What Is "Date Of Commitment" U/S. 250(1) BNSS For Filing Discharge Plea In POCSO Cases?: Orissa High Court Answers

The High Court was hearing a petition challenging the order of the Special Judge (POCSO), which had framed charges on the same day that police papers were supplied, without allowing the accused to move a discharge application.

A Single Judge Bench comprising Justice Aditya Kumar Mohapatra, while issuing the directions, observed: “Since no commitment procedure has been prescribed in the POCSO Act for the cases triable by the Special Court, the date of appearance before the Special Court or the date on which accused was brought before such court for the first time after cognizance of the offence is taken under Section 33(1) of the POCSO Act, 2012 such date shall be treated as the date of commitment for the purpose of Section 250(1) of the BNSS.”

Advocate Smruti Ranjan Rout represented the petitioner, while Additional Government Advocate Babita Kumari Sahu appeared for the State.

Background

The petitioner had been arraigned as an accused under Section 65(2) BNSS, read with Section 6 of the POCSO Act, following an FIR. On the same day he entered appearance, police papers were supplied, and charges were framed against him without giving time to seek discharge. This procedure was assailed before the High Court.

Court’s Observations

The Orissa High Court, while dealing with the matter, observed that “…the aforesaid anomaly has become a grave concern for the Special Courts in the State of Odisha while framing charge. This Court has been flooded with applications challenging the orders of the Special Courts framing charge on the very same date on which the accused appeared before the Court and was provided with police papers.”

The High Court analysed the interplay between the POCSO Act and BNSS, noting that Section 250 BNSS provides an accused with 60 days to file a discharge application, while Section 251 mandates that charges be framed within 60 days from the first hearing on the charges. Since the POCSO Act, the Court observed, did not provide for a committal procedure, the Court held that the date of appearance before the Special Court shall be treated as the date of commitment under Section 250(1) BNSS.

Referring to Supreme Court precedents, the Court stressed that a meaningful hearing under Sections 250 and 251 BNSS is not an empty formality but a vital safeguard against an arbitrary trial. The Court highlighted that “the concept of a “fair hearing” is imperative in conducting a fair trial and preserving the right guaranteed to the accused under Article 21 of our Constitution. The object of a criminal trial is to arrive at the truth of the matter and a criminal trial is “not a bout over technicalities.”

To ensure uniformity in procedure, the High Court issued the following directions to Special Courts trying POCSO cases:

• The date of first appearance of the accused before the Special Court shall be treated as the date of commitment under Section 250(1) BNSS.
• Police papers must be supplied immediately on such appearance, as provided for in Section 231 of BNSS.
• The accused may file a discharge application within 60 days thereafter u/s 250(1) of BNSS.
• If no such application is filed, the accused must give a written memorandum indicating his intention.
• On receipt of such a memorandum, the Court may proceed to frame charges.
• If a discharge application is filed, it must be decided within 60 days of framing charges under Section 250(2) BNSS after providing a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the accused.
• Unless the accused is discharged under Section 250(2) of BNSS due to lack of sufficient ground to proceed against the accused, the Special Court shall proceed to frame a charge against the accused within 60 days from the first date of hearing on the charge under Section 251(1)(b) of the BNSS.

Conclusion

Allowing the petition, the High Court set aside the order framing charges and directed the trial court to proceed de novo from the stage of discharge. It further directed the petitioner to file his discharge application within two weeks, which must be disposed of in accordance with the law.

Cause Title: Narrotam Prusty Vs State of Odisha & Anr

Appearances

Petitioner: Advocate Smruti Ranjan Rout

Respondents: Additional Government Advocate Babita Kumari Sahu

Click here to read/download Judgment