Sub-Judice Appeals, Trials, Enquiries Or Investigations Under CrPC Saved From Application Of BNSS: Punjab & Haryana High Court
The Punjab and Haryana High Court agreed with the observations of a Single Bench in one case and disagreed with the observations of a former Single Bench in another case.
The Punjab and Haryana High Court held that the sub-judice Appeals, Trials, Enquiries, or Investigations under the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) are safe from the application of the new procedural law i.e., Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS).
The Court agreed with the observations made by a Single Bench while being seized of one case and disagreed with the observations made by a former Single Bench while being seized of another case.
A Division Bench of Justice Sureshwar Thakur and Justice Harpreet Singh Brar observed, “… the subjudice appeals, trials, enquiries or investigations under the Cr.P.C., become saved, from application thereovers, of the now in force procedural law i.e BNSS. Moreover, irrespective of the cut off date (supra), the width of the savings clause is to be expanded, to also cover applications, which though are not pending after the coming into force of the BNSS, but are filed after the cut off date (supra), yet in respect of an offence registered under the former penal law i.e. IPC.”
The Bench elucidated that the date of commission of offence or the date of registration of the FIR, assuming relevance and importance, rather for all the relevant purposes including continuity of appeals, inquiries, trials, investigations, and also vis-a-vis the continuity of applications claiming interim reliefs dehors such applications being filed post the coming into force of the BNSS.
Advocate Ravi Sodhi (Amicus Curiae) represented the Petitioner while Addl. AGs Ankur Mittal, Svaneel Jaswal, Sr. DAGs P.P. Chahar, and Maninder Singh represented the Respondents.
Factual Background
In this case, an Application was preferred by the Respondent No. 2 under Section 528 of the BNSS (in CRM-M-33899-2024), which corresponds to the thereby now replaced with effect from (w.e.f.) July 1, 2024, thus Section 482 of the CrPC. The relief claimed there was for setting aside or staying the operation of the Interim Order dated July 18, 2024, whereby, interim bail in a Petition (CRM-M-33899-2024) was granted to the Petitioner in a case arising out of an FIR dated May 1, 2024, registered under Sections 450, 376(2)(n), and 376 AB of the IPC and under Section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO Act).
The Single Bench while being seized of such an Application, held that the determining factor relevant for the application of criminal codes when read in the light of Section 531 BNSS would be the date of the incident and the date when criminal law machinery was set in motion i.e. when a complaint is made before the police or the jurisdictional Magistrate. A similar issue also arose before another Single Bench in CRM-M 31808 of 2024. The said Bench concluded that the Application was not maintainable. Hence, the case was before the Division Bench.
Reasoning
The High Court in the above context of the case, noted, “Resultantly only through the employment of the rule of ejusdem generis, the legislative wisdom in the engraftment of the savings clause, thus is to be fathomed. Since the said fathoming has been undertaken hereinabove. Resultantly the derivative therefrom, but, is that, the applications filed post the coming into force of the present procedural laws, but in respect of offences punishable besides registered under the former IPC, do also become saved, from application theretos of the present BNSS.”
The Court said that the date of the commission of the offence, and, the registration of the FIR before the cut-off date, rather comprising the canon of apposite applicabilities, besides with the Court employing vis-a-vis to all the statutory phrases, as occur in the savings clause, thus the rule of ejusdem generis, whereby the supra conclusion is but the only inevitable conclusion.
“In aftermath, the supra answer is rendered to the supra reference, wherebys, this Court agrees with the observations made by the subsequent Single Bench of this Court, while being seized of CRM-34396-2024, and disagrees with the observations made by the former Single Bench of this Court, while being seized of CRM-M 31808 of 2024”, it concluded.
The Court also observed that if the investigations are subjudice in respect of an offence registered under the IPC, thereupon, the relevant procedural law, which is to be applied thereto, but is the former CrPC an in sequel, when there is continuity of operation of the CrPC, vis-a-vis investigations' which become launched in respect of an offence embodied in the former IPC; therefore, the further sequitur thereof, but is that, the cut-off date vis-a-vis the date of coming into force of the respective substantive and procedural laws i.e., July 1, 2024, but naturally assuming no relevance.
Accordingly, the High Court directed the Registry to circulate the copy of its Judgment to all the Judicial Officers in the States of Punjab, Haryana, and U.T. Chandigarh as well as to the Judicial Academy, Chandigarh.
Cause Title- Ram Chander v. State of Haryana and Others (Case Number: CRM-M-33899-2024)
Appearance:
Petitioner: Advocates Ravi Sodhi, Nilimesh Baruah, M.M. Pandey, and Umesh Pandey.
Respondents: Addl. AGs Ankur Mittal, Svaneel Jaswal, Sr. DAGs P.P. Chahar, Maninder Singh, DAGs Saurabh Mago, Gaurav Bansal, AAG Karan Jindal, Advocates Kushaldeep Kaur, Saanvi Singla, and Kanishk Swaroop.
