the accusation |
| Misjoinder of charges | S.505 | Curable unless failure of justice |
| Error in mode of trial | S.506 | Curable unless prejudice |
| Non-compliance with general provisions | S.507 | Irregularity if no injustice caused |
Why: Criminal proceedings are complex; minor procedural defects should not enable a guilty person to escape on technicalities. The test is always: was there a failure of justice?
Recall Check
- Which offences must be tried exclusively by the Court of Session?
- What is the Magistrate's role in cases triable by Sessions?
- When does a procedural irregularity become a jurisdictional error?
Key Cases
Ajay Kumar Parmar v. State of Rajasthan (2012) Ajay-Kumar-Parmar-v-State-of-Rajasthan-2012 Issue: Whether trial by a court without jurisdiction can be cured as mere irregularity. Rule: Lack of subject-matter jurisdiction is not an irregularity but a fundamental defect rendering proceedings void. Held: If a Magistrate tries an offence exclusively triable by Sessions Court, it is a nullity not curable under S.460-466 CrPC (now S.502-509 BNSS). However, if a Magistrate tries an offence within their competence but with procedural error (e.g., wrong mode of trial), it is an irregularity curable if no prejudice results.
Distinctions
| Parameter | Irregularity | Illegality (Want of Jurisdiction) |
|---|---|---|
| Nature | Procedural defect | Fundamental jurisdictional defect |
| Effect | Curable if no prejudice | Proceedings void ab initio |
| Example | Wrong mode of trial | JMSC trying murder (Sessions offence) |
| Test | Failure of justice? | Court competent? |
| Remedy | Appellate correction | Proceedings quashed entirely |
| BNSS provisions | S.502-509 | Cannot be cured by any provision |
Flashcards
Q: Which offences are triable exclusively by the Court of Session? A: Offences punishable with death, life imprisonment, or imprisonment for 7 or more years.
Q: What is the Magistrate's role in Sessions-triable cases? A: Take cognizance, supply copies to accused (S.230), and commit the case to Sessions (S.232).
Q: What is the test for determining if an irregularity vitiates proceedings? A: Whether it has caused a failure of justice (prejudice to the accused).
Q: Is trial by a court without subject-matter jurisdiction curable? A: No. It is a nullity, not a mere irregularity.
Q: What does S.218 require before prosecuting a public servant? A: Prior sanction from the appropriate government.
Q: Can a JMFC try an offence punishable with 5 years? A: Yes, provided it is within the JMFC's sentencing power (maximum 3 years sentence). But if a higher sentence is warranted, the Magistrate should commit to Sessions.
Exam Scenario
A JMFC tries an accused for house trespass (S.329 BNS, punishable up to 1 year) following warrant case procedure instead of the summons case procedure mandated for offences up to 2 years. The accused is convicted. On appeal, the accused argues the trial is void. Advise.
Under S.274-282 BNSS, offences punishable up to 2 years (summons cases) must follow summons case procedure. The JMFC applied warrant case procedure (meant for offences above 2 years). This is an error in mode of trial. Under S.506 BNSS, an error in the mode of trial does not vitiate the proceedings unless it has caused a failure of justice. The test is: did the accused suffer prejudice? In warrant case procedure, the accused actually receives greater procedural protections (formal charge, detailed evidence recording, right to discharge). If the accused had MORE protection, not less, no prejudice results. The conviction is sustainable on appeal unless the accused can demonstrate specific prejudice. The irregularity is curable under S.506.