Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) 1973 - All Sections

Clause:
1. Short title, extent and commencement.—(1) This Act may be called the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

• (2) It extends to the whole of India:
  Provided that the provisions of this Code, other than those relating to Chapters VIII, X and XI thereof, shall not apply—
• • (a) to the State of Nagaland,
  • (b) to the tribal areas,
  but the concerned State Government may, by notification, apply such provisions or any of them to the whole or part of the State of Nagaland or such tribal areas, as the case may be, with such supplemental, incidental or consequential modifications, as may be specified in the notification.
  Explanation.—In this section, “tribal areas” means the territories which immediately before the 21st day of January, 1972, were included in the tribal areas of Assam, as referred to in paragraph 20 of the Sixth Schedule to the Constitution, other than those within the local limits of the municipality of Shillong.
• (3) It shall come into force on the 1st day of April, 1974.

Explanation: Section 1 establishes the Act’s title, its applicability across India with exceptions for Nagaland and tribal areas (unless notified), and sets the commencement date as April 1, 1974. Source: Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, via India Code.

Clause:
2. Definitions.—In this Code, unless the context otherwise requires,—

• (a) “bailable offence” means an offence which is shown as bailable in the First Schedule, or which is made bailable by any other law for the time being in force; and “non-bailable offence” means any other offence;
• (b) “charge” includes any head of charge when the charge contains more heads than one;
• (c) “cognizable offence” means an offence for which, and “cognizable case” means a case in which, a police officer may, in accordance with the First Schedule or under any other law for the time being in force, arrest without warrant;
• (d) “complaint” means any allegation made orally or in writing to a Magistrate, with a view to his taking action under this Code, that some person, whether known or unknown, has committed an offence, but does not include a police report:
  Explanation.—A report made by a police officer in a case which discloses, after investigation, the commission of a non-cognizable offence shall be deemed to be a complaint; and the police officer by whom such report is made shall be deemed to be the complainant;
• (e) “High Court” means, in relation to any State, the High Court for that State;
• (f) “India” means the territories to which this Code extends;
• (g) “inquiry” means every inquiry, other than a trial, conducted under this Code by a Magistrate or Court;
• (h) “investigation” means all the proceedings under this Code for the collection of evidence conducted by a police officer or by any person (other than a Magistrate) who is authorised by a Magistrate in this behalf;
• (i) “judicial proceeding” includes any proceeding in the course of which evidence is or may be legally taken on oath;
• (j) “local jurisdiction”, in relation to a Court or Magistrate, means the local area within which the Court or Magistrate may exercise all or any of its or his powers under this Code and such local area may comprise the whole of the State, or any part of the State, as the State Government may, by notification, specify;
• (k) “metropolitan area” means the area declared, or deemed to be declared, under section 8, to be a metropolitan area;
• (l) “non-cognizable offence” means an offence for which, and “non-cognizable case” means a case in which, a police officer has no authority to arrest without warrant;
• (m) “notification” means a notification published in the Official Gazette;
• (n) “offence” means any act or omission made punishable by any law for the time being in force and includes any act in respect of which a complaint may be made under section 20 of the Cattle Trespass Act, 1871 (1 of 1871);
• (o) “officer in charge of a police station” includes, when the officer in charge of the police station is absent from the station-house or unable from illness or other cause to perform his duties, the police officer present at the station-house who is next in rank to such officer and is above the rank of constable or, when the State Government so directs, any other police officer so present;
• (p) “place” includes a house, building, tent, vehicle and vessel;
• (q) “pleader”, when used with reference to any proceeding in any Court, means a person authorised by or under any law for the time being in force, to practise in such Court, and includes any other person appointed with the permission of the Court to act in such proceeding;
• (r) “police report” means a report forwarded by a police officer to a Magistrate under sub-section (2) of section 173;
• (s) “police station” means any post or place declared generally or specially by the State Government, to be a police station, and includes any local area specified by the State Government in this behalf;
• (t) “prescribed” means prescribed by rules made under this Code;
• (u) “Public Prosecutor” means any person appointed under section 24, and includes any person acting under the directions of a Public Prosecutor;
• (v) “sub-division” means a sub-division of a district;
• (w) “summons-case” means a case relating to an offence, and not being a warrant-case;
• (x) “warrant-case” means a case relating to an offence punishable with death, imprisonment for life or imprisonment for a term exceeding two years;
• (y) words and expressions used herein and not defined but defined in the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860) shall have the meanings respectively assigned to them in that Code.

Explanation: Section 2 defines key terms used in the CrPC, such as “bailable offence,” “cognizable offence,” “investigation,” and “judicial proceeding,” providing the legal foundation for interpreting provisions related to criminal procedure. Definitions are context-specific unless otherwise stated. Source: Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, via India Code.

Clause:
3. Construction of references.—(1) In this Code,—

• (a) any reference, without any qualifying words, to a Magistrate, shall be construed, unless the context otherwise requires,—
• • (i) in relation to an area outside a metropolitan area, as a reference to a Judicial Magistrate;
  • (ii) in relation to a metropolitan area, as a reference to a Metropolitan Magistrate;
• (b) any reference to a Magistrate of the first class, shall, in relation to a metropolitan area, be construed as a reference to a Metropolitan Magistrate exercising jurisdiction in that area;
• (c) any reference to a Magistrate of the second class, shall, in relation to a metropolitan area, be construed as a reference to a Metropolitan Magistrate exercising jurisdiction in that area;
• (d) any reference to the Chief Judicial Magistrate, shall, in relation to a metropolitan area, be construed as a reference to the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate exercising jurisdiction in that area.

Explanation: Section 3 clarifies references to Magistrates and Courts, distinguishing between Judicial and Metropolitan Magistrates, and specifying Executive Magistrates in certain regions (e.g., Jammu and Kashmir, Nagaland, tribal areas). Source: Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, via India Code.

Clause:
4. Trial of offences under the Indian Penal Code and other laws.—(1) All offences under the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860) shall be investigated, inquired into, tried, and otherwise dealt with according to the provisions of this Code.

• (2) All offences under any other law shall be investigated, inquired into, tried, and otherwise dealt with according to the same provisions, but subject to any enactment for the time being in force regulating the manner or place of investigating, inquiring into, trying or otherwise dealing with such offences.

Explanation: Section 4 establishes that the CrPC governs the investigation, inquiry, trial, and handling of offences under the Indian Penal Code and other laws, unless specific enactments provide otherwise. Source: Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, via India Code.

Clause:
5. Saving.—Nothing contained in this Code shall, in the absence of a specific provision to the contrary, affect any special or local law for the time being in force, or any special jurisdiction or power conferred, or any special form of procedure prescribed, by any other law for the time being in force.

Explanation: Section 5 ensures that the CrPC does not override special or local laws, or specific jurisdictions, powers, or procedures prescribed by other laws, unless explicitly stated. Source: Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, via India Code.

Clause:
Besides the High Courts and the Courts constituted under any law, other than this Code, for the time being in force, there shall be, in every State, the following classes of Criminal Courts, namely:—

• (i) Courts of Session;
  
• (ii) Judicial Magistrates of the first class and, in any metropolitan area, Metropolitan Magistrates;
  
• (iii) Judicial Magistrates of the second class; and
  
• (iv) Executive Magistrates.

Explanation: This section establishes the hierarchy of criminal courts in each State, excluding High Courts and special courts (e.g., under the NDPS Act). Courts of Session handle serious offences (e.g., murder). Judicial Magistrates of First Class (or Metropolitan Magistrates in metro areas) deal with cases up to 7 years imprisonment, while Second Class handle minor offences up to 3 years. Executive Magistrates, typically administrative officers, manage preventive measures and public order. Source: Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, via India Code.

Clause:
(1) Every State shall be a sessions division or shall consist of sessions divisions; and every sessions division shall, for the purposes of this Code, be a district or consist of districts:
Provided that every metropolitan area shall, for the said purposes, be a separate sessions division and district.
(2) The State Government may, after consultation with the High Court, alter the limits or the number of such divisions and districts.
(3) The State Government may, after consultation with the High Court, divide any district into sub-divisions and may alter the limits or the number of such sub-divisions.
(4) The sessions divisions, districts and sub-divisions existing in a State at the commencement of this Code, shall be deemed to have been formed under this section.

Explanation: This section organizes the territorial jurisdiction of criminal courts. Each State is divided into sessions divisions, aligned with districts or groups of districts, with metropolitan areas treated as separate divisions/districts. The State Government, with High Court consultation, can modify these divisions or create sub-divisions. Existing divisions at the CrPC’s commencement (April 1, 1974) are recognized. Source: Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, via India Code.

Clause:
(1) The State Government may, by notification, declare that, as from such date as may be specified in the notification, any area in the State comprising a city or town whose population exceeds one million shall be a metropolitan area for the purposes of this Code.
(2) As from the commencement of this Code, each of the Presidency towns of Bombay, Calcutta and Madras and the city of Ahmedabad shall be deemed to be declared under sub-section (1) to be a metropolitan area.
(3) The State Government may, by notification, extend, reduce or alter the limits of a metropolitan area but the reduction or alteration shall not be so made as to reduce the population of such area to less than one million.
(4) Where, after an area has been declared a metropolitan area, the population of such area falls below one million, such area shall, on and from such date as the State Government may, by notification, specify in this behalf, cease to be a metropolitan area; but notwithstanding such cesser, any inquiry, trial or appeal pending immediately before such cesser before any Court or Magistrate in such area shall continue to be dealt with under this Code, as if such cesser had not taken place.
(5) Where the State Government reduces or alters, under sub-section (3), the limits of any metropolitan area, such reduction or alteration shall not affect any inquiry, trial or appeal pending immediately before such reduction or alteration before any Court or Magistrate, and every such inquiry, trial or appeal shall continue to be dealt with under this Code as if such reduction or alteration had not taken place.
(6) For the purposes of this section, the population shall be deemed to be the population as shown by the last census of which the relevant figures have been published; but if, after the publication of such figures, a census is taken specially for any area, the population shown by such special census shall be deemed to be the population of that area until figures for that area are published at a subsequent census.

Explanation: This section allows State Governments to designate cities or towns with over one million population as metropolitan areas, where Metropolitan Magistrates operate. Presidency towns (Bombay, Calcutta, Madras) and Ahmedabad were deemed metropolitan areas at the CrPC’s commencement. Changes to these areas’ limits or status do not affect ongoing cases. Population is determined by the latest census. Source: Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, via India Code.

Clause:
(1) The State Government shall establish a Court of Session for every sessions division.
(2) Every Court of Session shall be presided over by a Judge, to be appointed by the High Court.
(3) The High Court may also appoint Additional Sessions Judges and Assistant Sessions Judges to exercise jurisdiction in a Court of Session.
(4) The Sessions Judge of one sessions division may be appointed by the High Court to be also an Additional Sessions Judge of another division, and in such case he may sit for the disposal of cases at such place or places in the other division as the High Court may direct.
(5) Where the office of the Sessions Judge is vacant, the High Court may make arrangements for the disposal of any urgent application which is, or may be, made or pending before such Court of Session by an Additional or Assistant Sessions Judge, or, if there be no Additional or Assistant Sessions Judge, by a Chief Judicial Magistrate, in the sessions division; and every such Judge or Magistrate shall have jurisdiction to deal with any such application.
(6) The Court of Session shall ordinarily hold its sitting at such place or places as the High Court may, by notification, specify; but, if, in any particular case, the Court of Session is of opinion that it will tend to the general convenience of the parties and witnesses to hold its sittings at any other place in the sessions division, it may, with the consent of the prosecution and the accused, sit at that place for the disposal of the case or the examination of any witness or witnesses therein.
Explanation.—For the purposes of this Code, “appointment” does not include the first appointment, posting or promotion of a person by the Government to any Service, or post in connection with the affairs of the Union or of a State, but includes a temporary appointment within the meaning of sub-section (5).

Explanation: This section mandates a Court of Session for each sessions division, presided over by a Sessions Judge appointed by the High Court. Additional and Assistant Sessions Judges may be appointed to assist. The High Court can assign judges across divisions or make interim arrangements during vacancies. Courts of Session typically sit at designated places but can relocate for convenience with consent. The explanation clarifies that “appointment” refers to temporary judicial assignments, not initial government postings. Source: Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, via India Code.

Clause:
(1) All Assistant Sessions Judges shall be subordinate to the Sessions Judge in whose Court they exercise jurisdiction.
(2) The Sessions Judge may, from time to time, make rules consistent with this Code, as to the distribution of business among such Assistant Sessions Judges.
(3) The Sessions Judge may also make provision for the disposal of any urgent application, in the event of his being absent or unable to act, by an Additional or Assistant Sessions Judge, or, if there be no Additional or Assistant Sessions Judge, by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, and every such Judge or Magistrate shall be deemed to have jurisdiction to deal with any such application.

Explanation: This section establishes that Assistant Sessions Judges are subordinate to the Sessions Judge, who can assign cases and make rules for workload distribution. In the Sessions Judge’s absence, urgent matters can be handled by Additional/Assistant Sessions Judges or the Chief Judicial Magistrate. Source: Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, via India Code.

Clause:
(1) In every district (not being a metropolitan area), there shall be established as many Courts of Judicial Magistrates of the first class and of the second class, and at such places, as the State Government may, after consultation with the High Court, by notification, specify:
Provided that the State Government may, after consultation with the High Court, establish, for any local area, one or more Special Courts of Judicial Magistrates of the first class or of the second class to try any particular case or particular class of cases, and where any such Special Court is established, no other Court of a Magistrate in the local area shall have jurisdiction to try any case or class of cases for the trial of which such Special Court of Judicial Magistrate has been established.
(2) The presiding officers of such Courts shall be appointed by the High Court.
(3) The High Court may, whenever it appears to it to be expedient or necessary, confer the powers of a Judicial Magistrate of the first class or of the second class on any member of the Judicial Service of the State, functioning as a Judge in a Civil Court.

Explanation: This section mandates the establishment of Judicial Magistrate Courts (First and Second Class) in non-metropolitan districts, with locations specified by the State Government after High Court consultation. Special Courts for specific cases can be created, overriding other local Magistrate Courts’ jurisdiction. Presiding officers are appointed by the High Court, which can also confer Magistrate powers on Civil Court Judges. Source: Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, via India Code.

Clause:
(1) In every district (not being a metropolitan area), the High Court shall appoint a Judicial Magistrate of the first class to be the Chief Judicial Magistrate.
(2) The High Court may appoint any Judicial Magistrate of the first class to be an Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, and such Magistrate shall have all or any of the powers of a Chief Judicial Magistrate under this Code or under any other law for the time being in force as the High Court may direct.
(3) Where the office of a Chief Judicial Magistrate is vacant or he is incapacitated from performing his duties, the High Court, or, pending orders of the High Court, the Sessions Judge, may make arrangements for the disposal of any urgent application which is, or may be, made or pending before such Chief Judicial Magistrate, by an Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, or, if there be no Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, by any other Judicial Magistrate of the first class, and every such Magistrate shall have jurisdiction to deal with any such application.

Explanation: This section mandates the appointment of a Chief Judicial Magistrate (CJM) in each non-metropolitan district and allows Additional CJMs with similar powers. In case of vacancies or incapacity, the High Court or Sessions Judge can assign urgent matters to other Magistrates. Source: Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, via India Code.

Clause:
(1) The High Court may, if requested by the Central or State Government, confer upon any person who holds or has held any post under the Government, all or any of the powers conferred or conferrable by or under this Code on a Judicial Magistrate of the first class or of the second class, in respect to particular cases or to particular classes of cases, in any local area, not being a metropolitan area.
(2) Such Magistrates shall be called Special Judicial Magistrates and shall be appointed for such term, not exceeding one year at a time, as the High Court may, by general or special order, direct.
(3) The High Court may empower a Special Judicial Magistrate to exercise the powers of a Metropolitan Magistrate in relation to any metropolitan area outside his local jurisdiction.

Explanation: This section allows the High Court, on government request, to appoint Special Judicial Magistrates (e.g., retired officials) with powers of Judicial Magistrates for specific cases in non-metropolitan areas. Their term is limited to one year, and they may act as Metropolitan Magistrates if empowered. Source: Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, via India Code.

Clause:
(1) Subject to the control of the High Court, the Chief Judicial Magistrate may, from time to time, define the local limits of the areas within which the Magistrates appointed under section 11 or under section 13 may exercise all or any of the powers with which they may respectively be invested under this Code:
Provided that the Court of a Special Judicial Magistrate may hold its sitting at any place within the local area for which it is established.
(2) Except as otherwise provided by such definition, the jurisdiction and powers of every such Magistrate shall extend throughout the district.

Explanation: This section empowers the Chief Judicial Magistrate, under High Court oversight, to define the local jurisdiction of Judicial Magistrates. Special Judicial Magistrates can hold sittings anywhere in their designated area. Unless specified, jurisdiction extends across the district. Source: Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, via India Code.

Clause:
(1) Every Chief Judicial Magistrate shall be subordinate to the Sessions Judge; and every other Judicial Magistrate shall, subject to the general control of the Sessions Judge, be subordinate to the Chief Judicial Magistrate.
(2) The Chief Judicial Magistrate may, from time to time, make rules or give special orders, consistent with this Code, as to the distribution of business among the Judicial Magistrates subordinate to him.

Explanation: This section establishes the hierarchy where the Chief Judicial Magistrate is subordinate to the Sessions Judge, and other Judicial Magistrates are subordinate to the CJM, who can assign cases and issue rules for workload distribution. Source: Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, via India Code.

Clause:
(1) In every metropolitan area, there shall be established, by the State Government after consultation with the High Court, as many Courts of Metropolitan Magistrates, and at such places, as that Government may, by notification, specify.
(2) The presiding officers of such Courts shall be appointed by the High Court.
(3) The jurisdiction and powers of every Metropolitan Magistrate shall extend throughout the metropolitan area.

Explanation: This section mandates the establishment of Metropolitan Magistrate Courts in metropolitan areas, with locations specified by the State Government after High Court consultation. Presiding officers are appointed by the High Court, and their jurisdiction covers the entire metropolitan area. Source: Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, via India Code.

Clause:
(1) The High Court shall, in relation to every metropolitan area within its local jurisdiction, appoint a Metropolitan Magistrate to be the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate for such metropolitan area.
(2) The High Court may appoint any Metropolitan Magistrate to be an Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, and such Magistrate shall have all or any of the powers of a Chief Metropolitan Magistrate under this Code or under any other law for the time being in force as the High Court may direct.

Explanation: This section ensures a Chief Metropolitan Magistrate is appointed for each metropolitan area, with the High Court able to appoint Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrates with similar powers. Source: Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, via India Code.

Clause:
(1) The High Court may, if requested by the Central or State Government, confer upon any person who holds or has held any post under the Government, all or any of the powers conferred or conferrable by or under this Code on a Metropolitan Magistrate, in respect to particular cases or to particular classes of cases, in any metropolitan area within its local jurisdiction.
(2) Such Magistrates shall be called Special Metropolitan Magistrates and shall be appointed for such term, not exceeding one year at a time, as the High Court may, by general or special order, direct.
(3) The High Court or the State Government, as the case may be, may empower any Special Metropolitan Magistrate to exercise, in any local area outside the metropolitan area, the powers of a Judicial Magistrate of the first class.

Explanation: This section allows the appointment of Special Metropolitan Magistrates for specific cases in metropolitan areas, with a one-year term limit. They may be empowered to act as Judicial Magistrates outside metropolitan areas. Source: Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, via India Code.

Clause:
(1) The Chief Metropolitan Magistrate and every Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate shall be subordinate to the Sessions Judge; and every other Metropolitan Magistrate shall, subject to the general control of the Sessions Judge, be subordinate to the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate.
(2) The Chief Metropolitan Magistrate may, from time to time, make rules or give special orders, consistent with this Code, as to the distribution of business among the Metropolitan Magistrates and as to the allocation of business to an Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate.

Explanation: This section establishes the hierarchy in metropolitan areas, with the Chief and Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrates subordinate to the Sessions Judge, and other Metropolitan Magistrates under the Chief’s control. The Chief can assign cases and issue rules. Source: Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, via India Code.

Clause:
(1) In every district and in every metropolitan area, the State Government may appoint as many persons as it thinks fit to be Executive Magistrates and shall appoint one of them to be the District Magistrate.
(2) The State Government may appoint any Executive Magistrate to be an Additional District Magistrate, and such Magistrate shall have such of the powers of a District Magistrate under this Code or under any other law for the time being in force as may be directed by the State Government.
(3) Whenever, in consequence of the office of a District Magistrate becoming vacant, any officer succeeds temporarily to the executive administration of the district, such officer shall, pending the orders of the State Government, exercise all the powers and perform all the duties of the District Magistrate.
(4) The State Government may place an Executive Magistrate in charge of a sub-division and may relieve him of the charge as occasion requires; and the Magistrate so placed in charge of a sub-division shall be called a Sub-divisional Magistrate.
(5) Nothing in this section shall preclude the State Government from conferring, under any law for the time being in force, on a Commissioner of Police, all or any of the powers of an Executive Magistrate in relation to a metropolitan area.

Explanation: This section allows the State Government to appoint Executive Magistrates, including a District Magistrate, in districts and metropolitan areas. Additional District Magistrates and Sub-divisional Magistrates can be appointed. In vacancies, temporary officers assume District Magistrate duties. Police Commissioners may be given Executive Magistrate powers in metropolitan areas. Source: Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, via India Code.

Clause:
The State Government may appoint, for such term as it may think fit, Executive Magistrates, to be known as Special Executive Magistrates, for particular areas or for the performance of particular functions and confer on such Magistrates such of the powers as are conferrable under this Code on Executive Magistrates.

Explanation: This section allows the State Government to appoint Special Executive Magistrates for specific areas or functions, with powers as defined under the CrPC, typically for temporary or specialized roles (e.g., managing public order during events). Source: Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, via India Code.

Clause:
(1) Subject to the control of the State Government, the District Magistrate may, from time to time, define the local limits of the areas within which the Executive Magistrates may exercise all or any of the powers with which they may be invested under this Code.
(2) Except as otherwise provided by such definition, the jurisdiction and powers of every such Magistrate shall extend throughout the district.

Explanation: This section empowers the District Magistrate, under State Government control, to define the jurisdiction of Executive Magistrates. Unless specified, their powers extend across the district. Source: Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, via India Code.

Clause:
(1) All Executive Magistrates, other than the Additional District Magistrate, shall be subordinate to the District Magistrate, and every Executive Magistrate (other than the Sub-divisional Magistrate) exercising powers in a sub-division shall also be subordinate to the Sub-divisional Magistrate, subject, however, to the general control of the District Magistrate.
(2) The District Magistrate may, from time to time, make rules or give special orders, consistent with this Code, as to the distribution of business among the Executive Magistrates subordinate to him and as to the allocation of business to an Additional District Magistrate.

Explanation: This section establishes the hierarchy for Executive Magistrates, with all (except Additional District Magistrates) subordinate to the District Magistrate. In sub-divisions, Executive Magistrates are also subordinate to the Sub-divisional Magistrate, under the District Magistrate’s oversight. The District Magistrate can assign cases and issue rules. Source: Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, via India Code.

Clause:
Subject to the other provisions of this Code,—

• (a) any offence under the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860) may be tried by—
  
  • (i) the High Court, or
    
  • (ii) the Court of Session, or
    
  • (iii) any other Court by which such offence is shown in the First Schedule to be triable;
    
• (b) any offence under any other law shall, when any Court is mentioned in this behalf in such law, be tried by such Court and, when no Court is so mentioned, may be tried by—
  
  • (i) the High Court, or
    
  • (ii) any other Court by which such offence is shown in the First Schedule to be triable:
    

Explanation: This section specifies which courts can try offences. Indian Penal Code (IPC) offences are triable by High Courts, Courts of Session, or other courts as per the First Schedule of the CrPC. Offences under other laws are tried by courts specified in those laws or, if unspecified, by High Courts or courts listed in the First Schedule. A proviso mandates that certain sexual offences (e.g., rape under IPC sections 376–376E) should, where practicable, be tried by a court presided over by a woman, emphasizing sensitivity in such cases. Source: Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, via India Code.

Clause:
Any offence not punishable with death or imprisonment for life, committed by any person who at the date when he appears or is brought before the Court is under the age of sixteen years, may be tried by the Court of a Chief Judicial Magistrate, or by any Court specially empowered under the Children Act, 1960 (60 of 1960), or any other law for the time being in force providing for the treatment, training and rehabilitation of youthful offenders.

Explanation: This section addresses the trial of juvenile offenders (under 16 years at the time of court appearance) for offences not punishable by death or life imprisonment. Such cases can be tried by a Chief Judicial Magistrate or courts empowered under laws like the Children Act, 1960, focusing on treatment and rehabilitation rather than punitive measures. Source: Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, via India Code.

Clause:
(1) A High Court may pass any sentence authorised by law.
(2) A Sessions Judge or Additional Sessions Judge may pass any sentence authorised by law; but any sentence of death passed by any such Judge shall be subject to confirmation by the High Court.
(3) An Assistant Sessions Judge may pass any sentence authorised by law except a sentence of death or of imprisonment for life or of imprisonment for a term exceeding seven years.

Explanation: This section outlines the sentencing powers of higher courts. High Courts can impose any sentence allowed by law. Sessions Judges and Additional Sessions Judges can also pass any sentence, but death sentences require High Court confirmation. Assistant Sessions Judges are limited, unable to impose death, life imprisonment, or imprisonment exceeding seven years. Source: Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, via India Code.

Clause:
(1) The Court of a Chief Judicial Magistrate may pass any sentence authorised by law except a sentence of death or of imprisonment for life or of imprisonment for a term exceeding seven years.
(2) The Court of a Magistrate of the first class may pass a sentence of imprisonment for a term not exceeding three years, or of fine not exceeding ten thousand rupees, or of both.
(3) The Court of a Magistrate of the second class may pass a sentence of imprisonment for a term not exceeding one year, or of fine not exceeding five thousand rupees, or of both.
(4) The Court of a Chief Metropolitan Magistrate shall have the powers of the Court of a Chief Judicial Magistrate and that of a Metropolitan Magistrate, the powers of the Court of a Magistrate of the first class.

Explanation: This section specifies sentencing limits for Magistrates. Chief Judicial Magistrates can impose sentences up to seven years but not death or life imprisonment. First Class Magistrates are limited to three years imprisonment or a fine up to ₹10,000, while Second Class Magistrates are restricted to one year or a fine up to ₹5,000. Chief Metropolitan Magistrates have the same powers as Chief Judicial Magistrates, and other Metropolitan Magistrates have First Class Magistrate powers. Source: Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, via India Code.

Clause:
(1) The Court of a Magistrate may award such term of imprisonment in default of payment of fine as is authorised by law:
Provided that the term—

• (a) is not in excess of the powers of the Magistrate under section 29;
  
• (b) shall not, where imprisonment has been awarded as part of the substantive sentence, exceed one-fourth of the term of imprisonment which the Magistrate is competent to inflict as punishment for the offence otherwise than as imprisonment in default of payment of the fine.
  

Explanation: This section allows Magistrates to impose imprisonment for non-payment of fines, within their sentencing powers under Section 29. The default imprisonment term cannot exceed one-fourth of the Magistrate’s maximum imprisonment power for the offence if a substantive sentence is also imposed. This imprisonment can be added to the maximum substantive sentence. Source: Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, via India Code.

Clause:
(1) When a person is convicted at one trial of two or more offences, the Court may, subject to the provisions of section 71 of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860), sentence him for such offences, to the several punishments prescribed therefor which such Court is competent to inflict; such punishments when consisting of imprisonment to commence the one after the expiration of the other in such order as the Court may direct, unless the Court directs that such punishments shall run concurrently.
(2) In the case of consecutive sentences, it shall not be necessary for the Court to send the offender for trial before a higher Court by reason only of the aggregate punishment for the several offences being in excess of the punishment which it is competent to inflict on conviction of a single offence:
Provided that—

• (a) in no case shall such person be sentenced to imprisonment for a longer period than fourteen years;
  
• (b) the aggregate punishment shall not exceed twice the amount of punishment which the Court is competent to inflict for a single offence.
  

Explanation: This section governs sentencing when a person is convicted of multiple offences in one trial. Courts can impose separate punishments, which may run consecutively or concurrently, subject to IPC Section 71. Consecutive sentences don’t require referral to a higher court even if the total exceeds the court’s single-offence limit, but the aggregate imprisonment cannot exceed 14 years or twice the court’s single-offence limit. For appeals, consecutive sentences are treated as one. Source: Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, via India Code.

Clause:
(1) In conferring powers under this Code, the High Court or the State Government, as the case may be, may, by order, empower persons either by name or in virtue of their offices or classes of officials generally by their official titles.
(2) Every such order shall take effect from the date on which it is communicated to the person so empowered.

Explanation: This section outlines how the High Court or State Government can confer powers under the CrPC, either to specific individuals, by their office, or to classes of officials. Such orders take effect once communicated to the empowered person. Source: Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, via India Code.

Clause:
Whenever any person holding an office in the service of Government who has been invested with any powers under this Code throughout any local area is appointed to an equal or higher office of the same nature, within a like local area under the same State Government, he shall, unless the High Court or the State Government, as the case may be, otherwise directs, or has otherwise directed, exercise the same powers in the local area in which he is so appointed.

Explanation: This section ensures that government officers vested with CrPC powers retain those powers when appointed to an equal or higher office of the same nature within the same local area and State, unless the High Court or State Government directs otherwise. This maintains continuity of authority. Source: Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, via India Code.

Clause:
(1) The High Court or the State Government, as the case may be, may withdraw all or any of the powers conferred by it under this Code on any person or by any officer subordinate to it.
(2) Any powers conferred by the Chief Judicial Magistrate or by the District Magistrate may be withdrawn by the respective Magistrate by whom such powers were conferred.

Explanation: This section allows the High Court or State Government to withdraw powers conferred under the CrPC from any person or subordinate officer. Similarly, Chief Judicial Magistrates and District Magistrates can withdraw powers they have conferred, ensuring flexibility in administrative control. Source: Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, via India Code.

Clause:
(1) Subject to the other provisions of this Code, the powers and duties of a Judge or Magistrate may be exercised or performed by his successor-in-office.
(2) When there is any doubt as to who is the successor-in-office of any Additional or Assistant Sessions Judge, the Sessions Judge shall determine by order the Judge who shall, for the purposes of this Code or of any proceedings or order thereunder, be deemed to be the successor-in-office of such Additional or Assistant Sessions Judge.
(3) When there is any doubt as to who is the successor-in-office of any Magistrate, the Chief Judicial Magistrate, or in a metropolitan area, the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, shall determine by order the Magistrate who shall, for the purposes of this Code or of any proceedings or order thereunder, be deemed to be the successor-in-office of such Magistrate.

Explanation: This section allows a Judge or Magistrate’s powers and duties to be exercised by their successor, ensuring continuity in judicial proceedings. In cases of doubt about successors for Additional/Assistant Sessions Judges, the Sessions Judge decides, while for Magistrates, the Chief Judicial or Chief Metropolitan Magistrate determines the successor. Source: Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, via India Code.

Clause:
Police officers superior in rank to an officer in charge of a police station may exercise the same powers, throughout the local area to which they are appointed, as may be exercised by such officer within the limits of his station.

Explanation: This section empowers senior police officers (e.g., Superintendents or Inspectors) to exercise the same powers as a police station’s officer-in-charge within their jurisdiction. It ensures that superior officers can intervene or act directly in investigations or law enforcement activities, enhancing oversight and flexibility. Source: Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, via India Code.

Clause:
Every person is bound to assist a Magistrate whether Judicial or Executive or a police officer reasonably demanding his aid—

• (a) in the taking or preventing the escape of any other person whom such Magistrate or police officer is authorised to arrest; or
  
• (b) in the prevention or suppression of a breach of the peace; or
  
• (c) in the prevention of any injury attempted to be committed to any railway, canal, telegraph or public property.

Explanation: This section mandates that the public must assist Magistrates or police when reasonably requested, particularly in arresting or preventing escapes, stopping breaches of peace (e.g., riots), or protecting public infrastructure like railways or canals. It emphasizes civic duty in maintaining law and order. Source: Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, via India Code.

Clause:
When a warrant is directed to a person other than a police officer, any other person may aid in the execution of such warrant, if the person to whom the warrant is directed be near at hand and acting in the execution of the warrant.

Explanation: This section allows individuals to assist non-police officers (e.g., court officials) in executing a warrant, provided the authorized person is present and actively executing it. It facilitates the enforcement of court orders by permitting public support in specific circumstances. Source: Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, via India Code.

Clause:
(1) Every person, aware of the commission of, or of the intention of any other person to commit, any offence punishable under any of the following sections of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860), namely—

• (i) sections 121 to 126, both inclusive (that is to say, offences against the State specified in Chapter VI of the said Code);
  
• (ii) sections 143 to 145, 147, 148, 153A, 153B, 295, 295A, 296 and 297 (that is to say, offences against the public tranquillity specified in Chapter VIII and offences relating to religion specified in Chapter XV of the said Code);
  
• (iii) sections 161 to 165A, both inclusive (that is to say, offences relating to public servants specified in Chapter IX of the said Code);
  
• (iv) sections 272 to 278, both inclusive (that is to say, offences relating to adulteration of food and drugs, etc., specified in Chapter XIV of the said Code);
  
• (v) sections 302, 303 and 304 (that is to say, offences affecting life specified in Chapter XVI of the said Code);
  
• (vi) section 364A (that is to say, offence relating to kidnapping for ransom, etc.);
  
• (vii) section 382 (that is to say, offence of theft after preparation made for causing death, hurt or restraint in order to the committing of the theft);
  
• (viii) sections 392 to 399, both inclusive, and section 402 (that is to say, offences of robbery and dacoity specified in Chapter XVII of the said Code);
  
• (ix) sections 409, 435, 436, 449 and 450 (that is to say, offences of criminal breach of trust by public servant, mischief by fire or explosive substance, house-trespass and lurking house-trespass);
  
• (x) sections 467 to 471, both inclusive (that is to say, offences relating to forgery specified in Chapter XVIII of the said Code);
  
• (xi) sections 489A to 489E, both inclusive (that is to say, offences relating to currency notes and bank notes specified in Chapter XVIII of the said Code);
  

Explanation: This section requires the public to report knowledge of specific serious offences under the Indian Penal Code, such as those against the State, public tranquility, religion, public servants, food safety, life, kidnapping, robbery, dacoity, forgery, and currency notes, to a Magistrate or police officer, unless they have a reasonable excuse. The burden of proving the excuse lies with the person. It also clarifies that “village-headman” includes anyone performing similar duties. This promotes public cooperation in preventing and addressing grave crimes. Source: Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, via India Code.

Clause:
(1) Every officer employed in connection with the affairs of a village and every person residing in a village shall forthwith communicate to the nearest Magistrate or to the officer in charge of the nearest police station, whichever is nearer, any information which he may possess respecting—

• (a) the permanent or temporary residence of any notorious receiver or vendor of stolen property in or near such village;
  
• (b) the resort to any place within, or the passage through, such village of any person whom he knows, or reasonably suspects, to be a thug, robber, escaped convict or proclaimed offender;
  
• (c) the commission of, or intention to commit, in or near such village any non-bailable offence or any offence punishable under section 143, section 144, section 145, section 147, or section 148 of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860);
  
• (d) the occurrence in or near such village of any sudden or unnatural death or of any death under suspicious circumstances or the discovery in or near such village of any corpse or part of a corpse, in circumstances which lead to a reasonable suspicion that such a death has occurred or the disappearance from such village of any person in circumstances which lead to a reasonable suspicion that a non-bailable offence has been committed in respect of such person;
  
• (e) the commission of, or intention to commit, at any place out of India near such village any act which, if committed in India, would be an offence punishable under any of the following sections of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860), namely, 302, 304, 382, 392 to 399, both inclusive, 409, 435, 436, 449, 450, 457 to 460, both inclusive, 489A, 489B, 489C, 489D and 489E;
  
• (f) any matter likely to affect the maintenance of order or the prevention of crime or the safety of person or property respecting which the District Magistrate, by general or special order made with the previous sanction of the State Government, has directed him to communicate information.
  

• (i) “village” includes village-lands;
  
• (ii) the expression “proclaimed offender” includes any person proclaimed as an offender by any Court or authority in any territory in India to which this Code does not extend, in respect of any act which if committed in the territories to which this Code extends, would be an offence punishable under any of the following sections of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860), namely, 302, 304, 382, 392 to 399, both inclusive, 402, 435, 436, 449, 450, 457 to 460, both inclusive;
  
• (iii) the words “officer employed in connection with the affairs of the village” means a member of the village watch or guard and includes the headman of the village by whatever name called.
  

Explanation: This section imposes a duty on village officers (e.g., watchmen, headmen) and residents to report specific information to the nearest Magistrate or police station, including the presence of notorious criminals, suspicious persons, non-bailable offences, suspicious deaths, or acts committed outside India that would be serious offences in India. It also covers matters affecting public order as directed by the District Magistrate. The section defines “village,” “proclaimed offender,” and “village officers” and allows exemptions by the District Magistrate with State Government approval. This ensures rural communities contribute to crime prevention and public safety. Source: Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, via India Code.

Clause:
(1) Any police officer may without an order from a Magistrate and without a warrant, arrest any person—

• (a) who commits, in the presence of a police officer, a cognizable offence;
  
• (b) against whom a reasonable complaint has been made, or credible information has been received, or a reasonable suspicion exists that he has committed a cognizable offence punishable with imprisonment for a term which may be less than seven years or which may extend to seven years whether with or without fine, if the following conditions are satisfied, namely:—
  
  • (i) the police officer has reason to believe on the basis of such complaint, information, or suspicion that such person has committed the said offence;
    
  • (ii) the police officer is satisfied that such arrest is necessary—
    
    • (a) to prevent such person from committing any further offence; or
      
    • (b) for proper investigation of the offence; or
      
    • (c) to prevent such person from causing the evidence of the offence to disappear or tampering with such evidence in any manner; or
      
    • (d) to prevent such person from making any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to the police officer; or
      
    • (e) as unless such person is arrested, his presence in the Court whenever required cannot be ensured,
      
    and the police officer shall record while making such arrest, his reasons in writing:
    Provided that a police officer shall, in all cases where the arrest of a person is not required under the provisions of this sub-section, record the reasons in writing for not making the arrest.
    
• (ba) against whom credible information has been received that he has committed a cognizable offence punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to more than seven years whether with or without fine or with death sentence and the police officer has reason to believe on the basis of that information that such person has committed the said offence;
  
• (c) who has been proclaimed as an offender either under this Code or by order of the State Government;
  
• (d) in whose possession anything is found which may reasonably be suspected to be stolen property and who may reasonably be suspected of having committed an offence with reference to such thing;
  
• (e) who obstructs a police officer while in the execution of his duty, or who has escaped, or attempts to escape, from lawful custody;
  
• (f) who is reasonably suspected of being a deserter from any of the Armed Forces of the Union;
  
• (g) who has been concerned in, or against whom a reasonable complaint has been made, or credible information has been received, or a reasonable suspicion exists, of his having been concerned in, any act committed at any place out of India which, if committed in India, would have been punishable as an offence, and for which he is, under any law relating to extradition, or otherwise, liable to be apprehended or detained in custody in India;
  
• (h) who, being a released convict, commits a breach of any rule made under sub-section (5) of section 356;
  
• (i) for whose arrest any requisition, whether written or oral, has been received from another police officer, provided that the requisition specifies the person to be arrested and the offence or other cause for which the arrest is to be made and it appears therefrom that the person might lawfully be arrested without a warrant by the officer who issued the requisition.
  

Explanation: This section specifies when police can arrest without a warrant, primarily for cognizable offences (e.g., murder, theft) committed in their presence or based on reasonable suspicion, complaints, or credible information. For offences punishable up to seven years, arrests must be justified (e.g., to prevent further crimes or ensure court appearance), with reasons recorded. For offences exceeding seven years or carrying death sentences, arrests are permitted with credible information. Other grounds include proclaimed offenders, possession of suspected stolen property, or extraditable foreign offences. Non-cognizable offences require a warrant unless specified. This balances police powers with individual rights. Source: Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, via India Code.

Clause:
(1) The police officer shall, in all cases where the arrest of a person is not required under the provisions of sub-section (1) of section 41, issue a notice directing the person against whom a reasonable complaint has been made, or credible information has been received, or a reasonable suspicion exists that he has committed a cognizable offence, to appear before him or at such other place as may be specified in the notice.
(2) Where such a notice is issued to any person, it shall be the duty of that person to comply with the terms of the notice.
(3) Where such person complies and continues to comply with the notice, he shall not be arrested in respect of the offence referred to in the notice unless, for reasons to be recorded, the police officer is of the opinion that he ought to be arrested.
(4) Where such person, at any time, fails to comply with the terms of the notice or is unwilling to identify himself, the police officer may, subject to such orders as may have been passed by a competent Court in this behalf, arrest him for the offence mentioned in the notice.

Explanation: This section requires police to issue a notice for appearance instead of arresting someone for a cognizable offence when arrest isn’t necessary under Section 41(1). The person must comply with the notice, and arrest is avoided if compliance continues, unless the police record reasons for arrest. Non-compliance or refusal to identify oneself may lead to arrest, subject to court orders. This promotes minimal use of arrest to protect individual liberty. Source: Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, via India Code.

Clause:
Every police officer while making an arrest shall—

• (a) bear an accurate, visible and clear identification of his name which will facilitate easy identification;
  
• (b) prepare a memorandum of arrest which shall be—
  
  • (i) attested by at least one witness, who is a member of the family of the person arrested or a respectable member of the locality where the arrest is made;
    
  • (ii) countersigned by the person arrested; and
    
• (c) inform the person arrested, unless the memorandum is attested by a member of his family, that he has a right to have a relative or a friend named by him to be informed of his arrest.

Explanation: This section mandates procedures for police during arrests, including wearing clear identification, preparing an attested arrest memorandum (signed by a witness and the arrested person), and informing the arrested person of their right to have a relative or friend notified, unless a family member attests the memorandum. These measures ensure transparency and protect the rights of the arrested. Source: Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, via India Code.

Clause:
(1) The State Government shall establish a police control room—

• (a) in every district; and
  
• (b) at State level.
  

Explanation: This section requires State Governments to set up police control rooms at district and state levels. District control rooms must display details of arrests (names, addresses, and arresting officers) on notice boards. State-level control rooms maintain a database of arrests and charges for public access, enhancing transparency in the arrest process. Source: Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, via India Code.

Clause:
When any person is arrested and interrogated by the police, he shall be entitled to meet an advocate of his choice during interrogation, though not throughout interrogation.

Explanation: This section grants an arrested person the right to meet a lawyer of their choice during police interrogation, though not for the entire duration. This ensures legal support and protects against coercion, balancing investigative needs with individual rights. Source: Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, via India Code.

Clause:
(1) When any person who, in the presence of a police officer, has committed or has been accused of committing a non-cognizable offence refuses, on demand of such officer, to give his name and residence or gives a name or residence which such officer has reason to believe to be false, he may be arrested by such officer in order that his name or residence may be ascertained.
(2) When the true name and residence of such person have been ascertained, he shall be released on his executing a bond, with or without sureties, to appear before a Magistrate if so required:
Provided that, if such person is not resident in India, the bond shall be secured by a surety or sureties resident in India.
(3) Should the true name and residence of such person not be ascertained within twenty-four hours from the time of his arrest or should he fail to execute the bond, or, if so required, to furnish sufficient sureties, he shall forthwith be forwarded to the nearest Magistrate having jurisdiction.

Explanation: This section allows police to arrest someone for a non-cognizable offence if they refuse to provide their name and residence or provide false details, to ascertain their identity. Once verified, the person is released on a bond, with sureties if non-resident in India. If identity isn’t confirmed within 24 hours or the bond isn’t executed, they are presented to a Magistrate. This ensures accountability without prolonged detention. Source: Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, via India Code.

Clause:
(1) Any private person may arrest or cause to be arrested any person who in his presence commits a non-bailable and cognizable offence, or any proclaimed offender, and, without unnecessary delay, shall make over or cause to be made over any person so arrested to a police officer, or, in the absence of a police officer, take such person or cause him to be taken in custody to the nearest police station.
(2) If there is reason to believe that such person comes under the provisions of section 41, a police officer shall re-arrest him.
(3) If there is reason to believe that he has committed a non-cognizable offence, and he refuses on the demand of a police officer to give his name and residence, or gives a name or residence which such officer has reason to believe to be false, he shall be dealt with under the provisions of section 42; but if there is no sufficient reason to believe that he has committed any offence, he shall be at once released.

Explanation: This section permits private citizens to arrest someone committing a non-bailable, cognizable offence (e.g., murder) or a proclaimed offender in their presence, and they must promptly hand them over to the police or a police station. Police may re-arrest if Section 41 applies, handle non-cognizable offences per Section 42, or release the person if no offence is evident. This enables citizen intervention while ensuring police oversight. Source: Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, via India Code.

Clause:
(1) When any offence is committed in the presence of a Magistrate, whether Executive or Judicial, within his local jurisdiction, he may himself arrest or order any person to arrest the offender, and may thereupon, subject to the provisions herein contained as to bail, commit the offender to custody.
(2) Any Magistrate, whether Executive or Judicial, may at any time arrest or direct the arrest, in his presence, within his local jurisdiction, of any person for whose arrest he is competent at the time and in the circumstances to issue a warrant.

Explanation: This section empowers Magistrates (Judicial or Executive) to arrest or order the arrest of an offender committing an offence in their presence within their jurisdiction, and commit them to custody, subject to bail provisions. They can also arrest or direct arrests for persons they could issue a warrant for, ensuring immediate action against offenders. Source: Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, via India Code.

Clause:
(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in sections 41 to 44 (both inclusive), no member of the Armed Forces of the Union shall be arrested for anything done or purported to be done by him in the discharge of his official duties except after obtaining the consent of the Central Government.
(2) The State Government may, by notification, direct that the provisions of sub-section (1) shall apply to such class or category of the members of the Forces charged with the maintenance of public order as may be specified therein, wherever they may be serving, and thereupon the provisions of that sub-section shall apply as if for the expression “Central Government” occurring therein, the expression “State Government” were substituted.

Explanation: This section protects Armed Forces members from arrest for acts done in their official duties without Central Government consent. State Governments can extend this protection to specific public order forces (e.g., state police) by notification, substituting their authority for the Central Government’s. This safeguards personnel performing official duties. Source: Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, via India Code.

Clause:
(1) In making an arrest the police officer or other person making the same shall actually touch or confine the body of the person to be arrested, unless there be a submission to the custody by word or action:
Provided that where a woman is to be arrested, unless the circumstances indicate to the contrary, her submission to custody on an oral intimation of arrest shall be presumed and, unless the circumstances otherwise require or unless the police officer is a female, the police officer shall not touch the person of the woman for making her arrest.
(2) If such person forcibly resists the endeavour to arrest him, or attempts to evade the arrest, such police officer or other person may use all means necessary to effect the arrest.
(3) Nothing in this section gives a right to cause the death of a person who is not accused of an offence punishable with death or with imprisonment for life.
(4) Save in exceptional circumstances, no woman shall be arrested after sunset and before sunrise, and where such exceptional circumstances exist, the woman police officer shall, by making a written report, obtain the prior permission of the Judicial Magistrate of the first class within whose local jurisdiction the offence is committed or the arrest is to be made.

Explanation: This section outlines how arrests are made, requiring physical restraint unless the person submits voluntarily. For women, submission is presumed on oral notice, and male officers generally avoid touching unless the officer is female. Force can be used if resistance or evasion occurs, but not to cause death unless the offence carries death or life imprisonment. Women cannot be arrested at night except in exceptional cases, with prior permission from a Judicial Magistrate and involvement of a female officer. This ensures dignity and safety, especially for women. Source: Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, via India Code.

Clause:
(1) If any person acting under a warrant of arrest, or any police officer having authority to arrest, has reason to believe that the person to be arrested has entered into, or is within, any place, any person residing in, or being in charge of, such place shall, on demand of such person acting as aforesaid or such police officer, allow him free ingress thereto, and afford all reasonable facilities for a search therein.
(2) If ingress to such place cannot be obtained under sub-section (1), it shall be lawful in any case for a person acting under a warrant and in any case in which a warrant may issue, but cannot be obtained without affording the person to be arrested an opportunity of escape, for a police officer to enter such place and search therein, and in order to effect an entrance into such place, to break open any outer or inner door or window of any house or place, whether that of the person to be arrested or of any other person, if after notification of his authority and purpose, and demand of admittance duly made, he cannot otherwise obtain admittance:
Provided that, if any such place is an apartment in the actual occupancy of a woman (who, according to the customs of the country, does not appear in public), the person or police officer shall, before entering such apartment, give notice to such woman that she is at liberty to withdraw and shall afford her every reasonable facility for withdrawing, and may then break open the apartment and enter it.
(3) Any police officer or other person authorised to make an arrest may break open any outer or inner door or window of any place in order to liberate himself or any other person who, having lawfully entered for the purpose of making an arrest, is detained therein.

Explanation: This section allows police or warrant holders to search a place where they believe a person to be arrested is located. Residents must allow entry and assist. If entry is denied, police can break in after announcing their authority, especially if a warrant exists or delay risks escape. For women’s apartments, notice must be given to allow withdrawal before entry. Police can also break out if detained while making an arrest. This balances effective law enforcement with respect for privacy, particularly for women. Source: Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, via India Code.

Clause:
A police officer may, for the purpose of arresting without a warrant any person whom he is authorised to arrest, pursue such person into any place in India.

Explanation: This section permits police to pursue a person they can arrest without a warrant across jurisdictional boundaries anywhere in India, ensuring that offenders cannot escape by crossing state or district lines. Source: Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, via India Code.

Clause:
The person arrested shall not be subjected to more restraint than is necessary to prevent his escape.

Explanation: This section ensures that arrested persons are not subjected to excessive force or restraint beyond what is needed to prevent escape, protecting their dignity and rights during arrest. Source: Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, via India Code.

Clause:
(1) Every police officer or other person arresting any person without a warrant shall forthwith communicate to him full particulars of the offence for which he is arrested or other grounds for such arrest.
(2) Where a police officer arrests without a warrant any person other than a person accused of a non-bailable offence, he shall inform the person arrested that he is entitled to be released on bail and that he may arrange for sureties on his behalf.

Explanation: This section mandates that police or others making warrantless arrests inform the arrested person of the reasons for arrest immediately. For non-bailable offences, they must also inform the person of their right to bail and the option to arrange sureties, ensuring transparency and access to legal rights. Source: Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, via India Code.

Clause:
(1) Every police officer or other person making any arrest under this Code shall forthwith give the information regarding such arrest and place where the arrested person is being held to any of his friends, relatives or such other person as may be disclosed or nominated by the arrested person for the purpose of giving such information.
(2) The police officer shall inform the arrested person of his rights under sub-section (1) as soon as he is brought to the police station.
(3) An entry of the fact as to who has been informed of the arrest of such person shall be made in a book to be kept in the police station in such form as may be prescribed in this behalf by the State Government.
(4) It shall be the duty of the Magistrate before whom such arrested person is produced, to satisfy himself that the requirements of sub-section (2) and sub-section (3) have been complied with in respect of such arrested person.

Explanation: This section requires police to inform a nominated friend, relative, or other person of an arrested person’s arrest and location. The arrested person must be informed of this right at the police station, and details of the notification must be recorded. Magistrates must verify compliance, enhancing transparency and support for the arrested. Source: Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, via India Code.

Clause:
(1) Whenever a person is arrested by a police officer under a warrant which does not provide for the taking of bail, or under a warrant which provides for the taking of bail but the person arrested cannot furnish bail, and whenever a person is arrested without a warrant, or by a private person under section 43, and cannot legally be admitted to bail, or is unable to furnish bail, the officer making the arrest or, when the arrest is made by a private person, the police officer to whom he makes over the person arrested, may search such person, and place in safe custody all articles, other than necessary wearing-apparel, found upon him and where any article is seized from such person, a receipt showing the articles taken in possession by the police officer shall be given to such person.
(2) Whenever it is necessary to cause a female to be searched, the search shall be made by another female with strict regard to decency.

Explanation: This section allows police to search arrested persons in cases where bail isn’t available or can’t be furnished, seizing all articles except necessary clothing and providing a receipt. Searches of females must be conducted by females with decency, ensuring respect and safety during the process. Source: Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, via India Code.

Clause:
The officer or other person making any arrest under this Code may take from the person arrested any offensive weapons which he has about his person, and shall deliver all weapons so taken to the Court or officer before which or whom the officer or person making the arrest is required by this Code to produce the person arrested.

Explanation: This section permits the seizure of offensive weapons from an arrested person, which must be submitted to the court or officer where the arrested person is produced, ensuring safety and proper handling of evidence. Source: Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, via India Code.

Clause:
(1) When a person is arrested on a charge of committing an offence of such a nature and alleged to have been committed under such circumstances that there are reasonable grounds for believing that an examination of his person will afford evidence as to the commission of an offence, it shall be lawful for a registered medical practitioner, acting at the request of a police officer not below the rank of sub-inspector, and for any person acting in good faith in his aid and under his direction, to make such an examination of the person arrested as is reasonably necessary in order to ascertain the facts which may afford such evidence, and to use such force as is reasonably necessary for that purpose.
(2) Whenever the person of a female is to be examined under this section, the examination shall be made only by, or under the supervision of, a female registered medical practitioner.

Explanation: This section allows police (sub-inspector or above) to request a medical examination of an arrested person if it could provide evidence of an offence, using reasonable force if necessary. Examinations of females must be conducted or supervised by female medical practitioners, ensuring evidence collection respects dignity and gender sensitivity. Source: Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, via India Code.

Clause:
(1) When a person is arrested on a charge of committing an offence of rape or an attempt to commit rape and there are reasonable grounds for believing that an examination of his person will afford evidence as to the commission of such offence, it shall be lawful for a registered medical practitioner employed in a hospital run by the Government or by a local authority or any other registered medical practitioner, acting at the request of a police officer not below the rank of a sub-inspector, and for any person acting in good faith in his aid and under his direction, to make such an examination of the person arrested as is reasonably necessary in order to ascertain the facts which may afford such evidence, and to use such force as is reasonably necessary for that purpose.
(2) The registered medical practitioner conducting such examination shall, without delay, examine such person and prepare a report of his examination giving the following particulars, namely—

• (i) the name and address of the accused and of the person by whom he was brought;
  
• (ii) the age of the accused;
  
• (iii) marks of injury, if any, on the person of the accused;
  
• (iv) the description of material taken from the person of the accused for DNA profiling; and
  
• (v) other material particulars in reasonable detail.
  

Explanation: This section specifically addresses medical examinations for persons accused of rape or attempted rape, allowing examinations by registered medical practitioners (government or private) at the request of a sub-inspector or above. The practitioner must prepare a detailed report, including DNA profiling material, injuries, and precise conclusions, noting examination times. The report is sent to the investigating officer for the Magistrate, ensuring thorough evidence collection in sensitive cases. Source: Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, via India Code.

Clause:
(1) When any person is arrested, he shall be examined by a medical officer in the service of Central or State Government and in case the medical officer is not available, by a registered medical practitioner soon after the arrest is made:
Provided that where the arrested person is a female, the examination of the body shall be made only by or under the supervision of a female medical officer, and in case the female medical officer is not available, by a female registered medical practitioner.
(2) The medical officer or a registered medical practitioner so examining the arrested person shall prepare the record of such examination, mentioning therein any injuries or marks of violence upon the person arrested, and the approximate time when such injuries or marks may have been inflicted.
(3) Where an examination is made under sub-section (1), a copy of the report of such examination shall be furnished by the medical officer or registered medical practitioner, as the case may be, to the arrested person or the person nominated by such arrested person.

Explanation: This section mandates a medical examination of all arrested persons by a government medical officer or, if unavailable, a registered medical practitioner, soon after arrest. Female examinations require female medical personnel. The examiner must record injuries or marks of violence, including their approximate timing, and provide a copy of the report to the arrested person or their nominee, ensuring documentation of their condition to prevent allegations of custodial abuse. Source: Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, via India Code.

Clause:
Where a person is arrested on a charge of committing an offence and his identification by any other person or persons is considered necessary for the purpose of investigation of such offence, the Court, having jurisdiction, may, on the request of the officer in charge of a police station, direct the person so arrested to subject himself to identification by any person or persons in such manner as the Court may deem fit:
Provided that, if the person identifying the person arrested is mentally or physically disabled, such process of identification shall take place under the supervision of a Judicial Magistrate who shall take appropriate steps to ensure that such person identifies the person arrested using methods that person is comfortable with:
Provided further that if the person identifying the person arrested is a minor or a female, the process of identification shall take place in the presence of a parent or guardian of such minor or female, as the case may be, and in the case of a female, the identification process shall be carried out by, or in the presence of, a female officer.

Explanation: This section allows courts, at the request of a police officer, to order an arrested person to undergo identification (e.g., in a lineup) if needed for investigation. For mentally or physically disabled identifiers, a Judicial Magistrate supervises to ensure comfort. For minors or females, identification occurs with a parent/guardian present, and for females, a female officer must be involved, ensuring fairness and sensitivity. Source: Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, via India Code.

Clause:
(1) When any officer in charge of a police station or any police officer making an investigation under Chapter XII requires any officer subordinate to him to arrest without a warrant (otherwise than in his presence) any person who may lawfully be arrested without a warrant, he shall deliver to the officer required to make the arrest an order in writing, specifying the person to be arrested and the offence or other cause for which the arrest is to be made and the officer so required shall, before making the arrest, notify to the person to be arrested the substance of the order and, if so required by such person, shall show him the order.
(2) Nothing in sub-section (1) shall affect the power of a police officer to arrest a person under section 41.

Explanation: This section requires a police officer in charge or investigating officer to issue a written order to a subordinate for a warrantless arrest, detailing the person and offence. The subordinate must inform the person of the order’s substance and show it if requested. This does not limit Section 41’s arrest powers, ensuring procedural clarity in delegated arrests. Source: Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, via India Code.

Clause:
It shall be the duty of the person having the custody of an arrested person to take reasonable care of the health and safety of the arrested person.

Explanation: This section mandates that custodians of arrested persons (e.g., police) ensure their health and safety, protecting against neglect or harm while in custody. Source: Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, via India Code.

Clause:
A police officer making an arrest without a warrant shall, without unnecessary delay and subject to the provisions herein contained as to bail, take or send the person arrested before a Magistrate having jurisdiction in the case, or before the officer in charge of a police station.

Explanation: This section requires police to promptly present a person arrested without a warrant to a Magistrate with jurisdiction or a police station officer-in-charge, unless bail provisions apply, ensuring timely judicial oversight or police processing. Source: Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, via India Code.

Clause:
No police officer shall detain in custody a person arrested without a warrant for a longer period than under all the circumstances of the case is reasonable, and such period shall not, in the absence of a special order of a Magistrate under section 167, exceed twenty-four hours exclusive of the time necessary for the journey from the place of arrest to the Magistrate’s Court.

Explanation: This section limits police detention of a warrantless arrestee to a reasonable period, not exceeding 24 hours (excluding travel time to the Magistrate), unless a Magistrate orders further detention under Section 167, protecting against prolonged custody without judicial review. Source: Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, via India Code.

Clause:
Officers in charge of police stations shall report to the District Magistrate, or, if he so directs, to the Sub-divisional Magistrate, the cases of all persons arrested without warrant within the limits of their respective stations, whether such persons have been admitted to bail or otherwise.

Explanation: This section requires police station officers-in-charge to report all warrantless arrests to the District or Sub-divisional Magistrate, including whether bail was granted, ensuring oversight and accountability in arrests. Source: Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, via India Code.

Clause:
No person who has been arrested by a police officer shall be discharged except on his own bond, or on bail, or under the special order of a Magistrate.

Explanation: This section ensures that a person arrested by police is only released on their bond, bail, or by a Magistrate’s special order, preventing arbitrary release without legal process. Source: Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, via India Code.

Clause:
(1) If a person in lawful custody escapes or is rescued, the person from whose custody he escaped or was rescued may immediately pursue and arrest him in any place in India.
(2) The provisions of section 47 shall apply to arrests under sub-section (1) although the person making any such arrest is not acting under a warrant and is not a police officer having authority to arrest.

Explanation: This section allows immediate pursuit and re-arrest of an escaped or rescued person from lawful custody anywhere in India. Section 47’s search provisions apply, even for non-police or non-warrant arrests, ensuring recapture while respecting procedural safeguards. Source: Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, via India Code.

Clause:
No arrest shall be made except in accordance with the provisions of this Code or any other law for the time being in force providing for arrest.

Explanation: This section mandates that all arrests must strictly follow the CrPC or other applicable laws, ensuring legality and adherence to procedural safeguards. Source: Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, via India Code.

Clause:
Every summons issued by a Court under this Code shall be in writing, in duplicate, signed by the presiding officer of such Court or by such other officer as the High Court may, from time to time, by rule direct, and shall bear the seal of the Court.

Explanation: This section mandates that court-issued summons must be written, duplicated, signed by the presiding officer or an authorized officer, and sealed, ensuring formal and verifiable notification to appear in court. Source: Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, via India Code.

Clause:
(1) Every summons shall be served by a police officer, or by an officer of the Court issuing it or other public servant.
(2) The summons shall, if practicable, be served personally on the person summoned, by delivering or tendering to him one of the duplicates of the summons.
(3) Every person on whom a summons is so served shall, if so required by the serving officer, sign a receipt therefor on the back of the other duplicate.

Explanation: This section specifies that summons are served by police, court officers, or public servants, preferably in person by delivering a duplicate. The recipient may be required to sign a receipt on the other duplicate, ensuring proof of service. Source: Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, via India Code.

Clause:
Service of a summons on a corporation or a society or any other body of persons may be effected by serving it on the secretary, local manager or other principal officer of the corporation, society or body, or by letter sent by registered post, addressed to the chief officer of the corporation, society or body in India, and in such case the service shall be deemed to have been effected when the letter would arrive in ordinary course of post.

Explanation: This section allows summons to corporations or societies to be served on key officers (e.g., secretary, manager) or by registered post to the chief officer in India, with service deemed complete upon the letter’s expected delivery, accommodating legal entities’ structures. Source: Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, via India Code.

Clause:
Where the person summoned cannot, by the exercise of due diligence, be found, the summons may be served by leaving one of the duplicates for him with some adult male member of his family residing with him, and the person with whom the summons is so left shall, if so required by the serving officer, sign a receipt therefor on the back of the other duplicate.
Explanation.—A servant is not a member of the family within the meaning of this section.

Explanation: If a summoned person cannot be found despite diligent efforts, the summons can be left with an adult male family member living with them, who may sign a receipt. Servants are explicitly excluded as family members, ensuring delivery to close relatives. Source: Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, via India Code.

Clause:
If service cannot by the exercise of due diligence be effected as provided in section 62, section 63 or section 64, the serving officer shall affix one of the duplicates of the summons to some conspicuous part of the house or homestead in which the person summoned ordinarily resides; and thereupon the Court, after making such inquiries as it thinks fit, may either declare that the summons has been duly served or order fresh service in such manner as it considers proper.

Explanation: If summons cannot be served as per Sections 62–64 despite diligent efforts, the officer can affix a duplicate to a conspicuous part of the person’s residence. The court may then declare the service valid after inquiries or order a new method of service, ensuring effective notification. Source: Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, via India Code.

Clause:
(1) Where the person summoned is in the active service of the Government, the Court issuing the summons shall ordinarily send it in duplicate to the head of the office in which such person is employed; and such head shall thereupon cause the summons to be served in the manner provided by section 62, and shall return it to the Court under his signature with the endorsement required by that section.
(2) Such signature shall be evidence of due service.

Explanation: For government servants, summons are sent to their office head, who ensures service as per Section 62 and returns the signed duplicate to the court. The head’s signature confirms proper service, streamlining notification for public employees. Source: Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, via India Code.

Clause:
When a Court desires that a summons issued by it shall be served at any place outside its local jurisdiction, it shall ordinarily send such summons in duplicate to a Magistrate within whose local jurisdiction the person summoned resides, or is, to be there served.

Explanation: For service outside a court’s jurisdiction, the court sends the summons to a Magistrate in the relevant area, who ensures service, facilitating cross-jurisdictional compliance. Source: Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, via India Code.

Clause:
(1) When a summons issued by a Court is served outside its local jurisdiction, and in any case where the officer who has served a summons is not present at the hearing of the case, an affidavit, purporting to be made before a Magistrate, that such summons has been served, and a duplicate of the summons purporting to be endorsed (in the manner provided by section 62 or section 64) by the person to whom it was delivered or tendered or with whom it was left, shall be admissible in evidence, and the statements made therein shall be deemed to be correct unless and until the contrary is proved.
(2) The affidavit mentioned in this section may be attached to the duplicate of the summons and returned to the Court.

Explanation: For summons served outside a court’s jurisdiction or when the serving officer is absent at the hearing, an affidavit before a Magistrate, along with the endorsed duplicate, serves as evidence of service. The affidavit’s statements are presumed correct unless disproved, and it can be attached to the duplicate for court records, ensuring reliable proof of service. Source: Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, via India Code.

Clause:
(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in the preceding sections of this Chapter, a Court issuing a summons to a witness may, in addition to and simultaneously with the issue of such summons, direct a copy of the summons to be served by registered post addressed to the witness at the place where he ordinarily resides or carries on business or personally works for gain.
(2) When an acknowledgment purporting to be signed by the witness or an endorsement purporting to be made by a postal employee that the witness refused to take delivery of the summons has been received, the Court issuing the summons may declare that the summons has been duly served.

Explanation: Courts can serve summons to witnesses by registered post, in addition to other methods, sent to their residence, workplace, or business. Service is deemed complete upon receipt of the witness’s signed acknowledgment or a postal endorsement of refusal, providing an efficient alternative for witness notification. Source: Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, via India Code.

Clause:
(1) Every warrant of arrest issued by a Court under this Code shall be in writing, signed by the presiding officer of such Court and shall bear the seal of the Court.
(2) Every such warrant shall remain in force until it is cancelled by the Court which issued it, or until it is executed.

Explanation: This section requires that arrest warrants be written, signed by the presiding officer, and sealed. Warrants remain valid until canceled by the issuing court or executed, ensuring legal authority for arrests. Source: Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, via India Code.

Clause:
(1) Any Court issuing a warrant for the arrest of any person may in its discretion direct by endorsement on the warrant that, if such person executes a bond with sufficient sureties for his attendance before the Court at a specified time and thereafter until otherwise directed by the Court, the officer to whom the warrant is directed shall take such security and shall release such person from custody.
(2) The endorsement shall state—

• (a) the number of sureties;
  
• (b) the amount in which they and the person for whose arrest the warrant is issued, are to be respectively bound;
  
• (c) the time at which he is to attend before the Court.
  

Explanation: Courts issuing arrest warrants can allow the person to avoid custody by executing a bond with sureties for court appearance, as endorsed on the warrant. The endorsement specifies surety details, bond amount, and appearance time. The bond is forwarded to the court, offering an alternative to detention. Source: Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, via India Code.

Clause:
(1) A warrant of arrest shall ordinarily be directed to one or more police officers; but the Court issuing the warrant may, if its immediate execution is necessary and no police officer is immediately available, direct it to any other person or persons, and such person or persons shall execute the same.
(2) When a warrant is directed to more than one person, it may be executed by all, or by any one or more of them.

Explanation: Arrest warrants are typically directed to police officers, but if urgent and no police are available, courts can direct others to execute it. If multiple persons are named, any or all can execute the warrant, ensuring flexibility in enforcement. Source: Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, via India Code.

Clause:
(1) The Chief Judicial Magistrate or a Magistrate of the first class may direct a warrant to any person within his local jurisdiction for the arrest of any escaped convict, proclaimed offender or of any person who is accused of a non-bailable offence and is evading arrest.
(2) Such person shall acknowledge in writing the receipt of the warrant, and shall execute it if the person for whose arrest it was issued, is in, or enters on, any land or other property under his charge.
(3) When the person against whom such warrant is issued is arrested, he shall be made over with the warrant to the nearest police officer, who shall cause him to be taken to the Magistrate having jurisdiction in the case, unless security is taken under section 71.

Explanation: Chief Judicial Magistrates or First-Class Magistrates can direct warrants to any person in their jurisdiction to arrest escaped convicts, proclaimed offenders, or those evading arrest for non-bailable offences. The person must acknowledge the warrant and execute it if the target is on their property, then hand them over to police for presentation to a Magistrate, unless security is taken. This broadens enforcement capabilities. Source: Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, via India Code.

Clause:
A warrant directed to any police officer may also be executed by any other police officer whose name is endorsed upon the warrant by the officer to whom it is directed or endorsed.

Explanation: A warrant directed to a police officer can be executed by another officer if their name is endorsed on it, allowing delegation within the police force for efficient execution. Source: Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, via India Code.

Clause:
The police officer or other person executing a warrant of arrest shall notify the substance thereof to the person to be arrested, and, if so required, shall show him the warrant.

Explanation: Officers executing an arrest warrant must inform the person of its substance and show the warrant if requested, ensuring transparency and legal awareness during arrest. Source: Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, via India Code.

Clause:
The police officer or other person executing a warrant of arrest shall (subject to the provisions of section 71 as to security) without unnecessary delay bring the person arrested before the Court before which he is required by law to produce such person:
Provided that such delay shall not, in any case, exceed twenty-four hours exclusive of the time necessary for the journey from the place of arrest to the Magistrate’s Court.

Explanation: Persons arrested under a warrant must be brought before the required court promptly, unless security is taken under Section 71, with delays not exceeding 24 hours (excluding travel time), ensuring swift judicial oversight. Source: Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, via India Code.

Clause:
A warrant of arrest may be executed at any place in India.

Explanation: Arrest warrants can be executed anywhere in India, providing nationwide jurisdiction for enforcement. Source: Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, via India Code.

Clause:
(1) When a warrant is to be executed outside the local jurisdiction of the Court issuing it, such Court may, instead of directing the warrant to a police officer within its jurisdiction, forward it by post or otherwise to any Executive Magistrate or District Superintendent of Police or Commissioner of Police within the local limits of whose jurisdiction it is to be executed; and the Executive Magistrate or District Superintendent or Commissioner shall endorse his name thereon, and if practicable, cause it to be executed in the manner hereinbefore provided.
(2) The Court issuing a warrant, when forwarding it to an Executive Magistrate or District Superintendent of Police or Commissioner of Police under sub-section (1), shall also send a copy thereof to the officer in charge of the nearest police station within the local limits of whose jurisdiction the warrant is to be executed, and such officer shall, if so required by the Executive Magistrate or District Superintendent or Commissioner, assist in the execution of the warrant.

Explanation: For execution outside the issuing court’s jurisdiction, the warrant can be sent to an Executive Magistrate, District Superintendent, or Commissioner of Police in the relevant area, who endorses and executes it. A copy is sent to the local police station for assistance if needed, ensuring coordinated cross-jurisdictional execution. Source: Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, via India Code.

Clause:
(1) When a warrant directed to a police officer is to be executed beyond the local jurisdiction of the Court issuing the same, he shall ordinarily take it for endorsement either to an Executive Magistrate or to a police officer not below the rank of an officer in charge of a police station, within the local limits of whose jurisdiction the warrant is to be executed.
(2) Such Magistrate or police officer shall endorse his name thereon and such endorsement shall be sufficient authority to the police officer to whom the warrant is directed to execute the same, and the local police shall, if so required, assist such officer in executing such warrant.
(3) Whenever there is reason to believe that the delay occasioned by obtaining the endorsement of the Magistrate or police officer within whose local jurisdiction the warrant is to be executed will prevent such execution, the police officer to whom the warrant is directed may execute the same without such endorsement in any place beyond the local jurisdiction of the Court which issued it.

Explanation: For warrants executed outside the issuing court’s jurisdiction, the police officer must typically get endorsement from a local Executive Magistrate or senior police officer. The endorsement authorizes execution, with local police assistance if needed. In urgent cases where delay risks failure, the officer can execute without endorsement, balancing efficiency and protocol. Source: Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, via India Code.

Clause:
When a warrant of arrest is executed outside the district in which it was issued, the person arrested shall, unless the Court which issued the warrant is within thirty kilometres of the place of arrest or is nearer than the Executive Magistrate or District Superintendent of Police or Commissioner of Police within the local limits of whose jurisdiction the arrest was made, or unless security is taken under section 71, be taken before such Magistrate or District Superintendent or Commissioner.

Explanation: If an arrest warrant is executed outside the issuing district, the arrested person is taken to a local Executive Magistrate, District Superintendent, or Commissioner, unless the issuing court is within 30 kilometers or closer, or security is taken under Section 71, ensuring prompt local processing. Source: Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, via India Code.

Clause:
(1) The Executive Magistrate or District Superintendent of Police or Commissioner of Police shall, if the person arrested appears to be the person intended by the Court which issued the warrant, direct his removal in custody to such Court:
Provided that, if the offence is bailable, and such person is ready and willing to give bail to the satisfaction of such Magistrate, District Superintendent or Commissioner, or a direction has been endorsed under section 71 on the warrant and such person is ready and willing to give the security required by such direction, the Magistrate, District Superintendent or Commissioner shall take such bail or security, as the case may be, and forward the bond, to the Court which issued the warrant:
Provided further that if the offence is a non-bailable one, it shall be lawful for the Chief Judicial Magistrate (subject to the provisions of section 437), or the Sessions Judge, of the district in which the arrest is made on consideration of the information and the documents referred to in sub-section (2) of section 78, to release such person on bail.
(2) Nothing in this section shall be deemed to prevent a police officer from taking security under section 71.

Explanation: When a person arrested under a warrant is brought before a local Executive Magistrate, District Superintendent, or Commissioner, they verify if the person matches the warrant’s intent and order their transfer to the issuing court. For bailable offences, they can grant bail or take security per Section 71, forwarding the bond to the court. For non-bailable offences, a Chief Judicial Magistrate or Sessions Judge in the arrest district can grant bail based on provided information. Police can still take security under Section 71, ensuring flexibility and judicial oversight. Source: Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, via India Code.

Clause:
(1) If any Court has reason to believe (whether after taking evidence or not) that any person against whom a warrant has been issued by it has absconded, or is concealing himself so that such warrant cannot be executed, such Court may publish a written proclamation requiring him to appear at a specified place and at a specified time not less than thirty days from the date of publishing such proclamation.
(2) The proclamation shall be published as follows:—

• (i) (a) it shall be publicly read in some conspicuous place of the town or village in which such person ordinarily resides;
  
• (b) it shall be affixed to some conspicuous part of the house or homestead in which such person ordinarily resides or to some conspicuous place of such town or village;
  
• (c) a copy thereof shall be affixed to some conspicuous part of the Court-house;
  
• (ii) the Court may also, if it thinks fit, direct a copy of the proclamation to be published in a daily newspaper circulating in the place in which such person ordinarily resides.
  

Explanation: If a court believes a person against whom a warrant is issued is absconding or hiding, it can issue a proclamation requiring their appearance within 30 days, published by public reading, affixing to their residence and courthouse, and optionally in a newspaper. The court’s statement of proper publication is conclusive evidence. For serious IPC offences (e.g., murder, robbery), non-appearance allows the court to declare them a proclaimed offender after inquiry, with declaration publication following the same rules. This escalates efforts to compel appearance. Source: Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, via India Code.

Clause:
(1) The Court issuing a proclamation under section 82 may, for reasons to be recorded in writing, at any time after the issue of the proclamation, order the attachment of any property, movable or immovable, or both, belonging to the proclaimed person:
Provided that where at the time of the issue of the proclamation the Court is satisfied, by affidavit or otherwise, that the person in relation to whom the proclamation is to be issued,—

• (a) is about to dispose of the whole or any part of his property, or
  
• (b) is about to remove the whole or any part of his property from the local jurisdiction of the Court,
  

• (a) by seizure; or
  
• (b) by the appointment of a receiver; or
  
• (c) by an order in writing prohibiting the delivery of such property to the proclaimed person or to any one on his behalf; or
  
• (d) by all or any two of such methods, as the Court thinks fit.
  

• (a) by taking possession; or
  
• (b) by the appointment of a receiver; or
  
• (c) by an order in writing prohibiting the payment of rent on delivery of property to the proclaimed person or to any one on his behalf; or
  
• (d) by all or any two of such methods, as the Court thinks fit.
  

Explanation: Courts issuing a proclamation under Section 82 can order attachment of a proclaimed person’s property, with reasons recorded, after or simultaneously with the proclamation if the person is likely to dispose of or remove property. Attachment within the district is authorized directly; outside, it requires District Magistrate endorsement. Movable property is attached by seizure, receivership, or prohibition orders; immovable property via the Collector or similar methods. Perishable property or livestock can be sold immediately, with proceeds held. Receivers follow Civil Procedure Code rules, pressuring absconders through property control. Source: Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, via India Code.

Clause:
(1) If any claim is preferred to, or objection made to the attachment of, any property attached under section 83, within six months from the date of such attachment, by any person other than the proclaimed person, on the ground that the claimant or objector has an interest in such property, and that such interest is not liable to attachment under section 83, the claim or objection shall be inquired into, and may be allowed or disallowed in whole or in part:
Provided that any claim preferred or objection made within the period allowed by this sub-section may, in the event of the death of the claimant or objector, be continued by his legal representative.
(2) Claims or objections under sub-section (1) may be preferred or made in the Court by which the order of attachment is issued, or, if the claim or objection is made in respect of property attached under an order endorsed by a District Magistrate in accordance with the provisions of section 83, in the Court of such Magistrate.
(3) Every such claim or objection shall be inquired into by the Court in which it is preferred or made:
Provided that, if it is preferred or made in the Court of a District Magistrate, such Magistrate may refer it for inquiry and report to a Subordinate Magistrate, and, on receipt of the report from such Subordinate Magistrate, dispose of the claim or objection in accordance with such report unless for reasons to be recorded in writing he disagrees with such report.
(4) Where a claim or an objection is allowed in whole or in part, the Court may make such order as it thinks fit with respect to the property, which is the subject-matter of such claim or objection, including an order releasing the property from attachment in whole or in part, or directing the delivery thereof to the claimant or objector, subject to such conditions, if any, as the Court thinks fit.

Explanation: Third parties (not the proclaimed person) can claim or object to property attachment under Section 83 within six months, asserting their interest. Courts inquire into claims, which can be pursued by legal representatives if the claimant dies. Claims are filed in the issuing court or the endorsing District Magistrate’s court. District Magistrates may delegate inquiries to subordinate Magistrates, adopting their reports unless disagreed with for recorded reasons. Allowed claims may lead to property release or delivery with conditions, protecting third-party rights. Source: Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, via India Code.

Clause:
(1) If the proclaimed person appears within the time specified in the proclamation, the Court shall make an order releasing the property from the attachment.
(2) If the proclaimed person does not appear within the time specified in the proclamation, the property under the attachment shall be at the disposal of the State Government; but it shall not be sold until the expiration of six months from the date of the attachment and until any claim preferred or objection made under section 84 has been disposed of under that section, unless it is subject to speedy and natural decay, or the Court considers that the sale would be for the benefit of the owner; in either of which cases the Court may cause it to be sold whenever it thinks fit.
(3) If, within two years from the date of the attachment, any person whose property is or has been at the disposal of the State Government, under sub-section (2), appears voluntarily or is apprehended and brought before the Court by whose order the property was attached, or the Court to which such Court is subordinate, and proves to the satisfaction of such Court that he did not abscond or conceal himself for the purpose of avoiding execution of the warrant, and that he had not such notice of the proclamation as to enable him to attend within the time specified therein, such property, or, if the same has been sold, the net proceeds of the sale, or, if part only thereof has been sold, the net proceeds of the sale and the residue of the property, shall, after satisfying therefrom all costs incurred in consequence of the attachment, be delivered to him.

Explanation: If a proclaimed person appears within the proclamation’s time, the court releases the attached property. If they don’t, the property is at the State Government’s disposal but isn’t sold for six months or until Section 84 claims are resolved, except for perishable items or if sale benefits the owner. If the person appears within two years, proves they didn’t abscond or lack notice, and satisfies the court, they can reclaim the property or sale proceeds after costs, balancing enforcement and fairness. Source: Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, via India Code.

Clause:
Any person referred to in sub-section (3) of section 85, who is aggrieved by any refusal to deliver property or the proceeds of the sale thereof may appeal to the Court to which appeals ordinarily lie from the sentences of the first-mentioned Court.

Explanation: Persons denied restoration of attached property or sale proceeds under Section 85(3) can appeal to the court that typically hears appeals from the issuing court’s sentences, providing a remedy against unfair refusals. Source: Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, via India Code.

Clause:
A Court may, in any case in which it is empowered by this Code to issue a summons for the appearance of any person, issue, after recording its reasons in writing, a warrant for his arrest—

• (a) if, either before the issue of such summons, or after the issue of the same but before the time fixed for his appearance, the Court has reason to believe that he has absconded or will not obey the summons; or
  
• (b) if at such time he fails to appear and the summons is proved to have been duly served in time to admit of his appearing in accordance therewith and no reasonable excuse is offered for such failure.

Explanation: Courts empowered to issue summons can issue an arrest warrant, with recorded reasons, if they believe the person has absconded, will not obey the summons, or fails to appear after proper service without a reasonable excuse, escalating measures to ensure appearance. Source: Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, via India Code.

Clause:
When any person for whose appearance or arrest the Court is empowered to issue a summons or warrant, is present in such Court, such Court may require such person to execute a bond, with or without sureties, for his appearance in such Court, or any other Court to which the case may be transferred for trial.

Explanation: If a person whose appearance is required is present in court, the court can order them to execute a bond, with or without sureties, to ensure future appearances in that court or another where the case is transferred, securing compliance without immediate arrest. Source: Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, via India Code.

Clause:
When any person who is bound by any bond taken under this Code to appear before a Court, does not appear, the Court may issue a warrant for his arrest.

Explanation: If a person fails to appear as required by a bond under the CrPC, the court can issue an arrest warrant, enforcing the bond’s obligation to ensure court attendance. Source: Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, via India Code.

Clause:
The provisions contained in this Chapter relating to a summons and warrant, and their issue, service and execution, shall, so far as may be, apply to every summons and every warrant of arrest issued under this Code.

Explanation: This section ensures that Chapter VI’s provisions on the issuance, service, and execution of summons and arrest warrants apply to all such summons and warrants issued under the CrPC, unless otherwise specified, providing a uniform framework. Source: Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, via India Code.

Clause:
(1) Whenever any Court or any officer in charge of a police station considers that the production of any document or other thing is necessary or desirable for the purposes of any investigation, inquiry, trial or other proceeding under this Code, such Court may issue a summons, or such officer a written order, to the person in whose possession or power such document or thing is believed to be, requiring him to attend and produce it, or to produce it, at the time and place stated in the summons or order.
(2) Any person required under this section merely to produce a document or other thing shall be deemed to have complied with the requisition if he causes such document or thing to be produced instead of attending personally to produce the same.
(3) Nothing in this section shall be deemed—

• (a) to affect sections 123 and 124 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (1 of 1872), or the Bankers’ Books Evidence Act, 1891 (13 of 1891), or
  
• (b) to apply to a letter, postcard, telegram or other document or any parcel or thing in the custody of the postal or telegraph authority.

Explanation: Courts or police officers can issue summons or written orders to produce documents or items needed for investigations, inquiries, trials, or proceedings. The recipient can comply by sending the item without personal attendance. This section does not override specific evidence laws or apply to postal or telegraph items, ensuring targeted production while respecting legal limits. Source: Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, via India Code.

Clause:
(1) If any document, parcel or thing in the custody of a postal or telegraph authority is, in the opinion of the District Magistrate, Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court of Session or High Court wanted for the purpose of any investigation, inquiry, trial or other proceeding under this Code, such Magistrate or Court may require the postal or telegraph authority, as the case may be, to deliver the document, parcel or thing to such person as the Magistrate or Court directs.
(2) If any such document, parcel or thing is, in the opinion of any other Magistrate, whether Executive or Judicial, or of any Commissioner of Police or District Superintendent of Police, wanted for any such purpose, he may require the postal or telegraph authority, as the case may be, to cause search to be made for and to detain such document, parcel or thing pending the order of a District Magistrate, Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court of Session or High Court.

Explanation: District Magistrates, Chief Judicial Magistrates, Sessions Courts, or High Courts can order postal or telegraph authorities to deliver documents or items needed for legal proceedings. Other Magistrates or senior police can order searches and detention of such items, pending higher authority approval, enabling access to postal evidence. Source: Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, via India Code.

Clause:
(1) (a) Where any Court has reason to believe that a person to whom a summons or order under section 91 or a requisition under sub-section (1) of section 92 has been, or might be, addressed, will not or would not produce the document or thing as required by such summons or requisition, or

• (b) where such document or thing is not known to the Court to be in the possession of any person, or
  
• (c) where the Court considers that the purposes of any inquiry, trial or other proceeding under this Code will be served by a general search or inspection,
  

Explanation: Courts can issue search warrants if a person is unlikely to produce a summoned item, the item’s possessor is unknown, or a general search serves legal proceedings. Warrants can be limited to specific places, and searches are restricted to places linked to suspected offences, balancing investigative needs with privacy. Source: Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, via India Code.

Clause:
(1) If a District Magistrate, Sub-divisional Magistrate or Magistrate of the first class, upon information and after such inquiry as he thinks necessary, has reason to believe that any place is used for the deposit or sale of stolen property, or for the deposit, sale or production of any objectionable article to which this section applies, or that any such objectionable article is deposited in any place, he may by warrant authorise any police officer above the rank of a constable—

• (a) to enter, with such assistance as may be required, such place,
  
• (b) to search the same in the manner specified in the warrant,
  
• (c) to take possession of any property or article therein found which he reasonably suspects to be stolen property or objectionable article to which this section applies,
  
• (d) to convey such property or article before a Magistrate, or to guard the same on the spot until the offender is taken before a Magistrate, or otherwise to dispose of it in some place of safety,
  
• (e) to take into custody and carry before a Magistrate every person found in such place who appears to have been privy to the deposit, sale or production of any such property or article knowing or having reasonable cause to suspect it to be stolen property or, as the case may be, an objectionable article to which this section applies.
  

• (a) counterfeit coin;
  
• (b) pieces of metal made in contravention of the Metal Tokens Act, 1889 (1 of 1889), or brought into India in contravention of any notification for the time being in force under section 11 of the Customs Act, 1962 (52 of 1962);
  
• (c) counterfeit currency note; counterfeit stamps;
  
• (d) forged documents;
  
• (e) false seals;
  
• (f) obscene objects referred to in section 292 of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860);
  
• (g) instruments or materials used for the production of any of the articles mentioned in clauses (a) to (f).
  

Explanation: Magistrates can issue warrants for police above constable rank to search places suspected of holding stolen property or objectionable articles (e.g., counterfeit coins, forged documents, obscene objects), seize items, and arrest involved persons. The warrant specifies entry, search, and disposal procedures, targeting serious crimes while ensuring judicial oversight. Source: Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, via India Code.

Clause:
(1) Where—

• (a) any newspaper, or book, or
  
• (b) any document,
  

• (a) “newspaper” and “book” have the same meaning as in the Press and Registration of Books Act, 1867 (25 of 1867);
  
• (b) “document” includes any painting, drawing or photograph, or other visible representation.
  

Explanation: The State Government can declare newspapers, books, or documents containing matter punishable under specific IPC sections (e.g., sedition, obscenity) forfeited, with reasons stated. Police can seize such items, and Magistrates can issue search warrants for premises where they are suspected. Definitions align with the Press Act, and challenges are limited to Section 96 procedures, controlling harmful publications. Source: Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, via India Code.

Clause:
(1) Any person having any interest in any newspaper, book or other document, in respect of which a declaration of forfeiture has been made under section 95, may, within two months from the date of publication in the Official Gazette of such declaration, apply to the High Court to set aside such declaration on the ground that the issue of the newspaper, or the book or other document, in respect of which the declaration was made, did not contain any such matter as is referred to in sub-section (1) of section 95.
(2) Every such application shall, where the High Court consists of three or more Judges, be heard and determined by a Special Bench of the High Court composed of three Judges and where the High Court consists of less than three Judges, such Special Bench shall be composed of all the Judges of that High Court.
(3) On the hearing of any such application with reference to any newspaper, any copy of such newspaper may be given in evidence in aid of the proof of the nature or tendency of the words, signs or visible representations contained in such newspaper, in respect of which the declaration of forfeiture was made.
(4) The High Court shall, if it is not satisfied that the issue of the newspaper, or the book or other document, in respect of which the application has been made, contained any such matter as is referred to in sub-section (1) of section 95, set aside the declaration of forfeiture.
(5) Where there is a difference of opinion among the Judges forming the Special Bench, the decision shall be in accordance with the opinion of the majority of those Judges.

Explanation: Interested parties can apply to the High Court within two months to challenge a forfeiture declaration under Section 95, arguing the material isn’t punishable. A Special Bench of three or all judges hears the case, using newspaper copies as evidence. The declaration is set aside if the court finds no offending matter, with majority opinion prevailing, ensuring judicial review of forfeitures. Source: Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, via India Code.

Clause:
If any District Magistrate, Sub-divisional Magistrate or Magistrate of the first class has reason to believe that any person is confined under such circumstances that the confinement amounts to an offence, he may issue a search-warrant, and the person to whom such warrant is directed may search for the person so confined; and such search shall be made in accordance therewith, and the person, if found, shall be immediately taken before a Magistrate, who shall make such order as in the circumstances of the case seems proper.

Explanation: Magistrates can issue search warrants to locate persons believed to be wrongfully confined in a manner constituting an offence. The search is conducted as per the warrant, and the person, if found, is brought before a Magistrate for appropriate orders, protecting against illegal confinement. Source: Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, via India Code.

Clause:
Upon complaint made on oath of the abduction or unlawful detention of a woman, or a female child under the age of eighteen years, for any unlawful purpose, a District Magistrate, Sub-divisional Magistrate or Magistrate of the first class may make an order for the immediate restoration of such woman to her liberty, or of such female child to her husband, parent, guardian or other person having the lawful charge of such child, and may compel compliance with such order, using such force as may be necessary.

Explanation: Magistrates can order the immediate restoration of abducted or unlawfully detained women or girls under 18, based on sworn complaints, to their liberty or lawful guardians, using necessary force to enforce compliance, addressing serious offences like trafficking. Source: Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, via India Code.

Clause:
The provisions of sections 38, 70, 72, 74, 77, 78 and 79 shall, so far as may be, apply to all search-warrants issued under section 93, section 94, section 95 or section 97.

Explanation: Search warrants issued under Sections 93, 94, 95, or 97 follow the same rules as arrest warrants for aid, form, direction, execution, and jurisdiction (per Sections 38, 70, 72, 74, 77, 78, 79), ensuring consistency in warrant procedures. Source: Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, via India Code.

Clause:
(1) Whenever any place liable to search or inspection under this Chapter is closed, any person residing in, or being in charge of, such place, shall, on demand of the officer or other person executing the warrant, and on production of the warrant, allow him free ingress thereto, and afford all reasonable facilities for a search therein.
(2) If ingress into such place cannot be so obtained, the officer or other person executing the warrant may proceed in the manner provided by sub-section (2) of section 47.
(3) Where any person in or about such place is reasonably suspected of concealing about his person any article for which search should be made, such person may be searched and due regard shall be had to the rules contained in section 51.
(4) Where a search is to be made under this section in any place in which a woman who, according to the custom of the country, does not appear in public resides, a notice in writing shall be given to such woman that she is at liberty to withdraw, and every reasonable facility shall be afforded to her for withdrawing before the search is commenced, and the search, if made, shall be made by another woman with strict regard to decency.
(5) The officer or other person about to make a search under this Chapter shall call upon two or more independent and respectable inhabitants of the locality in which the place to be searched is situate or of any other locality if no such inhabitant of the said locality is available or is willing to be a witness to the search, to attend and witness the search and may issue an order in writing to them or any of them so to do.
(6) The search shall be made in their presence, and a list of all things seized in the course of such search and of the places in which they are respectively found shall be prepared by such officer or other person and signed by such witnesses; but no person witnessing a search under this section shall be required to attend the Court as a witness of the search unless specially summoned by it.
(7) The occupant of the place searched, or some person in his behalf, shall, in every instance, be permitted to attend during the search, and a copy of the list prepared under this section, signed by the said witnesses, shall be delivered to such occupant or person.
(8) When any person is searched under sub-section (3), a list of all things taken possession of shall be prepared, and a copy thereof shall be delivered to such person.
(9) Any person who, without reasonable cause, refuses or neglects to attend and witness a search under this section, when called upon to do so by an order in writing delivered or tendered to him, shall be deemed to have committed an offence under section 187 of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860).

Explanation: Persons in charge of a closed place must allow warrant-based searches, with entry forced if denied (per Section 47). Suspected persons can be searched, following Section 51 rules. Women in secluded residences receive notice to withdraw, and female officers conduct their searches. Searches require two independent local witnesses, who sign a seizure list, with copies given to the occupant. Refusal to witness is an IPC offence, ensuring transparent and respectful searches. Source: Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, via India Code.

Clause:
When, in the execution of a search-warrant at any place beyond the local jurisdiction of the Court which issued the same, any of the things for which search is made, are found, such things, together with the list of the same prepared under the provisions hereinafter contained, shall be immediately taken before the Court issuing the warrant, unless such place is nearer to the Magistrate having jurisdiction therein than to such Court, in which case the list and things shall be immediately taken before such Magistrate; and, unless there be good cause to the contrary, such Magistrate shall make an order authorising them to be taken to such Court.

Explanation: Items found during a search outside the issuing court’s jurisdiction are taken to that court with the seizure list, unless a closer Magistrate has jurisdiction, who then authorizes transfer to the issuing court unless there’s reason not to, ensuring proper handling of evidence. Source: Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, via India Code.

Clause:
(1) Any police officer may seize any property which may be alleged or suspected to have been stolen, or which may be found under circumstances which create suspicion of the commission of any offence.
(2) Such police officer, if subordinate to the officer in charge of a police station, shall forthwith report the seizure to that officer.
(3) Every police officer acting under sub-section (1) shall forthwith report the seizure to the Magistrate having jurisdiction and where the property seized is such that it cannot be conveniently transported to the Court, he may give custody thereof to any person on his executing a bond undertaking to produce the property before the Court as and when required and to give effect to the further orders of the Court as to the disposal of the same.

Explanation: Police can seize suspected stolen property or items linked to an offence, with subordinates reporting to their station officer. Seizures are reported to the Magistrate, and if transport is impractical, custody can be given to a bonded person, ensuring evidence preservation. Source: Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, via India Code.

Clause:
Any Magistrate may direct a search to be made in his presence of any place for the search of which he is competent to issue a search-warrant.

Explanation: Magistrates can order searches in their presence for places they could issue a search warrant for, allowing direct oversight of the process. Source: Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, via India Code.

Clause:
Any Court may, if it thinks fit, impound any document or thing produced before it under this Code.

Explanation: Courts can impound documents or items produced under the CrPC, retaining them for legal proceedings as needed. Source: Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, via India Code.

Clause:
(1) Where a Court in the territories to which this Code extends (hereafter in this section referred to as the said territories) issues a warrant or summons for the attendance of any person or the production of any document or other thing in any criminal proceeding under this Code and such person, document or thing is in any place beyond the limits of the said territories but within India, such warrant or summons may be executed or served in the manner provided in this Chapter as if the place were within the said territories, provided that the Court issuing such warrant or summons is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the person, document or thing is in such place.
(2) Where any such warrant or summons cannot be so executed or served, the Court issuing the same may transmit it by post or otherwise to any Court or officer having authority in the place where the person, document or thing is believed to be, and such Court or officer shall cause the warrant to be executed or the summons to be served in the manner provided in this Chapter.
(3) The Central Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, make reciprocal arrangements with the Government of any country outside India for the execution or service in that country of warrants or summonses issued by Courts in the said territories, and for the execution or service in the said territories of warrants or summonses issued by Courts in that country; and where such arrangements have been made, any warrant or summons issued by a Court in the said territories may be sent to such authority in such country as the Central Government may, by the said or any other like notification, specify, for execution or service in accordance with the law of that country, and any warrant or summons issued by a Court in such country may be executed or served in the said territories in the manner provided in this Chapter as if it were a warrant or summons issued by a Court in the said territories.

Explanation: Courts can issue warrants or summons for persons or items outside their territory but within India, executed as if local, if the court believes they are present. If execution fails, the warrant can be sent to a local court or officer. The Central Government can make reciprocal arrangements with foreign countries for mutual warrant and summons execution, specifying authorities and following local laws, facilitating cross-border legal processes. Source: Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, via India Code.

Clause:
In this Chapter, unless the context otherwise requires,—

• (a) “contracting State” means any country or place outside India in respect of which arrangements have been made by the Central Government with the Government of such country through a treaty or otherwise;
  
• (b) “identifying” includes establishment of a proof that the property was derived from, or used in, the commission of an offence;
  
• (c) “proceeds of crime” means any property derived or obtained directly or indirectly, by any person as a result of criminal activity (including crime involving currency transfers) or the value of any such property;
  
• (d) “property” means property and assets of every description whether corporeal or incorporeal, movable or immovable, tangible or intangible and deeds and instruments evidencing title to, or interest in, such property or assets derived or used in the commission of an offence and includes property obtained through proceeds of crime;
  
• (e) “tracing” means determining the nature, source, disposition, movement, title or ownership of property.

Explanation: This section defines key terms for Chapter VIIA, including “contracting State” (countries with mutual legal assistance agreements), “identifying” (proving property’s criminal link), “proceeds of crime” (property from criminal activity), “property” (broadly defined assets), and “tracing” (tracking property details), setting the framework for international cooperation. Source: Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, via India Code.

Clause:
(1) Where a Court in India, in relation to a criminal matter, desires that a warrant for arrest of any person to attend or produce a document or other thing issued by it shall be executed in any place in a contracting State, it shall send such warrant in duplicate in such form to such Court, Judge or Magistrate through such authority, as the Central Government may, by notification, specify in this behalf and that Court, Judge or Magistrate, as the case may be, shall cause the same to be executed.
(2) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Code, if, in the course of an investigation or any inquiry into an offence, an application is made by the investigating officer or any officer superior in rank to the investigating officer that the attendance of a person who is in any place in a contracting State is required in connection with such investigation or inquiry and the Court is satisfied that such attendance is so required, it shall issue a summons or warrant, in duplicate, against the said person to such Court, Judge or Magistrate, in such form as the Central Government may, by notification, specify in this behalf, to cause the same to be served or executed.
(3) Where a Court in India, in relation to a criminal matter, has received a warrant for arrest of any person requiring him to attend or attend and produce a document or other thing in that Court or before any other investigating agency, issued by a Court, Judge or Magistrate in a contracting State, it shall cause the same to be executed as if it is the warrant received by it from another Court in India.
(4) Where a person transferred to a contracting State pursuant to sub-section (3) is a prisoner in India, the Court in India or the Central Government may impose such conditions as that Court or Government deems fit.
(5) Where the person transferred to India pursuant to sub-section (1) or sub-section (2) is a prisoner in a contracting State, the Court in India shall ensure that the conditions subject to which the prisoner is transferred to India are complied with and such prisoner shall be kept in such custody subject to such conditions as the Central Government may direct in writing.

Explanation: Courts can send arrest warrants or summons to a contracting State for execution, through designated authorities, to secure persons or items. Indian courts execute foreign warrants as domestic ones. Conditions can be set for prisoner transfers, ensuring compliance with mutual agreements for international cooperation. Source: Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, via India Code.

Clause:
(1) Where a Court in India has reasonable grounds to believe that any property obtained by any person is derived or obtained, directly or indirectly, from the commission of an offence, it may make an order of attachment or forfeiture of such property, as it may deem fit under the provisions of sections 105D to 105J.
(2) Where a Court in India has received an order of attachment or forfeiture of property issued by a Court or other authority in a contracting State in respect of property derived or obtained, directly or indirectly, from the commission of an offence, it may take necessary measures to give effect to such order as if the property is located in India.
(3) The Central Government may, on behalf of the Government of a contracting State, make a request to a Court in India for execution of an order of attachment or forfeiture of property derived or obtained, directly or indirectly, from the commission of an offence.

Explanation: Indian courts can attach or forfeit property believed to be crime proceeds, following Sections 105D–105J. They can also enforce foreign attachment or forfeiture orders as if the property were in India. The Central Government can request execution of foreign orders, facilitating cross-border property recovery. Source: Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, via India Code.

Clause:
(1) The Court shall, under sub-section (1), or on receipt of a letter of request under sub-section (3) of section 105C, direct any police officer not below the rank of Sub-Inspector of Police to take all steps necessary for tracing and identifying such property.
(2) The steps referred to in sub-section (1) may include any inquiry, investigation or survey in respect of any person, place, property, assets, documents, books of account in any bank or public financial institutions or any other relevant matters.
(3) Any inquiry, investigation or survey under sub-section (2) shall be carried out by an officer-in-charge referred to in sub-section (1) in accordance with such directions issued by the said Court in this behalf.

Explanation: Courts can direct police (Sub-Inspector or above) to trace and identify crime-derived property, either independently or upon foreign requests. Steps include inquiries, investigations, or surveys of persons, places, or financial records, conducted per court directions, ensuring thorough identification of illicit assets. Source: Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, via India Code.

Clause:
(1) Where any officer conducting an inquiry or investigation under section 105D has a reason to believe that any property in relation to which such inquiry or investigation is being conducted is derived or obtained, directly or indirectly, from the commission of an offence, he shall make a report to the Court which passed the order under section 105D, enclosing the details of the property and the reasons for such belief and the Court may, after giving an opportunity of being heard to the person concerned, order seizure or attachment of such property.
(2) The Court may appoint an officer not below the rank of Sub-Inspector of Police to seize or attach such property, and such officer shall take all steps necessary to secure such property in accordance with the procedure laid down in section 83.

Explanation: If an officer investigating under Section 105D believes property is crime-derived, they report to the court with details. After hearing the affected person, the court can order seizure or attachment, appointing a police officer to secure the property per Section 83 procedures, ensuring due process. Source: Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, via India Code.

Clause:
(1) The Court may appoint the District Magistrate of the area where the property is situated, or any other officer that may be nominated by the District Magistrate, to perform the functions of an Administrator of such property.
(2) The Administrator appointed under sub-section (1) shall receive and manage the property in relation to which the order has been made under sub-section (1) of section 105E or section 105H in such manner and subject to such conditions as may be specified by the Central Government.
(3) The Administrator shall also take such measures, as the Central Government may direct, to dispose of the property which is forfeited to the Central Government.

Explanation: Courts can appoint a District Magistrate or their nominee as an Administrator to manage seized or forfeited property, following Central Government guidelines. The Administrator also handles disposal of forfeited property per government directions, ensuring proper management of crime proceeds. Source: Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, via India Code.

Clause:
(1) If as a result of the inquiry, investigation or survey under section 105D, the Court has reason to believe that all or any of such properties are proceeds of crime, it may serve a notice upon such person (hereinafter referred to as the person affected) and any other person who may have any interest in such property calling upon them to show cause within thirty days of the service of such notice why all or any of such properties, as the case may be, should not be forfeited to the Central Government.
(2) Any notice under sub-section (1) shall be served in accordance with the provisions of this Code relating to the service of summons.

Explanation: If a court believes property is crime proceeds based on Section 105D inquiries, it issues a notice to the affected person and interested parties to show cause within 30 days why the property shouldn’t be forfeited. Notices follow CrPC summons service rules, ensuring fair opportunity to contest forfeiture. Source: Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, via India Code.

Clause:
(1) The Court may, after considering the explanation, if any, to the show cause notice issued under section 105G and the material available before it and after giving to the person affected (and in a case where the person affected holds any property through any other person, to such other person also) an opportunity of being heard, by order, record a finding whether all or any of the properties referred to in the notice are proceeds of crime:
Provided that if the person affected (and in a case where the person affected holds any property through any other person, such other person also) does not appear before the Court or represent his case before the Court within a period of thirty days specified in the show cause notice, the Court may proceed to record a finding under this sub-section ex parte on the basis of evidence available before it.
(2) Where the Court is satisfied that some of the properties referred to in the show cause notice are proceeds of crime but it is not possible to identify specifically such properties, then, it shall be lawful for the Court to order the forfeiture of so much of the properties as it considers to be commensurate with the proceeds of crime.
(3) Where the Court records a finding under this section to the effect that any property is proceeds of crime, such property shall stand forfeited to the Central Government free from all encumbrances.
(4) Where any shares in a company stand forfeited to the Central Government under this section, then, the company shall, notwithstanding anything contained in the Companies Act, 1956 (1 of 1956) or the articles of association of the company, forthwith register the Central Government as the transferee of such shares.

Explanation: After reviewing responses to a Section 105G notice and hearing affected parties, the court can find whether properties are crime proceeds. If parties don’t respond within 30 days, the court can decide ex parte. If specific proceeds can’t be identified, the court can forfeit equivalent property. Forfeited property vests in the Central Government, and forfeited company shares are registered to the government, overriding company laws, ensuring recovery of illicit assets. Source: Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, via India Code.

Clause:
(1) Where the Court makes a declaration that any property stands forfeited to the Central Government under section 105H and it is a case where the source of only a part of such property has not been proved to the satisfaction of the Court, it shall make an order giving an option to the person affected to pay, in lieu of forfeiture, a fine equal to the market value of such part.
(2) Before making an order imposing a fine under sub-section (1), the Court shall give an opportunity of being heard to the person affected.
(3) Where a fine is imposed under sub-section (1), the person affected shall pay such fine within a period of thirty days from the date of the order and in the event of failure to pay such fine within the specified period, the Court may proceed to forfeit the entire property.

Explanation: If only part of a forfeited property’s source is unproven, the court can allow the affected person to pay a fine equal to that part’s market value instead of forfeiture, after a hearing. The fine must be paid within 30 days, or the entire property is forfeited, offering an alternative to full forfeiture. Source: Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, via India Code.

Clause:
Where after the issue of a notice under section 105G, any property referred to in the said notice is transferred by any mode whatsoever, such transfer shall, for the purposes of the proceedings under this Chapter, be ignored and if such property is subsequently forfeited to the Central Government under section 105H, then, the transfer of such property shall be deemed to be null and void.

Explanation: Property transfers after a Section 105G notice are ignored for Chapter VIIA proceedings, and if the property is forfeited under Section 105H, the transfer is void, preventing evasion of forfeiture through fraudulent transfers. Source: Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, via India Code.

Clause:
Every letter of request, summons or warrant, received by the Central Government from, and every letter of request, summons or warrant, to be transmitted to a contracting State under this Chapter, shall be transmitted to a contracting State or, as the case may be, sent to the Court in India in such form and in such manner as the Central Government may, by notification, specify in this behalf.

Explanation: Letters of request, summons, or warrants sent to or received from a contracting State are transmitted in the form and manner specified by the Central Government, ensuring standardized international communication. Source: Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, via India Code.

Clause:
The Central Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, direct that the application of this Chapter in relation to a contracting State with which reciprocal arrangements have been made under section 105B or section 105C shall be subject to such conditions, exceptions or qualifications as are specified in the said notification.

Explanation: The Central Government can impose conditions, exceptions, or qualifications on Chapter VIIA’s application to contracting States via notification, allowing flexibility in reciprocal arrangements. Source: Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, via India Code.

Clause:
(1) When a Court of Session or Court of a Magistrate of the first class convicts a person of any of the offences specified in sub-section (2) or of abetting any such offence and is of opinion that it is necessary to take security from such person for keeping the peace, the Court may, at the time of passing sentence on such person, order him to execute a bond, with or without sureties, for keeping the peace for such period, not exceeding three years, as it thinks fit.
(2) The offences referred to in sub-section (1) are—

• (a) any offence punishable under Chapter VIII of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860), other than an offence punishable under section 153A, section 153B or section 154 thereof;
  
• (b) any offence which consists of, or includes, assault or using criminal force or committing mischief;
  
• (c) any offence of criminal intimidation;
  
• (d) any other offence which caused, or was intended or known to be likely to cause, a breach of the peace.
  

Explanation: When a Sessions Court or First-Class Magistrate convicts someone for specific offences (e.g., public tranquility offences, assault, criminal intimidation) or abetment, they can order a bond, with or without sureties, to keep the peace for up to three years. The bond becomes void if the conviction is overturned. Appellate or revisional courts can also issue such orders, aiming to prevent further disturbances. Source: Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, via India Code.

Clause:
(1) When an Executive Magistrate receives information that any person is likely to commit a breach of the peace or disturb the public tranquillity or to do any wrongful act that may probably occasion a breach of the peace or disturb the public tranquillity and is of opinion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding, he may, in the manner hereinafter provided, require such person to show cause why he should not be ordered to execute a bond, with or without sureties, for keeping the peace for such period, not exceeding one year, as the Magistrate thinks fit.
(2) Proceedings under this section may be taken before any Executive Magistrate when either the place where the breach of the peace or disturbance is apprehended is within his local jurisdiction or there is within such jurisdiction a person who is likely to commit a breach of the peace or disturb the public tranquillity or to do any wrongful act as aforesaid beyond such jurisdiction.

Explanation: An Executive Magistrate can act on information that a person is likely to breach the peace or disturb public tranquility, requiring them to show cause why they shouldn’t execute a bond (with or without sureties) for up to one year. Proceedings can occur if the breach is expected within the Magistrate’s jurisdiction or involves a person in that area acting elsewhere, preventing potential disturbances. Source: Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, via India Code.

Clause:
(1) When an Executive Magistrate receives information that there is within his local jurisdiction any person who, within or without such jurisdiction,—

• (i) either orally or in writing or in any other manner, intentionally disseminates or attempts to disseminate or abets the dissemination of,—
  
• (a) any matter the publication of which is punishable under section 124A or section 153A or section 153B or section 295A of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860), or
  
• (b) any matter concerning a Judge acting or purporting to act in the discharge of his official duties which amounts to criminal intimidation or defamation under the Indian Penal Code;
  
• (ii) makes, produces, publishes or keeps for sale, imports, exports, conveys, sells, lets to hire, distributes, publicly exhibits or in any other manner puts into circulation any obscene matter such as is referred to in section 292 of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860),
  

Explanation: An Executive Magistrate can require a person disseminating seditious, religiously inflammatory, or obscene matter, or defaming judges, to show cause why they shouldn’t execute a bond for good behavior for up to one year. Proceedings against registered publications require State Government approval, balancing free speech and public order. Source: Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, via India Code.

Clause:
When an Executive Magistrate receives information that there is within his local jurisdiction a person taking precautions to conceal his presence and that there is reason to believe that he is taking such precautions with a view to committing a cognizable offence, the Magistrate may, in the manner hereinafter provided, require such person to show cause why he should not be ordered to execute a bond, with or without sureties, for his good behaviour for such period, not exceeding one year, as the Magistrate thinks fit.

Explanation: If an Executive Magistrate learns a person is concealing their presence in their jurisdiction, likely to commit a cognizable offence, they can require a bond for good behavior for up to one year, preventing potential criminal activity. Source: Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, via India Code.

Clause:
When an Executive Magistrate receives information that there is within his local jurisdiction a person who—

• (a) is by habit a robber, house-breaker, thief, or forger, or
  
• (b) is by habit a receiver of stolen property knowing the same to have been stolen, or
  
• (c) habitually commits, or attempts to commit, or abets the commission of, any offence punishable under Chapter XII, Chapter XVI or Chapter XVII of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860), or
  
• (d) habitually commits, or attempts to commit, or abets the commission of, any offence under any law for the time being in force relating to the unlawful manufacture, possession, sale or supply of any narcotic drug or psychotropic substance, or
  
• (e) is so desperate and dangerous as to render his being at large without security hazardous to the community,
  

Explanation: An Executive Magistrate can require habitual offenders (e.g., robbers, thieves, drug traffickers) or dangerous individuals to show cause why they shouldn’t execute a bond with sureties for good behavior for up to three years, protecting the community from repeat or serious offenders. Source: Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, via India Code.

Clause:
When a Magistrate acting under section 107, section 108, section 109 or section 110, deems it necessary to require any person to show cause under such section, he shall make an order in writing, setting forth the substance of the information received, the amount of the bond to be executed, the term for which it is to be in force, and the number, character and class of sureties (if any) required.

Explanation: When proceeding under Sections 107–110, a Magistrate must issue a written order detailing the information received, bond amount, duration, and surety requirements, ensuring clarity and fairness in the process. Source: Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, via India Code.

Clause:
If the person in respect of whom such order is made is present in Court, it shall be read over to him, or, if he so desires, the substance thereof shall be explained to him.

Explanation: If the person is in court when the order under Sections 107–110 is issued, it must be read to them or its substance explained if they prefer, ensuring they understand the requirements. Source: Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, via India Code.

Clause:
If such person is not present in Court, the Magistrate shall issue a summons requiring him to appear, or, when such person is in custody, a warrant directing the officer in whose custody he is to bring him before the Court:
Provided that whenever it appears to such Magistrate, upon the report of a police officer or upon other information (the substance of which report or information shall be recorded by the Magistrate), that there is reason to fear the commission of a breach of the peace, and that such breach of the peace cannot be prevented otherwise than by the immediate arrest of such person, the Magistrate may at any time issue a warrant for his arrest.

Explanation: If the person is not in court, the Magistrate issues a summons to appear or a warrant if they are in custody. If a police report or information suggests an imminent breach of peace preventable only by arrest, the Magistrate can issue an immediate arrest warrant, with reasons recorded, ensuring prompt action. Source: Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, via India Code.

Clause:
Every summons or warrant issued under section 113 shall be accompanied by a copy of the order made under section 111, and such copy shall be delivered by the officer serving or executing such summons or warrant to the person served with, or arrested under, the same.

Explanation: Summons or warrants issued under Section 113 must include a copy of the Section 111 order, delivered to the person served or arrested, ensuring they are informed of the bond requirements. Source: Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, via India Code.

Clause:
The Magistrate may, if he sees sufficient cause, dispense with the personal attendance of any person called upon to show cause why he should not be ordered to execute a bond for keeping the peace or for good behaviour and may permit him to appear by a pleader.

Explanation: A Magistrate can allow a person required to show cause under Sections 107–110 to appear through a lawyer instead of in person, if there’s sufficient reason, providing flexibility in proceedings. Source: Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, via India Code.

Clause:
(1) When an order under section 111 has been read or explained under section 112 to a person present in Court, or when any person appears or is brought before a Magistrate in compliance with, or in execution of, a summons or warrant, issued under section 113, the Magistrate shall proceed to inquire into the truth of the information upon which action has been taken, and to take such further evidence as may appear necessary.
(2) Such inquiry shall be made, as nearly as may be practicable, in the manner hereinafter prescribed for conducting trial and recording evidence in summons-cases.
(3) After the commencement, and before the completion, of the inquiry under sub-section (1), the Magistrate, if he considers that immediate measures are necessary for the prevention of a breach of the peace or disturbance of the public tranquillity or the commission of any offence or for the public safety, may, for reasons to be recorded in writing, direct the person in respect of whom the order under section 111 has been made to execute a bond, with or without sureties, for keeping the peace or maintaining good behaviour until the conclusion of the inquiry, and may detain him in custody until such bond is executed or, in default of execution, until the inquiry is concluded:
Provided that—

• (a) no person against whom proceedings are not being taken under section 108, section 109, or section 110 shall be directed to execute a bond for maintaining good behaviour;
  
• (b) the conditions of such bond, whether as to the amount thereof or as to the provision of sureties or the number thereof or the pecuniary extent of their liability, shall not be more onerous than those specified in the order under section 111.
  

Explanation: After an order is read or a person appears, the Magistrate inquires into the truth of the information, following summons-case trial procedures. If urgent, they can order an interim bond or detention until the inquiry ends, with conditions not stricter than the original order. Habitual offender status can be proven by reputation. Inquiries must conclude within six months, or proceedings terminate unless extended for recorded reasons, which a Sessions Judge can review, ensuring timely and fair processes. Source: Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, via India Code.

Clause:
If, upon such inquiry, it is proved that it is necessary for keeping the peace or maintaining good behaviour, as the case may be, that the person in respect of whom the inquiry is made should execute a bond, with or without sureties, the Magistrate shall make an order accordingly:
Provided that—

• (a) no person shall be ordered to give security of a nature different from, or of an amount larger than, or for a period longer than, that specified in the order made under section 111;
  
• (b) the amount of every bond shall be fixed with due regard to the circumstances of the case and shall not be excessive;
  
• (c) when the person in respect of whom the inquiry is made is a minor, only the sureties for his good behaviour shall be required, and the provisions of section 118 shall apply in such cases.

Explanation: If the inquiry confirms the need for a bond to keep the peace or ensure good behavior, the Magistrate orders it, adhering to the original order’s terms, with reasonable bond amounts. For minors, only sureties are required, following Section 118, ensuring proportionate measures. Source: Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, via India Code.

Clause:
If, on an inquiry under section 116, it is not proved that it is necessary for keeping the peace or maintaining good behaviour, as the case may be, that the person in respect of whom the inquiry is made, should execute a bond, the Magistrate shall make an entry on the record to that effect, and if such person is in custody only for the purposes of the inquiry, shall release him, or, if such person is not in custody, shall discharge him.

Explanation: If the inquiry finds no need for a bond, the Magistrate records this and releases the person if in custody for the inquiry or discharges them if not, ensuring no unnecessary restrictions. Source: Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, via India Code.

Clause:
(1) If any person, in respect of whom an order requiring security is made under section 106 or section 117, is, at the time such order is made, sentenced to, or undergoing a sentence of, imprisonment, the period for which such security is required shall commence on the expiration of such sentence.
(2) In other cases such period shall commence on the date of such order unless the Magistrate, for sufficient reason, fixes a later date.

Explanation: For a person imprisoned when a security order is made under Section 106 or 117, the bond period starts after their sentence ends. Otherwise, it begins on the order date unless the Magistrate sets a later date for valid reasons, aligning security with release. Source: Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, via India Code.

Clause:
The bond to be executed by any such person shall bind him to keep the peace or to be of good behaviour, as the case may be, and in the latter case the commission or attempt to commit, or the abetment of, any offence punishable with imprisonment, wherever it may be committed, is a breach of the bond.

Explanation: The bond requires the person to keep the peace or behave well. For good behavior bonds, committing, attempting, or abetting any imprisonable offence, anywhere, breaches the bond, setting clear expectations. Source: Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, via India Code.

Clause:
(1) A Magistrate may refuse to accept any surety offered, or may reject any surety previously accepted by him or his predecessor under this Chapter on the ground that such surety is an unfit person for the purposes of the bond:
Provided that, before so refusing to accept or rejecting any such surety, he shall either himself hold an inquiry on oath into the fitness of the surety, or cause such inquiry to be held and a report to be made thereon by a Magistrate subordinate to him.
(2) Such Magistrate shall, before holding the inquiry, give reasonable notice to the surety and to the person by whom the surety was offered and shall, in making the inquiry, record the substance of the evidence adduced before him.
(3) If the Magistrate is satisfied, after considering the evidence so adduced either before him or before a Magistrate deputed under sub-section (1), and the report of such Magistrate (if any), that the surety is an unfit person for the purposes of the bond, he shall make an order refusing to accept or rejecting, as the case may be, such surety and shall record his reasons for so doing:
Provided that, before making an order rejecting any surety who has previously been accepted, the Magistrate shall issue a summons or warrant, as he thinks fit, and cause the person for whom the surety was given to appear or to be brought before him.

Explanation: A Magistrate can reject a surety if deemed unfit, after an inquiry on oath, either personally or via a subordinate, with notice to the surety and proposer. The Magistrate records evidence and reasons for rejection. For previously accepted sureties, the person bonded must be summoned or brought before rejection, ensuring fair evaluation. Source: Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, via India Code.

Clause:
(1) (a) If any person ordered to give security under section 106 or section 117 does not give such security on or before the date on which the period for which such security is to be given commences, he shall, except in the case next hereinafter mentioned, be committed to prison, or, if he is already in prison, be detained in prison until such period expires or until within such period he gives the security to the Court or Magistrate who made the order requiring it.

• (b) If any person after having executed a bond without sureties for keeping the peace in pursuance of an order of a Magistrate under section 117, is proved, to the satisfaction of such Magistrate or his successor in office, to have committed a breach of the bond, such Magistrate or his successor in office may, after recording the grounds of such proof, order that the person be committed to prison until the expiry of the period of the bond and such order shall be without prejudice to any other punishment or proceeding to which the said person may be liable in accordance with law.
  

Explanation: If a person fails to provide security under Section 106 or 117 by the start date, they are imprisoned until the period ends or security is given. Breaching a bond without sureties can lead to imprisonment for the bond’s duration, without affecting other legal consequences. Minors are exempt, with measures per Section 118. Imprisonment can be rigorous or simple, balancing enforcement and fairness. Source: Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, via India Code.

Clause:
(1) Whenever the District Magistrate in the case of an order passed by an Executive Magistrate under section 117, or the Chief Judicial Magistrate in any other case is of opinion that it is not necessary to continue the imprisonment of a person committed to prison in default of giving security, such Magistrate may, for sufficient reasons to be recorded in writing, release such person:
Provided that no person shall be released under this sub-section unless he has been imprisoned for at least one month, except in cases where the period for which security was required has expired.
(2) The State Government may, in any case, for sufficient reasons to be recorded in writing, release any person committed to prison in default of giving security:
Provided that no person shall be released under this sub-section unless he has been imprisoned for at least one month, except in cases where the period for which security was required has expired.
(3) Whenever the Chief Judicial Magistrate is of opinion that any person imprisoned for failing to give security under this Chapter may be released without hazard to the community or to any other person, he may order such person to be discharged.
(4) The State Government may prescribe the conditions upon which a conditional discharge may be made under sub-section (3).
(5) If any condition upon which any person has been discharged under sub-section (3) is, in the opinion of the Chief Judicial Magistrate by whom the order of discharge was made or of his successor, not fulfilled, he may cancel the order of discharge.
(6) The Chief Judicial Magistrate or his successor cancelling an order of discharge under sub-section (5) may issue a summons or warrant, as he thinks fit, for the arrest of the person discharged, and such person when arrested shall be brought before such Magistrate, who may commit him to prison for the unexpired portion of the period for which security was required, unless he gives security in accordance with the terms of the original order for security.
(7) The provisions of sub-sections (3), (5) and (6) shall apply to cases in which an order for discharge or cancellation thereof is made by the Chief Judicial Magistrate in respect of a person imprisoned under an order passed by an Executive Magistrate under section 117 as they apply to cases in which such orders are made by the Chief Judicial Magistrate in respect of persons imprisoned under orders passed by a Court under section 106 or section 117.

Explanation: District or Chief Judicial Magistrates, or the State Government, can release persons imprisoned for failing to give security after at least one month, unless the bond period has expired, with recorded reasons. The Chief Judicial Magistrate can discharge persons if safe, with conditions set by the State Government. Breaching conditions allows cancellation, arrest, and re-imprisonment unless security is given. These rules apply to both Executive and Judicial Magistrate orders, offering pathways for release while ensuring public safety. Source: Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, via India Code.

Clause:
(1) When a person for whose appearance a bond under this Chapter has been executed, is proved to the satisfaction of the Magistrate by whom the bond was taken, or his successor in office, or, when the bond is for appearance before a Court, to the satisfaction of such Court, to have committed a breach of the bond, such Magistrate or Court may call upon such person to execute a fresh bond for the unexpired portion of the period for which security was originally required, with or without sureties, and in default of execution of such bond may commit him to prison for such unexpired portion.
(2) Before making an order under sub-section (1), the Magistrate or Court shall give the person who executed the bond an opportunity of being heard.

Explanation: If a person breaches a bond under Chapter VIII, the Magistrate or Court can require a new bond for the remaining period after a hearing. Failure to provide it leads to imprisonment for that period, ensuring continued compliance. Source: Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, via India Code.

Clause:
(1) If any person having sufficient means neglects or refuses to maintain—

• (a) his wife, unable to maintain herself, or
  
• (b) his legitimate or illegitimate minor child, whether married or not, unable to maintain itself, or
  
• (c) his legitimate or illegitimate child (not being a married daughter) who has attained majority, where such child is, by reason of any physical or mental abnormality or injury unable to maintain itself, or
  
• (d) his father or mother, unable to maintain himself or herself,
  

• (a) “minor” means a person who, under the provisions of the Indian Majority Act, 1875 (9 of 1875), is deemed not to have attained his majority;
  
• (b) “wife” includes a woman who has been divorced by, or has obtained a divorce from, her husband and has not remarried.
  

Explanation: A First-Class Magistrate can order a person with sufficient means to pay up to ₹500 monthly for the maintenance of their wife, minor children (legitimate or illegitimate), adult children with disabilities, or parents, if they neglect or refuse to support them. The order applies to divorced women not remarried and can start from the application date. Non-compliance leads to fine recovery or up to one month’s imprisonment per unpaid month, with a one-year claim limit. A wife’s refusal to live with her husband due to his polygamy or mistress is justified, but maintenance is denied if she lives in adultery, refuses cohabitation without reason, or lives separately by consent. Orders can be canceled for these reasons, ensuring financial support while addressing misuse. Source: Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, via India Code.

Clause:
(1) Proceedings under section 125 may be taken against any person in any district—

• (a) where he is, or
  
• (b) where he or his wife resides, or
  
• (c) where he last resided with his wife, or as the case may be, with the mother of the illegitimate child.
  

Explanation: Maintenance proceedings under Section 125 can be initiated in the district where the person, their wife, or the mother of an illegitimate child resides, or where they last lived together. Evidence is recorded in the person’s or their lawyer’s presence, following summons-case procedures. If the person deliberately avoids court, the Magistrate can decide ex parte, but the order can be set aside within three months for good cause, with possible costs. The court can also order just costs, ensuring accessible and fair proceedings. Source: Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, via India Code.

Clause:
(1) On proof of a change in the circumstances of any person, receiving, under section 125 a monthly allowance, or ordered under the same section to pay a monthly allowance to his wife, child, father or mother, as the case may be, the Magistrate may make such alteration in the allowance as he thinks fit:
Provided that if he increases the allowance, the monthly rate of five hundred rupees in the whole shall not be exceeded.
(2) Where it appears to the Magistrate that, in consequence of any decision of a competent Civil Court, any order made under section 125 should be cancelled or varied, he shall cancel the order or, as the case may be, vary the same accordingly.
(3) Where any order has been made under section 125 in favour of a woman who has been divorced by, or has obtained a divorce from, her husband, the Magistrate shall, if he is satisfied that—

• (a) the woman has, after the date of such divorce, remarried, cancel such order as from the date of her remarriage;
  
• (b) the woman has been divorced by her husband and that she has received, whether before or after the date of the said order, the whole of the sum which, under any customary or personal law applicable to the parties, was payable on such divorce, cancel such order,—
  
• (i) in the case where such sum was paid before such order, from the date on which such order was made;
  
• (ii) in any other case, from the date of expiry of the period, if any, for which maintenance has been actually paid by the husband to the woman;
  
• (c) the woman has obtained a divorce from her husband and that she had voluntarily surrendered her rights to maintenance after her divorce, cancel the order from the date thereof.
  

Explanation: A Magistrate can alter a maintenance allowance under Section 125 due to changed circumstances, keeping the total below ₹500 monthly. Orders must be canceled or varied based on Civil Court decisions. For divorced women, maintenance orders are canceled upon remarriage, receipt of customary divorce payments, or voluntary surrender of maintenance rights, with specific effective dates. Civil Courts consider prior maintenance payments when awarding recovery, ensuring adjustments reflect current realities. Source: Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, via India Code.

Clause:
A copy of the order of maintenance shall be given without payment to the person in whose favour it is made, or to his guardian, if any, or to the person to whom the allowance is to be paid; and such order may be enforced by any Magistrate in any place where the person against whom it is made may be, on such Magistrate being satisfied as to the identity of the parties and the non-payment of the allowance due.

Explanation: A free copy of the maintenance order is given to the beneficiary, their guardian, or the payee. Any Magistrate can enforce the order anywhere the liable person is, after verifying identities and non-payment, ensuring effective enforcement across jurisdictions. Source: Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, via India Code.

Clause:
(1) Any Executive Magistrate or officer in charge of a police station or, in the absence of such officer in charge, any police officer, not below the rank of a sub-inspector, may command any unlawful assembly, or any assembly of five or more persons likely to cause a disturbance of the public peace, to disperse; and it shall thereupon be the duty of the members of such assembly to disperse accordingly.
(2) If, upon being so commanded, any such assembly does not disperse, or if, without being so commanded, the members of such assembly conduct themselves in such a manner as to show a determination not to disperse, any Executive Magistrate or police officer referred to in sub-section (1), may proceed to disperse such assembly by force, and may require the assistance of any male person, not being an officer or member of the armed forces and acting as such, for the purpose of dispersing such assembly, and, if necessary, arresting and confining the persons who form part of it, in order to disperse such assembly or that they may be punished according to law.

Explanation: An Executive Magistrate, police station officer, or sub-inspector (in their absence) can order an unlawful assembly or group of five or more likely to disturb peace to disperse. If the group refuses or shows intent not to disperse, the official can use force, enlist male civilians (not armed forces), and arrest or confine members to disperse the assembly or enable punishment, ensuring public order. Source: Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, via India Code.

Clause:
(1) If any such assembly cannot be otherwise dispersed, and if it is necessary for the public security that it should be dispersed, the Executive Magistrate of the highest rank who is present may cause it to be dispersed by the armed forces.
(2) Such Magistrate may require any officer in command of any group of persons belonging to the armed forces to disperse the assembly with the help of the armed forces under his command, and to arrest and confine such persons forming part of it as the Magistrate may direct, or as it may be necessary to arrest and confine in order to disperse the assembly or to have them punished according to law.
(3) Every such officer of the armed forces shall obey such requisition in such manner as he thinks fit, but in so doing he shall use as little force, and do as little injury to person and property, as may be consistent with dispersing the assembly and arresting and confining such persons.

Explanation: If an assembly cannot be dispersed by civil means and public security requires it, the senior-most Executive Magistrate present can order armed forces to disperse it. The Magistrate can direct the commanding officer to use force, arrest, and confine members as needed for dispersal or punishment. The officer must comply, using minimal force and harm, balancing order with restraint. Source: Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, via India Code.

Clause:
When the public security is manifestly endangered by any such assembly and no Executive Magistrate can be communicated with, any commissioned or gazetted officer of the armed forces may disperse such assembly with the help of the armed forces under his command, and may arrest and confine any persons forming part of it, in order to disperse such assembly or that they may be punished according to law; but if, while he is acting under this section, it becomes practicable for him to communicate with an Executive Magistrate, he shall do so, and shall thenceforward obey the instructions of the Magistrate, as to whether he shall or shall not continue such action.

Explanation: If public security is clearly at risk and no Executive Magistrate is reachable, a commissioned or gazetted armed forces officer can independently disperse an assembly, using force and arresting members as needed. Once communication with a Magistrate becomes possible, the officer must follow their instructions, ensuring emergency action with civilian oversight. Source: Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, via India Code.

Clause:
(1) No prosecution against any person for any act purporting to be done under section 129, section 130 or section 131 shall be instituted in any Criminal Court except—

• (a) with the sanction of the Central Government where such person is an officer or member of the armed forces;
  
• (b) with the sanction of the State Government in any other case.
  

• (b) no person doing any act in good faith in compliance with a requisition under section 129 or section 130;
  
• (c) no officer of the armed forces acting under section 131 in good faith;
  
• (d) no member of the armed forces doing any act in obedience to any order which he was bound to obey;
  

Explanation: Prosecution for actions under Sections 129–131 requires Central Government sanction for armed forces personnel or State Government sanction for others. No offence is committed by Magistrates, police, or civilians acting in good faith under these sections, nor by armed forces officers or subordinates obeying lawful orders, protecting officials and personnel from liability for lawful actions. Source: Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, via India Code.

Clause:
(1) Whenever a District Magistrate or a Sub-divisional Magistrate or any other Executive Magistrate specially empowered in this behalf by the State Government, on receiving the report of a police officer or other information and on taking such evidence (if any) as he thinks fit, considers—

• (a) that any unlawful obstruction or nuisance should be removed from any public place or from any way, river or channel which is or may be lawfully used by the public; or
  
• (b) that the conduct of any trade or occupation, or the keeping of any goods or merchandise, is injurious to the health or physical comfort of the community, and that in consequence such trade or occupation should be prohibited or regulated or such goods or merchandise should be removed or the keeping thereof regulated; or
  
• (c) that any building, tent or structure, or any tree is in such a condition that it is likely to fall and thereby cause injury to persons living or carrying on business in the neighbourhood or passing by, and that in consequence the removal, repair or support of such building, tent or structure, or the removal or support of such tree, is necessary; or
  
• (d) that any tank, well or excavation adjacent to any such way or public place should be fenced in such manner as to prevent danger arising to the public; or
  
• (e) that any dangerous animal should be destroyed, confined or otherwise disposed of,
  

• (i) to remove such obstruction or nuisance; or
  
• (ii) to prohibit or regulate such trade or occupation, or to remove such goods or merchandise, or to regulate the keeping thereof in such manner as may be directed; or
  
• (iii) to remove, repair or support such building, tent or structure, or to remove or support such trees; or
  
• (iv) to fence such tank, well or excavation; or
  
• (v) to destroy, confine or dispose of such dangerous animal in the manner provided in the said order;
  

Explanation: A District, Sub-divisional, or specially empowered Executive Magistrate can issue a conditional order to remove public nuisances (e.g., obstructions, harmful trades, unsafe structures, unfenced water bodies, dangerous animals) based on police reports or information. The responsible person must comply within a set time or show cause why the order shouldn’t be enforced. Such orders are generally final except for jurisdictional challenges in civil courts and can be modified or revoked for good cause, addressing public safety issues efficiently. Source: Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, via India Code.

Clause:
(1) The order shall, if practicable, be served on the person against whom it is made, in the manner herein provided for service of a summons.
(2) If such order cannot be so served, it shall be notified by proclamation, published in such manner as the State Government may, by rules, direct, and a copy thereof shall be stuck up at such place or places as may be fittest for conveying the information to such person.

Explanation: A conditional order under Section 133 is served like a summons if possible. If service fails, it is proclaimed and posted publicly as per State Government rules, ensuring the person is informed of the order. Source: Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, via India Code.

Clause:
The person against whom such order is made shall—

• (a) perform, within the time and in the manner specified in the order, the act directed thereby; or
  
• (b) appear in accordance with such order and show cause against it.

Explanation: The person receiving a Section 133 order must either comply with it within the specified time and manner or appear before the Magistrate to argue why it shouldn’t be enforced, providing a choice between action and contestation. Source: Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, via India Code.

Clause:
If such person does not perform such act or appear and show cause, he shall be liable to the penalty prescribed in that behalf in section 188 of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860), and the order shall be made absolute.

Explanation: Failure to comply with or contest a Section 133 order results in penalties under IPC Section 188 (disobedience to public servant’s order) and makes the order final, enforcing compliance through legal consequences. Source: Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, via India Code.

Clause:
(1) If the person against whom an order under section 133 is made appears and shows cause against the order, the Magistrate shall take evidence in the matter as in a summons-case.
(2) If the Magistrate is satisfied that the order, either as originally made or subject to such modification as he considers necessary, is reasonable and proper, the order shall be made absolute without modification or, as the case may be, with such modification.
(3) If the Magistrate is not so satisfied, no further proceedings shall be taken in the case.

Explanation: If a person contests a Section 133 order, the Magistrate hears evidence as in a summons-case. If the order is deemed reasonable, it is made final, with or without modifications. If not, the case is dropped, ensuring a fair hearing before enforcement. Source: Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, via India Code.

Clause:
(1) Where an order is made under section 133 for the purpose of preventing obstruction, nuisance or danger to the public in the use of any way, river, channel or place, the Magistrate shall, on the appearance before him of the person against whom the order was made, question him as to whether he denies the existence of any public right in respect of the way, river, channel or place, and if he does so, the Magistrate shall, before proceeding under section 137, inquire into the matter.
(2) If in such inquiry the Magistrate finds that there is any reliable evidence in support of such denial, he shall stay the proceedings until the matter of the existence of such right has been decided by a competent Court; and, if he finds that there is no such evidence, he shall proceed as laid down in section 137.
(3) A person who has, on being questioned by the Magistrate under sub-section (1), failed to deny the existence of a public right of the nature therein referred to, or who, having made such denial, has failed to adduce reliable evidence in support thereof, shall not in the subsequent proceedings be permitted to make any such denial.

Explanation: If a Section 133 order addresses public access to a way, river, channel, or place and the person denies a public right, the Magistrate investigates. If reliable evidence supports the denial, proceedings are paused for a competent court to decide. If no evidence exists, the case proceeds under Section 137. Failure to deny or provide evidence bars later denials, ensuring clarity on public rights. Source: Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, via India Code.

Clause:
The Magistrate may, for the purposes of an inquiry under section 137 or section 138—

• (a) direct a local investigation to be made by such person as he thinks fit; or
  
• (b) summon and examine an expert.

Explanation: During inquiries under Sections 137 or 138, the Magistrate can order a local investigation by a designated person or summon and examine an expert, aiding informed decisions on nuisances or public rights. Source: Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, via India Code.

Clause:
(1) Where the Magistrate directs a local investigation by any person under section 139, he may—

• (a) furnish such person with such written instructions as may seem necessary for his guidance;
  
• (b) declare by whom the whole or any part of the necessary expenses of the local investigation shall be paid.
  

Explanation: For local investigations under Section 139, the Magistrate can provide written instructions and specify who pays the costs. The investigator’s report is admissible as evidence. For expert examinations, the Magistrate can assign costs, ensuring clarity and fairness in inquiries. Source: Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, via India Code.

Clause:
(1) When an order has been made absolute under section 136 or section 137, the Magistrate shall give notice of the same to the person against whom the order was made, and shall further require him to perform the act directed by the order within a time to be fixed in the notice, and inform him that, in case of disobedience, he will be liable to the penalty provided by section 188 of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860).
(2) If such act is not performed within the time fixed, the Magistrate may cause it to be performed, and may recover the costs of performing it, either by the sale of any building, goods or other property removed by his order, or by the distress and sale of any other movable property of such person within or without his jurisdiction and if such other property is without his jurisdiction, the order shall authorise its attachment and sale when endorsed by the Magistrate within whose jurisdiction the property to be attached is found.
(3) No suit shall lie in respect of anything done in good faith under this section.

Explanation: Once a Section 133 order is made absolute, the Magistrate notifies the person, sets a compliance deadline, and warns of IPC Section 188 penalties for disobedience. If the person fails to comply, the Magistrate can perform the act, recover costs by selling removed or other movable property (even outside jurisdiction with endorsement), and is protected from lawsuits for good-faith actions, ensuring enforcement and cost recovery. Source: Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, via India Code.

Clause:
If a Magistrate making an order under section 133 considers that immediate measures should be taken to prevent imminent danger or injury of a serious kind to the public, he may issue such an injunction to the person against whom the order was made, as is required to obviate or prevent such danger or injury pending the determination of the matter. In default of such person forthwith obeying such injunction, the Magistrate may himself use, or cause to be used, such means as he thinks fit to obviate such danger or to prevent such injury. No suit shall lie in respect of anything done in good faith by a Magistrate under this section.

Explanation: If a Section 133 order addresses imminent serious public danger, the Magistrate can issue an immediate injunction to prevent it during the inquiry. If disobeyed, the Magistrate can take necessary actions to avert the danger, protected from lawsuits for good-faith actions, prioritizing urgent public safety. Source: Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, via India Code.

Clause:
A District Magistrate or Sub-divisional Magistrate, or any other Executive Magistrate empowered by the State Government or the District Magistrate in this behalf, may order any person not to repeat or continue a public nuisance, as defined in the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860), or any special or local law.

Explanation: Authorized Magistrates can order individuals to stop repeating or continuing a public nuisance, as defined by the IPC or local laws, preventing ongoing harm to the community. Source: Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, via India Code.

Clause:
(1) In cases where, in the opinion of a District Magistrate, a Sub-divisional Magistrate or any other Executive Magistrate specially empowered by the State Government in this behalf, there is sufficient ground for proceeding under this section and immediate prevention or speedy remedy is desirable, such Magistrate may, by a written order stating the material facts of the case and served in the manner provided by section 134, direct any person to abstain from a certain act or to take certain order with respect to certain property in his possession or under his management, if such Magistrate considers that such direction is likely to prevent, or tends to prevent, obstruction, annoyance, danger to human life, health or safety, or a disturbance of the public tranquillity, or a riot, or an affray.
(2) An order under this section may, in cases of emergency or in cases where the circumstances do not admit of the serving of notice in the manner provided by section 134, be passed ex parte.
(3) An order under this section may be directed to a particular individual, or to persons residing in a particular place or area, or to the public generally when frequenting or visiting a particular place or area.
(4) No order under this section shall remain in force for more than two months from the making thereof:
Provided that, if the State Government considers it necessary so to do for preventing danger to human life, health or safety or for preventing a riot or any affray, it may, by notification, direct that an order made by a Magistrate under this section shall remain in force for such further period not exceeding six months from the date on which the order made by the Magistrate would have, but for such order, expired, as it may specify in the said notification.
(5) Any Magistrate may, either on his own motion or on the application of any person aggrieved, rescind or alter an order made under this section by himself or any Magistrate subordinate to him or by his predecessor-in-office.
(6) The State Government may, either on its own motion or on the application of any person aggrieved, rescind or alter an order made by it under the proviso to sub-section (4).
(7) Where an application under sub-section (5) or sub-section (6) is received, the Magistrate, or the State Government, as the case may be, shall afford to the applicant an early opportunity of appearing before him or it, either in person or by pleader, and showing cause against the order; and if the Magistrate or the State Government, as the case may be, rejects the application wholly or in part, he or it shall record in writing the reasons for so doing.

Explanation: In urgent cases, authorized Magistrates can issue orders to prevent nuisance, danger, or public disturbance, specifying facts and served like Section 134 orders. Ex parte orders are allowed in emergencies. Orders can target individuals, local residents, or the public in specific areas, lasting up to two months unless extended by the State Government for up to six more months. Magistrates or the State Government can rescind or alter orders, with applicants given a hearing and reasons recorded for rejections, balancing urgency with fairness. Source: Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, via India Code.

Clause:
(1) Whenever an Executive Magistrate is satisfied from a report of a police officer or upon other information that a dispute likely to cause a breach of the peace exists concerning any land or water or the boundaries thereof, within his local jurisdiction, he shall make an order in writing, stating the grounds of his being so satisfied, and requiring the parties concerned in such dispute to attend his Court in person or by pleader, on a specified date and time, and to put in written statements of their respective claims as respects the fact of actual possession of the subject of dispute.
(2) For the purposes of this section, the expression “land or water” includes buildings, markets, fisheries, crops or other produce of land, and the rents or profits of any such property.
(3) A copy of the order shall be served in the manner provided by this Code for the service of a summons upon such person or persons as the Magistrate may direct, and at least one copy shall be published by being affixed to some conspicuous place at or near the subject of dispute.
(4) The Magistrate shall then, without reference to the merits or the claims of any of the parties to a right to possess the subject of dispute, peruse the statements so put in, hear the parties, receive all such evidence as may be produced by them, take such further evidence, if any, as he thinks necessary, and, if possible, decide whether any and which of the parties was, at the date of the order made by him under sub-section (1), in possession of the subject of dispute:
Provided that if it appears to the Magistrate that any party has been forcibly and wrongfully dispossessed within two months next before the date on which the report of a police officer or other information was received by the Magistrate, or after that date and before the date of his order under sub-section (1), he may treat the party so dispossessed as if that party had been in possession on the date of his order under sub-section (1).
(5) Nothing in this section shall preclude any party so required to attend, or any other person interested, from showing that no such dispute as aforesaid exists or has existed; and in such case the Magistrate shall cancel his said order, and all further proceedings thereon shall be stayed, but, subject to such cancellation, the order of the Magistrate under sub-section (1) shall be final.
(6) (a) If the Magistrate decides that one of the parties was, or should under the proviso to sub-section (4) be treated as being, in such possession of the said subject, he shall issue an order declaring such party to be entitled to possession thereof until evicted therefrom in due course of law, and forbidding all disturbance of such possession until such eviction; and when he proceeds under the proviso to sub-section (4), he may restore to possession the party forcibly and wrongfully dispossessed.

• (b) The order made under this sub-section shall be served and published in the manner laid down in sub-section (3).
  

Explanation: When a dispute over land, water, or boundaries risks a breach of peace, an Executive Magistrate can order parties to submit claims of possession. “Land or water” includes buildings, crops, and profits. The Magistrate determines possession without assessing ownership, considering evidence and restoring possession if a party was wrongfully dispossessed within two months. Orders are served and published, final unless no dispute exists. Possession is protected until legal eviction, and perishable property can be managed. Legal representatives replace deceased parties, and witnesses can be summoned. Section 107 powers remain unaffected, preventing violence over property disputes. Source: Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, via India Code.

Clause:
(1) If the Magistrate at any time after making the order under sub-section (1) of section 145 considers that no party was then in such possession as is referred to in section 145, or that none of the parties to the proceeding was then in such possession, or if he is unable to decide which of them was then in such possession of the subject of dispute, he may attach the subject of dispute until a competent Court has determined the rights of the parties thereto with regard to the person entitled to the possession thereof:
Provided that such Magistrate may withdraw the attachment at any time if he is satisfied that there is no longer any likelihood of breach of the peace with regard to the subject of dispute.
(2) When the Magistrate attaches the subject of dispute, he may, if no receiver in relation to such subject of dispute has been appointed by any Civil Court, appoint a receiver thereof, or, if the subject of dispute is movable property, he may make such other order as he thinks fit for the custody thereof, until the attachment is withdrawn or a competent Court has determined the rights of the parties thereto with regard to the person entitled to the possession thereof.
(3) The Magistrate may make any order under this section in respect of the subject of dispute which might have been made under section 145, and may direct that any crop or other produce of the property, the subject of dispute, be dealt with in such manner as he thinks fit.
(4) When the Magistrate appoints a receiver under this section, he shall do so in accordance with the provisions of the Code relating to the appointment of receivers.

Explanation: If a Magistrate cannot determine possession under Section 145 or finds no party was in possession, they can attach the disputed property until a court decides ownership. The attachment can be lifted if the peace risk subsides. A receiver can be appointed for immovable property (if no civil court receiver exists) or custody arranged for movable property. The Magistrate can issue orders as per Section 145 and manage perishable produce, following receiver appointment rules, stabilizing disputes pending legal resolution. Source: Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, via India Code.

Clause:
(1) Whenever an Executive Magistrate is satisfied from a report of a police officer or upon other information, that a dispute likely to cause a breach of the peace exists regarding any alleged right of user of any land or water within his local jurisdiction, whether such right be claimed as an easement or otherwise, he may make an order in writing, stating the grounds of his being so satisfied and requiring the parties concerned in such dispute to attend his Court in person or by pleader, within a time to be fixed by such Magistrate, and to put in written statements of their respective claims.
Explanation.—For the purposes of this section, the expression “land or water” has the meaning given to it in sub-section (2) of section 145.
(2) The Magistrate shall then peruse the statements so put in, hear the parties, receive all such evidence as may be produced by them respectively, take such further evidence as he thinks necessary and, if possible, decide whether such right exists; and the provisions of section 145 shall, so far as may be, apply to the inquiry under this section.
(3) If it appears to such Magistrate that such rights exist, he may make an order prohibiting any interference with the exercise of such right, including, in a proper case, an order for the removal of any obstruction, whether existing at the time when the proceedings were instituted or raised during the pendency of the proceedings.
(4) If such Magistrate decides that none of the parties has any such right, or that the right, if any, is not capable of being exercised without causing a breach of the peace, he may make an order prohibiting any exercise of the alleged right.
(5) An order under this section shall, unless it is an order for the removal of an obstruction, be subject to any decree or order of a competent Civil Court, and shall not preclude any party from establishing his claim to any such right in a Civil Court.

Explanation: For disputes over rights to use land or water (e.g., easements) risking a breach of peace, an Executive Magistrate can order parties to submit claims. The inquiry follows Section 145 procedures, determining if the right exists. If it does, the Magistrate prohibits interference, possibly ordering obstruction removal. If no right exists or its exercise risks peace, the right’s use is prohibited. Orders (except obstruction removal) are subject to civil court rulings, allowing parties to pursue civil claims, maintaining peace while respecting legal rights. Source: Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, via India Code.

Clause:
(1) Whenever a local inquiry is necessary for the purposes of section 145, section 146 or section 147, a District Magistrate or Sub-divisional Magistrate may depute any Magistrate subordinate to him to make the inquiry, and may furnish him with such written instructions as may seem necessary for his guidance, and may declare by whom the whole or any part of the necessary expenses of the inquiry shall be paid.
(2) The report of the person so deputed may be read as evidence in the case.
(3) When any costs have been incurred by any party to a proceeding under section 145, section 146 or section 147, the Magistrate passing a decision may direct by whom such costs shall be paid, whether by such party or by any other party to the proceeding, and whether in whole or in part or proportion and such costs may include any expenses incurred in respect of witnesses and of pleaders’ fees, which the Magistrate may consider reasonable.

Explanation: For inquiries under Sections 145–147, a District or Sub-divisional Magistrate can assign a subordinate Magistrate, providing instructions and specifying cost bearers. The subordinate’s report is admissible as evidence. The deciding Magistrate can allocate costs, including witness and lawyer fees, among parties, ensuring efficient and fair inquiries. Source: Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, via India Code.

Clause:
Every police officer may interpose for the purpose of preventing, and shall, to the best of his ability, prevent, the commission of any cognizable offence.

Explanation: Police officers are authorized and obligated to take action to prevent cognizable offences (crimes where they can arrest without a warrant) using their best efforts, ensuring proactive measures to maintain public safety. Source: Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, via India Code.

Clause:
Every police officer receiving information of a design to commit any cognizable offence shall communicate such information to the police officer to whom he is subordinate, and to any other officer whose duty it is to prevent or take cognizance of the commission of any such offence.

Explanation: When a police officer learns of a plan to commit a cognizable offence, they must report it to their superior and other relevant officers responsible for prevention or investigation, ensuring coordinated action to thwart the crime. Source: Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, via India Code.

Clause:
(1) A police officer knowing of a design to commit any cognizable offence may arrest, without orders from a Magistrate and without a warrant, the person so designing, if it appears to such officer that the commission of the offence cannot be otherwise prevented.
(2) No person arrested under sub-section (1) shall be detained in custody for a period exceeding twenty-four hours from the time of his arrest unless his further detention is required or authorised under any other provisions of this Code or of any other law for the time being in force.

Explanation: If a police officer knows of a plan to commit a cognizable offence and believes arrest is the only way to prevent it, they can arrest the person without a warrant or Magistrate’s order. The arrested person cannot be detained beyond 24 hours unless further detention is legally authorized, balancing prevention with individual rights. Source: Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, via India Code.

Clause:
A police officer may of his own authority interpose to prevent any injury attempted to be committed in his view to any public property, movable or immovable, or the removal or injury of any public landmark or buoy or other mark used for navigation.

Explanation: A police officer can independently act to stop any attempt, witnessed by them, to damage or remove public property (movable or immovable) or navigational markers, protecting public assets without needing prior authorization. Source: Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, via India Code.

Clause:
(1) Any officer in charge of a police station may, without a warrant, enter any place within the limits of such station for the purpose of inspecting or searching for any weights or measures or instruments for weighing, used or kept therein, whenever he has reason to believe that there are in such place any weights, measures or instruments for weighing which are false.
(2) If he finds in such place any weights, measures or instruments for weighing which are false, he may seize the same, and shall forthwith give information of such seizure to a Magistrate having jurisdiction.

Explanation: A police station officer can enter and inspect any place within their jurisdiction, without a warrant, to check weights, measures, or weighing instruments if they suspect falsity. If false instruments are found, they can seize them and must immediately inform a Magistrate, ensuring fair trade practices and consumer protection. Source: Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, via India Code.

Clause:
(1) Every information relating to the commission of a cognizable offence, if given orally to an officer in charge of a police station, shall be reduced to writing by him or under his direction, and be read over to the informant; and every such information, whether given in writing or reduced to writing as aforesaid, shall be signed by the person giving it, and the substance thereof shall be entered in a book to be kept by such officer in such form as the State Government may prescribe in this behalf.
(2) A copy of the information as recorded under sub-section (1) shall be given forthwith, free of cost, to the informant.
(3) Any person aggrieved by a refusal on the part of an officer in charge of a police station to record the information referred to in sub-section (1) may send the substance of such information, in writing and by post, to the Superintendent of Police concerned who, if satisfied that such information discloses the commission of a cognizable offence, shall either investigate the case himself or direct an investigation to be made by any police officer subordinate to him, in the manner provided by this Code, and such officer shall have all the powers of an officer in charge of the police station in relation to that offence.

Explanation: Information about a cognizable offence (where police can arrest without a warrant) must be written down by the police station officer, read to the informant, signed, and recorded in a prescribed book. A free copy is given to the informant. If the officer refuses to record it, the informant can send the details to the Superintendent of Police, who can investigate or assign it, ensuring complaints are documented and addressed. Source: Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, via India Code.

Clause:
(1) When information is given to an officer in charge of a police station of the commission within the limits of such station of a non-cognizable offence, he shall enter or cause to be entered the substance of the information in a book to be kept by such officer in such form as the State Government may prescribe in this behalf, and refer the informant to the Magistrate.
(2) No police officer shall investigate a non-cognizable case without the order of a Magistrate having power to try such case or commit the case for trial.
(3) Any police officer receiving such order may exercise the same powers in respect of the investigation (except the power to arrest without warrant) as an officer in charge of a police station may exercise in a cognizable case.
(4) Where a case relates to two or more offences of which at least one is cognizable, the case shall be deemed to be a cognizable case, notwithstanding that the other offences are non-cognizable.

Explanation: For non-cognizable offences (where police cannot arrest without a warrant), the police station officer records the information and refers the informant to a Magistrate. Investigation requires a Magistrate’s order, and the officer then has investigative powers similar to cognizable cases, except for warrantless arrests. If a case involves both cognizable and non-cognizable offences, it is treated as cognizable, streamlining mixed-offence investigations. Source: Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, via India Code.

Clause:
(1) Any officer in charge of a police station may, without the order of a Magistrate, investigate any cognizable case which a Court having jurisdiction over the local area within the limits of such station would have power to inquire into or try under the provisions of Chapter XIII.
(2) No proceeding of a police officer in any such case shall be called in question on the ground that the case was one which such officer was not empowered under this section to investigate.
(3) Any Magistrate empowered under section 190 may order such an investigation as above-mentioned.

Explanation: A police station officer can investigate cognizable cases within their jurisdiction without a Magistrate’s order, and such actions cannot be challenged for lack of authority. A Magistrate under Section 190 can also order such investigations, enabling prompt police action while allowing judicial oversight. Source: Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, via India Code.

Clause:
(1) If, from information received or otherwise, an officer in charge of a police station has reason to suspect the commission of an offence which he is empowered under section 156 to investigate, he shall forthwith send a report of the same to a Magistrate empowered to take cognizance of such offence upon a police report and shall proceed in person, or shall depute one of his subordinate officers not being below such rank as the State Government may, by general or special order, prescribe in this behalf, to proceed, to the spot, to investigate the facts and circumstances of the case, and, if necessary, to take measures for the discovery and arrest of the offender:
Provided that—

• (a) when information as to the commission of any such offence is given against any person by name and the case is not of a serious nature, the officer in charge of a police station need not proceed in person or depute a subordinate officer to make an investigation on the spot;
  
• (b) if it appears to the officer in charge of a police station that there is no sufficient ground for entering on an investigation, he shall not investigate the case.
  

Explanation: Upon suspecting a cognizable offence, a police station officer must report to a Magistrate and investigate personally or through a designated subordinate, visiting the scene and taking necessary actions. Exceptions include non-serious named-person cases (no on-spot investigation needed) or cases lacking sufficient grounds (no investigation). Reasons for not investigating must be recorded, and informants notified if investigation is declined, ensuring transparency and accountability. Source: Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, via India Code.

Clause:
(1) Every report sent to a Magistrate under section 157 shall, if the State Government so directs, be submitted through such superior officer of police as the State Government, by general or special order, appoints in this behalf.
(2) Such superior officer may give such instructions to the officer in charge of the police station as he thinks fit, and shall, after recording such instructions on such report, transmit the same without delay to the Magistrate.

Explanation: Reports under Section 157 must be sent to a Magistrate through a superior police officer if directed by the State Government. The superior officer can add instructions, record them, and forward the report promptly, ensuring oversight and guidance in investigations. Source: Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, via India Code.

Clause:
Such Magistrate, on receiving such report, may direct an investigation, or, if he thinks fit, at once proceed, or depute any Magistrate subordinate to him to proceed, to hold a preliminary inquiry into, or otherwise to dispose of, the case in the manner provided in this Code.

Explanation: Upon receiving a Section 157 report, a Magistrate can order an investigation, conduct a preliminary inquiry themselves, or assign a subordinate Magistrate to do so, allowing flexible judicial oversight to determine the case’s next steps. Source: Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, via India Code.

Clause:
(1) Any police officer making an investigation under this Chapter may, by order in writing, require the attendance before himself of any person being within the limits of his own or any adjoining station who, from the information given or otherwise, appears to be acquainted with the facts and circumstances of the case; and such person shall attend as so required:
Provided that no male person under the age of fifteen years or woman shall be required to attend at any place other than the place in which such male person or woman resides.
(2) The State Government may, by rules made in this behalf, provide for the payment by the police officer of the reasonable expenses of every person, attending under sub-section (1) at any place other than his residence.

Explanation: During an investigation, a police officer can summon anyone within their or an adjoining station’s jurisdiction who seems knowledgeable about the case. Attendance is mandatory, but boys under 15 and women are only summoned to their residence. The State Government may provide for expense reimbursement for others, balancing investigative needs with fairness. Source: Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, via India Code.

Clause:
(1) Any police officer making an investigation under this Chapter, or any police officer not below such rank as the State Government may, by general or special order, prescribe in this behalf, acting on the requisition of such officer, may examine orally any person supposed to be acquainted with the facts and circumstances of the case.
(2) Such person shall be bound to answer truly all questions relating to such case put to him by such officer, other than questions the answers to which would have a tendency to expose him to a criminal charge or to a penalty or forfeiture.
(3) The police officer may reduce into writing any statement made to him in the course of an examination under this section; and if he does so, he shall make a separate and true record of the statement of each such person whose statement he records.

Explanation: A police officer (or designated rank) can orally question anyone knowledgeable about a case. The person must answer truthfully, except for self-incriminating questions. Statements can be recorded in writing, with separate, accurate records for each person, facilitating evidence collection while protecting against self-incrimination. Source: Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, via India Code.

Clause:
(1) No statement made by any person to a police officer in the course of an investigation under this Chapter, shall, if reduced to writing, be signed by the person making it; nor shall any such statement or any record thereof, whether in a police diary or otherwise, or any part of such statement or record, be used as evidence against the person making it at any inquiry or trial in respect of any offence under investigation at the time when such statement was made:
Provided that when any witness is called for the prosecution in such inquiry or trial whose statement has been reduced into writing as aforesaid, any part of his statement, if duly proved, may be used by the accused, and with the permission of the Court, by the prosecution, to contradict such witness in the manner provided by section 145 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (1 of 1872); and when any part of such statement is so used, any part thereof may also be used in the re-examination of such witness, but for the purpose only of explaining any matter referred to in his cross-examination.
(2) Nothing in this section shall be deemed to apply to any statement falling within the provisions of clause (1) of section 32 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (1 of 1872), or to affect the provisions of section 27 of that Act.

Explanation: Statements made to police during investigation cannot be signed or used as evidence against the maker in court, except to contradict a prosecution witness (by the accused or, with court permission, the prosecution) per the Indian Evidence Act. Contradictory parts can be used in re-examination to clarify cross-examination points. This doesn’t apply to dying declarations (Section 32, Evidence Act) or information leading to discoveries (Section 27, Evidence Act), protecting against coerced statements while allowing limited use. Source: Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, via India Code.

Clause:
(1) No police officer or other person in authority shall offer or make, or cause to be offered or made, any such inducement, threat or promise as is mentioned in section 24 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (1 of 1872).
(2) But no police officer or other person shall prevent, by any caution or otherwise, any person from making in the course of any investigation under this Chapter any statement which he may be disposed to make of his own free will.

Explanation: Police or authorities cannot use inducements, threats, or promises (per Section 24, Evidence Act) to extract statements. However, they must not prevent anyone from voluntarily making statements during an investigation, ensuring statements are free from coercion but allowing willing disclosures. Source: Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, via India Code.

Clause:
(1) Any Metropolitan Magistrate or Judicial Magistrate may, whether or not he has jurisdiction in the case, record any confession or statement made to him in the course of an investigation under this Chapter or under any other law for the time being in force, or at any time afterwards before the commencement of the inquiry or trial:
Provided that no confession shall be recorded by a police officer on whom any power of a Magistrate has been conferred under any law for the time being in force.
(2) The Magistrate shall, before recording any such confession, explain to the person making it that he is not bound to make a confession and that, if he does so, it may be used as evidence against him; and the Magistrate shall not record any such confession unless, upon questioning the person making it, he has reason to believe that it is being made voluntarily.
(3) If at any time before the confession is recorded, the person appearing before the Magistrate states that he is not willing to make the confession, the Magistrate shall not authorise the detention of such person in police custody.
(4) Any such confession shall be recorded in the manner provided in section 281 for recording the examination of an accused person and shall be signed by the person making it; and the Magistrate shall make a memorandum at the foot of such record to the following effect:—
“I have explained to (name) that he is not bound to make a confession and that, if he does so, any confession he may make may be used as evidence against him and I believe that this confession was voluntarily made. It was taken in my presence and hearing, and was read over to the person making it and admitted by him to be correct, and it contains a full and true account of the statement made by him.
(Signed) A.B.
Magistrate”.
(5) Any statement (other than a confession) made under sub-section (1) shall be recorded in such manner hereinafter provided for the recording of evidence as is, in the opinion of the Magistrate, best fitted to the circumstances of the case; and the Magistrate shall have power to administer oath to the person whose statement is so recorded.
(6) The Magistrate recording a confession or statement under this section shall forward it to the Magistrate by whom the case is to be inquired into or tried.

Explanation: A Metropolitan or Judicial Magistrate can record confessions or statements during or after an investigation, ensuring voluntariness by warning the person of their rights and confirming willingness. Confessions are recorded per Section 281, signed, and accompanied by a Magistrate’s memorandum verifying voluntariness. Non-confession statements are recorded suitably, possibly under oath. Police with magisterial powers cannot record confessions. Records are sent to the trial Magistrate, ensuring admissible, voluntary evidence. Source: Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, via India Code.

Clause:
(1) Whenever an officer in charge of a police station or a police officer making an investigation has reasonable grounds for believing that anything necessary for the purposes of an investigation into any offence which he is authorised to investigate may be found in any place within the limits of the police station of which he is in charge, or to which he is attached, and that such thing cannot in his opinion be otherwise obtained without undue delay, such officer may, after recording in writing the grounds of his belief and specifying in such writing, so far as possible, the thing for which search is to be made, search, or cause search to be made, for such thing in any place within the limits of such station.
(2) A police officer proceeding under sub-section (1), shall, if practicable, conduct the search in person.
(3) If he is unable to conduct the search in person, and there is no other person competent to make the search present at the time, he may, after recording in writing his reasons for so doing, require any officer subordinate to him to make the search, and he shall deliver to such subordinate officer an order in writing, specifying the place to be searched, and, so far as possible, the thing for which search is to be made; and such subordinate officer may thereupon search for such thing in such place.
(4) The provisions of this Code as to search-warrants and the general provisions as to searches contained in section 100 shall, so far as may be, apply to a search made under this section.
(5) Copies of any record made under sub-section (1) or sub-section (3) shall forthwith be sent to the nearest Magistrate empowered to take cognizance of the offence, and the owner or occupier of the place searched shall, on application, be furnished, free of cost, with a copy of the same by the Magistrate.

Explanation: A police officer can search a place within their station’s jurisdiction without a warrant if they believe evidence critical to an investigation is there and delay would prevent obtaining it. They must record reasons and specifics, conduct the search personally if possible, or delegate with written orders. Search procedures follow Section 100, and records are sent to a Magistrate, with free copies provided to the property owner upon request, ensuring lawful and transparent searches. Source: Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, via India Code.

Clause:
(1) An officer in charge of a police station or a police officer not being below the rank of sub-inspector making an investigation may require an officer in charge of another police station, whether in the same or a different district, to cause a search to be made in any place, in any case in which the former officer might cause such search to be made, within the limits of his own station.
(2) Such officer, on being so required, shall proceed according to the provisions of section 165, and shall forward the thing found, if any, to the officer at whose request the search was made.
(3) Whenever there is reason to believe that the delay occasioned by requiring an officer in charge of another police station to cause a search to be made under sub-section (1) might result in the evidence of a crime being concealed or destroyed, the officer making an investigation may cause a search to be made at once in the place situate within the limits of such other police station and the provisions of section 165 shall, as far as may be, apply to such search.
(4) Any officer conducting a search under sub-section (3) shall forthwith send a copy of any record made by him in the course of such search to the officer in charge of the police station within the limits of which the place searched is situate and to the nearest Magistrate empowered to take cognizance of the offence, and the owner or occupier of the place searched shall, on application, be furnished, free of cost, with a copy of the same by the Magistrate.

Explanation: An investigating officer can request another police station’s officer to conduct a search in their jurisdiction, following Section 165 procedures, with findings sent to the requester. If delay risks evidence loss, the officer can search immediately, adhering to Section 165, and send records to the local station and Magistrate, with free copies for the property owner, facilitating cross-jurisdictional searches. Source: Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, via India Code.

Clause:
(1) In a criminal case under investigation in India, if it appears to the investigating officer that the examination of a person residing in a country or place outside India or the production of any document or thing in such country or place is necessary or desirable for the purposes of such investigation, such officer may, with the previous permission of the Central Government, forward a letter of request to the competent authority or court in that country or place through the authority, if any, specified in this behalf by the Central Government, requesting such authority or court to cause such person to be examined or to cause such document or thing to be produced.
(2) The letter of request shall be forwarded in such manner and shall be in such form as may be prescribed by the Central Government.
(3) Any evidence taken pursuant to a letter of request under this section shall, subject to such conditions as may be prescribed by the Central Government, be admissible in the criminal case under investigation in India, provided that such evidence is taken in accordance with the law of the country or place concerned and such law is not inconsistent with the law for the time being in force in India.

Explanation: For investigations requiring examination of a person or production of documents/things abroad, the investigating officer, with Central Government permission, can send a letter of request to the foreign authority or court via a designated channel. The request follows a prescribed form, and resulting evidence is admissible in India if it complies with both foreign and Indian laws, enabling international cooperation. Source: Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, via India Code.

Clause:
(1) Upon receipt of a letter of request from a court or an authority in a country or place outside India competent under the law of that country or place to issue such letter, addressed to a court or an authority in India specified in this behalf by the Central Government, requesting the examination of any person residing in India or the production of any document or thing in India, the Central Government may, if it thinks fit, forward such letter to the court or authority so specified.
(2) The court or authority to which such letter is forwarded shall cause the person to be examined or the document or thing to be produced in accordance with the law for the time being in force in India and shall forward the evidence so taken or the document or thing so produced to the court or authority from which the letter of request was received, through such authority, if any, as may be specified in this behalf by the Central Government.

Explanation: When a foreign court or authority sends a letter of request for examining a person or obtaining documents/things in India, the Central Government may forward it to a designated Indian court or authority. The Indian entity complies using Indian law and sends the evidence or items back through specified channels, facilitating reciprocal international assistance. Source: Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, via India Code.

Clause:
(1) Whenever any person is arrested and detained in custody, and it appears that the investigation cannot be completed within the period of twenty-four hours fixed by section 57, and there are grounds for believing that the accusation or information is well-founded, the officer in charge of the police station or the police officer making the investigation, if he is not below the rank of sub-inspector, shall forthwith transmit to the nearest Judicial Magistrate a copy of the entries in the diary hereinafter prescribed relating to the case, and shall at the same time forward the accused to such Magistrate.
(2) The Magistrate to whom an accused person is forwarded under this section may, whether he has or has not jurisdiction to try the case, from time to time, authorise the detention of the accused in such custody as such Magistrate thinks fit, for a term not exceeding fifteen days in the whole; and if he has no jurisdiction to try the case or commit it for trial, and considers further detention unnecessary, he may order the accused to be forwarded to a Magistrate having such jurisdiction:
Provided that—

• (a) the Magistrate may authorise the detention of the accused person, otherwise than in the custody of the police, beyond the period of fifteen days, if he is satisfied that adequate grounds exist for doing so, but no Magistrate shall authorise the detention of the accused person in custody under this paragraph for a total period exceeding,—
  
• (i) ninety days, where the investigation relates to an offence punishable with death, imprisonment for life or imprisonment for a term of not less than ten years;
  
• (ii) sixty days, where the investigation relates to any other offence,
  
• and, on the expiry of the said period of ninety days, or sixty days, as the case may be, the accused person shall be released on bail if he is prepared to and does furnish bail, and every person released on bail under this sub-section shall be deemed to be so released under the provisions of Chapter XXXIII for the purposes of that Chapter;
  
• (b) no Magistrate shall authorise detention in any custody under this section unless the accused is produced before him;
  
• (c) no Magistrate of the second class, not specially empowered in this behalf by the High Court, shall authorise detention in the custody of the police.
  

Explanation: If an investigation cannot be completed within 24 hours, the police officer sends case diary entries to a Judicial Magistrate and presents the accused. The Magistrate can authorize detention up to 15 days, or longer (up to 90 days for serious offences, 60 for others) if not in police custody, with bail mandatory after these periods. Detention requires the accused’s presence, and only specially empowered Magistrates can authorize police custody. Reasons are recorded, and orders are sent to the Chief Judicial Magistrate. For summons-cases, investigations must conclude within six months, or stop unless justified, with Sessions Judges able to order resumption, balancing timely investigations with detention rights. Source: Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, via India Code.

Clause:
When any subordinate police officer has made any investigation under this Chapter, he shall report the result of such investigation to the officer in charge of the police station.

Explanation: A subordinate police officer conducting an investigation must submit their findings to the police station’s officer-in-charge, ensuring centralized reporting and coordination within the police hierarchy. Source: Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, via India Code.

Clause:
If, upon an investigation under this Chapter, it appears to the officer in charge of the police station that there is not sufficient evidence or reasonable ground of suspicion to justify the forwarding of the accused to a Magistrate, such officer shall, if such person is in custody, release him on his executing a bond, with or without sureties, as such officer may direct, to appear, if and when so required, before a Magistrate empowered to take cognizance of the offence on a police report, and to try the accused or commit him for trial.

Explanation: If an investigation shows insufficient evidence or suspicion to send an accused to a Magistrate, the police station officer releases them on a bond (with or without sureties) to appear before a Magistrate if needed, preventing unnecessary detention. Source: Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, via India Code.

Clause:
(1) If, upon an investigation under this Chapter, it appears to the officer in charge of the police station that there is sufficient evidence or reasonable ground as aforesaid, such officer shall forward the accused under custody to a Magistrate empowered to take cognizance of the offence upon a police report and to try the accused or commit him for trial, or, if the offence is bailable and the accused is able to give security, shall take security from him for his appearance before such Magistrate on a day fixed and for his attendance from day to day before such Magistrate until otherwise directed.
(2) When the officer in charge of a police station forwards an accused person to a Magistrate or takes security for his appearance before such Magistrate under this section, he shall send to such Magistrate any weapon or other article which it may be necessary to produce before him, and shall require the complainant (if any) and so many of the persons who appear to such officer to be acquainted with the facts and circumstances of the case as he may think necessary, to execute a bond to appear before the Magistrate as thereby directed.
(3) The officer in whose presence the bond is executed shall send to the Magistrate the bond so executed.
(4) If any complainant or witness refuses to execute a bond as directed in sub-section (2), the officer in charge of the police station may forward him in custody to the Magistrate, who may detain him in custody until he executes such bond, or until the hearing of the case is completed.

Explanation: If an investigation finds sufficient evidence, the police station officer sends the accused to a Magistrate for trial or committal, or takes bail security for bailable offences. They send relevant articles, require the complainant and witnesses to bond for appearance, and forward bonds to the Magistrate. Refusing witnesses or complainants can be detained until they comply or the case concludes, ensuring court proceedings are supported. Source: Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, via India Code.

Clause:
No complainant or witness on his way to any Court shall be required to accompany a police officer, or shall be subjected to unnecessary restraint or inconvenience, or required to give any security for his appearance other than his own bond:
Provided that, if any complainant or witness refuses to attend or to execute a bond as directed in section 170, the officer in charge of the police station may forward him in custody to the Magistrate, who may detain him in custody until he executes such bond, or until the hearing of the case is completed.

Explanation: Complainants and witnesses going to court cannot be forced to accompany police, restrained unnecessarily, or required to provide security beyond their own bond. However, if they refuse to attend or bond as per Section 170, they can be sent to a Magistrate, who may detain them until compliance or case completion, balancing cooperation with freedom. Source: Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, via India Code.

Clause:
(1) Every police officer making an investigation under this Chapter shall day by day enter his proceedings in the investigation in a diary, setting forth the time at which the information reached him, the time at which he began and closed his investigation, the place or places visited by him, and a statement of the circumstances ascertained through his investigation.
(2) Any Criminal Court may send for the police diaries of a case under inquiry or trial in such Court, and may use such diaries, not as evidence in the case, but to aid it in such inquiry or trial.
(3) Neither the accused nor his agents shall be entitled to call for such diaries, nor shall he or they be entitled to see them merely because they are referred to by the Court; but, if they are used by the police officer who made them to refresh his memory, or if the Court uses them for the purpose of contradicting such police officer, the provisions of section 161 or section 145, as the case may be, of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (1 of 1872), shall apply.

Explanation: Investigating officers must maintain a daily diary detailing investigation times, places, and findings. Courts can access these diaries to aid inquiries or trials, but not as evidence. The accused cannot demand diaries unless used by the officer to refresh memory or by the court to contradict the officer, per the Evidence Act, ensuring transparency while limiting misuse. Source: Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, via India Code.

Clause:
(1) Every investigation under this Chapter shall be completed without unnecessary delay.
(2) (i) As soon as it is completed, the officer in charge of the police station shall forward to a Magistrate empowered to take cognizance of the offence on a police report, a report in the form prescribed by the State Government, stating—

• (a) the names of the parties;
  
• (b) the nature of the information;
  
• (c) the names of the persons who appear to be acquainted with the circumstances of the case;
  
• (d) whether any offence appears to have been committed and, if so, by whom;
  
• (e) whether the accused has been arrested;
  
• (f) whether he has been released on his bond and, if so, whether with or without sureties;
  
• (g) whether he has been forwarded in custody under section 170.
  

• (a) all documents or relevant extracts thereof on which the prosecution proposes to rely other than those already sent to the Magistrate during investigation;
  
• (b) the statements recorded under section 161 of all the persons whom the prosecution proposes to examine as its witnesses.
  

Explanation: Investigations must conclude promptly, with a detailed report sent to a Magistrate, including case details, arrests, and bonds. The informant is notified of actions taken. Reports may go through a superior officer, who can order further investigation. Magistrates handle bond discharges, and for Section 170 cases, police send prosecution documents and witness statements, with options to exclude irrelevant parts. Accused may receive document copies, and further investigations are allowed, with additional reports following the same rules, ensuring thorough and fair case progression. Source: Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, via India Code.

Clause:
(1) When the officer in charge of a police station or some other police officer specially empowered by the State Government in that behalf receives information that a person has committed suicide, or has been killed by another or by an animal or by machinery or by an accident, or has died under circumstances raising a reasonable suspicion that some other person has committed an offence, he shall immediately give intimation thereof to the nearest Executive Magistrate empowered to hold inquests, and, unless otherwise directed by any rule prescribed by the State Government, or by any general or special order of the District or Sub-divisional Magistrate, shall proceed to the place where the body of such deceased person is, and there, in the presence of two or more respectable inhabitants of the neighbourhood, shall make an investigation, and draw up a report of the apparent cause of death, describing such wounds, fractures, bruises, and other marks of injury as may be found on the body, and stating in what manner, or by what weapon or instrument (if any), such marks appear to have been inflicted.
(2) The report shall be signed by such police officer and other persons, or by so many of them as concur therein, and shall be forthwith forwarded to the District Magistrate or the Sub-divisional Magistrate.
(3) When—

• (i) the case involves suicide by a woman within seven years of her marriage; or
  
• (ii) the case relates to the death of a woman within seven years of her marriage in any circumstances raising a reasonable suspicion that some other person committed an offence in relation to such woman; or
  
• (iii) the case relates to the death of a woman within seven years of her marriage and any relative of the woman has made a request in this behalf; or
  
• (iv) there is any doubt regarding the cause of death; or
  
• (v) the police officer for any other reason considers it expedient so to do,
  

Explanation: For deaths by suicide, killing, accident, or suspicious circumstances, a police officer notifies a Magistrate and investigates at the scene with local witnesses, reporting the apparent cause of death. The report is signed and sent to the District or Sub-divisional Magistrate. Bodies are sent for medical examination in cases like women’s deaths within seven years of marriage, doubtful causes, or as deemed necessary, if feasible. Specified Magistrates can hold inquests, ensuring thorough inquiry into unnatural deaths. Source: Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, via India Code.

Clause:
(1) A police officer proceeding under section 174 may, by order in writing, summon two or more persons as aforesaid for the purpose of the said investigation, and any other person who appears to be acquainted with the facts and circumstances of the case.
(2) Every person so summoned shall be bound to attend and to answer truly all questions other than questions the answers to which would have a tendency to expose him to a criminal charge or to a penalty or forfeiture.

Explanation: During a Section 174 inquest, a police officer can summon local residents and others knowledgeable about the case. Summoned persons must attend and answer truthfully, except for self-incriminating questions, ensuring cooperation in death investigations. Source: Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, via India Code.

Clause:
(1) When any person dies while in the custody of the police or when the case is of the nature referred to in clause (i) or clause (ii) of sub-section (3) of section 174, the nearest Magistrate empowered to hold inquests shall, and in any other case mentioned in sub-section (1) of section 174, any Magistrate so empowered may hold an inquiry into the cause of death either instead of, or in addition to, the investigation held by the police officer; and if he does so, he shall have all the powers in respect of such inquiry which he would have in holding an inquiry into an offence.
(2) The Magistrate holding such an inquiry shall record the evidence taken by him in connection therewith in any manner hereinafter prescribed according to the circumstances of the case.
(3) Whenever such Magistrate considers it expedient to make an examination of the dead body of any person who has been already interred, in order to discover the cause of his death, the Magistrate may cause the body to be disinterred and examined.
(4) Where an inquiry is to be held under this section, the Magistrate shall, wherever practicable, inform the relatives of the deceased whose names and addresses are known, and shall allow them to remain present at the inquiry.
Explanation.—In this section, the expression “relative” means parents, children, brothers, sisters and spouse.

Explanation: A Magistrate must hold an inquiry into deaths in police custody or women’s deaths within seven years of marriage (per Section 174(3)(i)-(ii)), and may do so for other Section 174 cases, in place of or alongside police investigations, with full inquiry powers. Evidence is recorded appropriately, and the Magistrate can order exhumation if needed. Relatives are informed and can attend, ensuring judicial scrutiny of suspicious deaths. Source: Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, via India Code.

Clause:
Every offence shall ordinarily be inquired into and tried by a Court within whose local jurisdiction it was committed.

Explanation: As a general rule, a criminal offence is investigated and tried by a court in the area where the offence occurred, ensuring local jurisdiction handles cases for efficiency and relevance. Source: Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, via India Code.

Clause:
(a) When it is uncertain in which of several local areas an offence was committed, or
(b) where an offence is committed partly in one local area and partly in another, or
(c) where an offence is a continuing one, and continues to be committed in more local areas than one, or
(d) where it consists of several acts done in different local areas,
it may be inquired into or tried by a Court having jurisdiction over any of such local areas.

Explanation: If the location of an offence is unclear, spans multiple areas, is ongoing across jurisdictions, or involves acts in different places, any court with jurisdiction over one of those areas can handle the inquiry or trial, providing flexibility for complex cases. Source: Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, via India Code.

Clause:
When an act is an offence by reason of anything which has been done and of a consequence which has ensued, the offence may be inquired into or tried by a Court within whose local jurisdiction such thing has been done or such consequence has ensued.

Explanation: If an offence arises from an act and its resulting consequence, it can be tried in the court of either the area where the act occurred or where the consequence took place, allowing jurisdiction based on cause or effect. Source: Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, via India Code.

Clause:
When an act is an offence by reason of its relation to any other act which is also an offence or which would be an offence if the doer were capable of committing an offence, the first-mentioned offence may be inquired into or tried by a Court within whose local jurisdiction either act was done.

Explanation: If an act is an offence because of its connection to another act (which is or could be an offence), the offence can be tried in the court of the area where either act occurred, covering related criminal acts. Source: Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, via India Code.

Clause:
(1) Any offence of being a thug, or murder committed by a thug, of dacoity, of dacoity with murder, of belonging to a gang of dacoits, or of escaping from custody, may be inquired into or tried by a Court within whose local jurisdiction the offence was committed or the accused person is found.
(2) Any offence of kidnapping or abduction of a person may be inquired into or tried by a Court within whose local jurisdiction the person was kidnapped or abducted or was conveyed or concealed or detained.
(3) Any offence of theft, extortion or robbery may be inquired into or tried by a Court within whose local jurisdiction the offence was committed or the stolen property which is the subject of the offence was possessed by any person who received or retained such property knowing or having reason to believe it to be stolen property.
(4) Any offence of criminal misappropriation or of criminal breach of trust may be inquired into or tried by a Court within whose local jurisdiction the offence was committed or any part of the property which is the subject of the offence was received or retained, or was required to be returned or accounted for, by the accused person.
(5) Any offence which includes the possession of stolen property may be inquired into or tried by a Court within whose local jurisdiction the offence was committed or the stolen property was possessed by any person who received or retained it knowing or having reason to believe it to be stolen property.

Explanation: Specific offences have tailored jurisdictional rules: thug-related crimes, dacoity, or escape can be tried where committed or the accused is found; kidnapping/abduction where the act or detention occurred; theft, extortion, or robbery where committed or stolen property was held; misappropriation or breach of trust where committed or property was handled; and possession of stolen property where the offence or possession occurred, ensuring appropriate courts handle specialized crimes. Source: Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, via India Code.

Clause:
(1) Any offence which includes cheating may, if the deception is practised by means of letters or telecommunication messages, be inquired into or tried by any Court within whose local jurisdiction such letters or messages were sent or were received; and any offence of cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property may be inquired into or tried by a Court within whose local jurisdiction the property was delivered by the person deceived or was received by the accused person.
(2) Any offence punishable under section 494 or section 495 of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860) may be inquired into or tried by a Court within whose local jurisdiction the offence was committed or the offender last resided with his or her spouse by the first marriage.

Explanation: Cheating offences involving letters or telecom can be tried where the communication was sent or received, or where cheated property was delivered or received. Bigamy offences (IPC Sections 494, 495) can be tried where committed or where the offender last lived with their first spouse, addressing communication-based and marital crimes. Source: Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, via India Code.

Clause:
When an offence is committed whilst the person by or against whom, or the thing in respect of which, the offence is committed is in the course of performing a journey or voyage, the offence may be inquired into or tried by a Court through or into whose local jurisdiction that person or thing passed in the course of that journey or voyage.

Explanation: Offences committed during a journey or voyage can be tried by a court in any area the person or thing involved passed through, accommodating crimes occurring in transit. Source: Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, via India Code.

Clause:
Where—

• (a) the offences committed by any person are such that he may be charged with, and tried at one trial for, each such offence by virtue of the provisions of section 219, section 220 or section 221, or
  
• (b) the offence or offences committed by several persons are such that they may be charged with and tried together by virtue of the provisions of section 223,
  

Explanation: When multiple offences by one person or by several persons can be tried together (per Sections 219, 220, 221, or 223), any court competent to try any of those offences can handle the case, streamlining joint trials. Source: Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, via India Code.

Clause:
Notwithstanding anything contained in the preceding provisions of this Chapter, the State Government may direct that any cases or class of cases committed for trial in any district may be tried in any sessions division:
Provided that such direction is not repugnant to any direction previously issued by the High Court or the Supreme Court under the Constitution, or under this Code or any other law for the time being in force.

Explanation: The State Government can order that specific cases or types of cases be tried in a different sessions division within a district, overriding usual jurisdiction rules, unless it conflicts with High Court or Supreme Court directives, allowing administrative flexibility. Source: Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, via India Code.

Clause:
Where two or more Courts have taken cognizance of the same offence and a question arises as to which of them ought to inquire into or try that offence, the question shall be decided—

• (a) if the Courts are subordinate to the same High Court, by that High Court;
  
• (b) if the Courts are not subordinate to the same High Court, by the High Court within the local limits of whose appellate criminal jurisdiction the proceedings were first commenced,
  

Explanation: If multiple courts claim jurisdiction over the same offence, the High Court overseeing those courts (or the one where proceedings started, if different High Courts) decides which court proceeds. Other courts’ proceedings are stopped, resolving jurisdictional conflicts. Source: Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, via India Code.

Clause:
(1) When a Magistrate of the first class, or any Magistrate of the second class specially empowered in this behalf by the State Government, is satisfied that any person within his local jurisdiction has committed an offence outside such jurisdiction, he may issue a summons or warrant against that person for such offence as if it had been committed within his local jurisdiction.
(2) Such summons or warrant shall be served or executed as if it had been issued for an offence committed within the local jurisdiction of the Magistrate issuing it, but the person so summoned or arrested shall not be triable by such Magistrate unless the case is transferred to him under the provisions of this Code.
(3) If such person is arrested under such warrant, the Magistrate may, pending the transfer of the case, deal with him in accordance with the provisions of this Code relating to bail and otherwise as if the offence had been committed within his local jurisdiction.

Explanation: A Magistrate can issue a summons or warrant for an offence committed outside their jurisdiction if the person is within their area, treating it as a local offence for issuance. The summons or warrant is enforced locally, but trial requires case transfer. The Magistrate can handle bail pending transfer, facilitating apprehension while respecting trial jurisdiction. Source: Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, via India Code.

Clause:
When an offence is committed outside India—

• (a) by a citizen of India, whether on the high seas or elsewhere; or
  
• (b) by any person, not being such citizen, on any ship or aircraft registered in India,
  

Explanation: Offences committed outside India by Indian citizens (anywhere) or by non-citizens on Indian-registered ships or aircraft can be tried in India where the offender is found. However, such cases require Central Government sanction, ensuring jurisdiction over extraterritorial crimes with oversight. Source: Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, via India Code.

Clause:
When any offence alleged to have been committed in a territory outside India is being inquired into or tried under the provisions of section 188, the Central Government may, if it thinks fit, direct that copies of depositions made or exhibits produced before a judicial authority in or for that territory or before a diplomatic or consular representative of India in or for that territory shall be received as evidence by the Court holding such inquiry or trial in any case in which such Court might issue a commission for taking evidence as to the matters to which such depositions or exhibits relate.

Explanation: For trials under Section 188 for offences committed abroad, the Central Government can allow courts to accept copies of depositions or exhibits from foreign judicial authorities or Indian diplomatic/consular representatives as evidence, if the court could issue a commission for such evidence, facilitating extraterritorial trials. Source: Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, via India Code.

Clause:
(1) Subject to the provisions of this Chapter, any Magistrate of the first class, and any Magistrate of the second class specially empowered in this behalf under sub-section (2), may take cognizance of any offence—

• (a) upon receiving a complaint of facts which constitute such offence;
  
• (b) upon a police report of such facts;
  
• (c) upon information received from any person other than a police officer, or upon his own knowledge, that such offence has been committed.
  

Explanation: A Magistrate of the first class, or a specially empowered second-class Magistrate, can initiate proceedings for an offence based on a complaint, a police report, or information from any person (including their own knowledge). The Chief Judicial Magistrate can authorize second-class Magistrates to take cognizance of offences they are competent to handle, ensuring proper judicial oversight at the start of cases. Source: Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, via India Code.

Clause:
When a Magistrate takes cognizance of an offence under clause (c) of sub-section (1) of section 190, the accused shall, before any evidence is taken, be informed that he is entitled to have the case inquired into or tried by another Magistrate, and if the accused or any of the accused, if there be more than one, objects to further proceedings before the Magistrate taking cognizance, the case shall be transferred to such other Magistrate as may be specified by the Chief Judicial Magistrate in this behalf.

Explanation: If a Magistrate takes cognizance based on their own knowledge or non-police information (Section 190(1)(c)), the accused must be informed before evidence is taken that they can request the case be handled by another Magistrate. If the accused objects, the case is transferred to a Magistrate chosen by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, preventing bias. Source: Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, via India Code.

Clause:
(1) Any Chief Judicial Magistrate may, after taking cognizance of an offence, make over the case for inquiry or trial to any competent Magistrate subordinate to him.
(2) Any Magistrate of the first class empowered in this behalf by the Chief Judicial Magistrate may, after taking cognizance of an offence, make over the case for inquiry or trial to such other competent Magistrate as the Chief Judicial Magistrate may, by general or special order, specify.

Explanation: A Chief Judicial Magistrate can transfer a case they have taken cognizance of to a subordinate Magistrate for inquiry or trial. A first-class Magistrate, if authorized, can also transfer a case to another competent Magistrate as specified by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, allowing efficient case distribution. Source: Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, via India Code.

Clause:
Except as otherwise expressly provided by this Code or by any other law for the time being in force, no Court of Session shall take cognizance of any offence as a Court of original jurisdiction unless the case has been committed to it by a Magistrate under this Code.

Explanation: A Court of Session cannot initiate proceedings for an offence on its own unless the case is committed to it by a Magistrate, except where the CrPC or other laws specifically allow, ensuring serious cases follow proper committal procedures. Source: Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, via India Code.

Clause:
An Additional Sessions Judge or Assistant Sessions Judge shall try such cases as the Sessions Judge of the division may, by general or special order, make over to him for trial or as the High Court may, by special order, direct him to try.

Explanation: Additional or Assistant Sessions Judges can try cases assigned to them by the Sessions Judge of their division or as directed by the High Court, enabling workload distribution within the sessions court system. Source: Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, via India Code.

Clause:
(1) No Court shall take cognizance—

• (a) (i) of any offence punishable under sections 172 to 188 (both inclusive) of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860), or
  
• (ii) of any abetment of, or attempt to commit, such offence, or
  
• (iii) of any criminal conspiracy to commit such offence,
  
• except on the complaint in writing of the public servant concerned or of some other public servant to whom he is administratively subordinate;
  
• (b) (i) of any offence punishable under any of the following sections of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860), namely, sections 193 to 196 (both inclusive), 199, 200, 205 to 211 (both inclusive) and 228, when such offence is alleged to have been committed in, or in relation to, any proceeding in any Court, or
  
• (ii) of any offence described in section 463, or punishable under section 471, section 475 or section 476, of the said Code, when such offence is alleged to have been committed in respect of a document produced or given in evidence in a proceeding in any Court, or
  
• (iii) of any criminal conspiracy to commit, or attempt to commit, or the abetment of, any offence specified in sub-clause (i) or sub-clause (ii),
  
• except on the complaint in writing of that Court, or of some other Court to which that Court is subordinate.
  

• (a) where appeals lie to more than one Court, the Appellate Court of inferior jurisdiction shall be the Court to which such Court shall be deemed to be subordinate;
  
• (b) where appeals lie to a Civil and also to a Revenue Court, such Court shall be deemed to be subordinate to the Civil or Revenue Court according to the nature of the case or proceeding in connection with which the offence is alleged to have been committed.
  

Explanation: Courts cannot take cognizance of offences like contempt of public servants (IPC Sections 172–188) without a written complaint from the concerned or superior public servant, or offences against public justice or documents in court proceedings (e.g., perjury, forgery) without a complaint from the involved or superior court. A public servant’s superior can withdraw a complaint, but not after trial completion. “Court” includes civil, criminal, revenue courts, and certain tribunals, with subordination based on appeal routes, ensuring only authorized complaints initiate such cases. Source: Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, via India Code.

Clause:
(1) No Court shall take cognizance of—

• (a) any offence punishable under Chapter VI or under section 153A, section 153B, section 295A or section 505 of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860), or
  
• (b) a criminal conspiracy to commit such offence, or
  
• (c) any such abetment, as is described in section 108A of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860),
  
• except with the previous sanction of the Central Government or of the State Government.
  

• (a) any offence punishable under section 153B or section 505 of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860), or
  
• (b) a criminal conspiracy to commit such offence,
  
• except with the previous sanction of the Central Government or of the State Government or of the District Magistrate.
  

Explanation: Courts cannot initiate proceedings for offences against the State (IPC Chapter VI), promoting enmity, outraging religious feelings, or public mischief (IPC Sections 153A, 153B, 295A, 505), or related conspiracies or abetment, without prior sanction from the Central or State Government. For certain offences (Sections 153B, 505) or their conspiracies, the District Magistrate’s sanction is also sufficient, ensuring government oversight for sensitive cases. Source: Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, via India Code.

Clause:
(1) When any person who is or was a Judge or Magistrate or a public servant not removable from his office save by or with the sanction of the Government is accused of any offence alleged to have been committed by him while acting or purporting to act in the discharge of his official duty, no Court shall take cognizance of such offence except with the previous sanction—

• (a) in the case of a person who is employed or, as the case may be, was at the time of commission of the alleged offence employed, in connection with the affairs of the Union, of the Central Government;
  
• (b) in the case of a person who is employed or, as the case may be, was at the time of commission of the alleged offence employed, in connection with the affairs of a State, of the State Government.
  

Explanation: Courts cannot take cognizance of offences by Judges, Magistrates, or public servants (removable only by government sanction) for acts done in their official duties without prior Central or State Government sanction, depending on their employment. Similarly, armed forces members require Central Government sanction, and State Governments can extend this to public order forces, protecting officials from prosecution without oversight. Source: Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, via India Code.

Clause:
(1) No Court shall take cognizance of an offence punishable under Chapter XX of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860) except upon a complaint made by some person aggrieved by the offence:
Provided that—

• (a) where such person is under the age of eighteen years, or is an idiot or a lunatic, or is from sickness or infirmity unable to make a complaint, or is a woman who, according to the local customs and manners, ought not to be compelled to appear in public, some other person may, with the leave of the Court, make a complaint on his or her behalf;
  
• (b) where the person aggrieved by an offence punishable under section 494 or section 495 of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860) is the wife, complaint may be made on her behalf by her father, mother, brother, sister, son or daughter or by her father’s or mother’s brother or sister.
  

Explanation: Offences against marriage (IPC Chapter XX, e.g., bigamy, adultery) require a complaint from the aggrieved person. For minors, mentally unfit, infirm, or women restricted by custom, others can complain with court permission. For bigamy, a wife’s relatives can complain. For adultery or enticing a married woman, only the husband (or his representative, if absent) is aggrieved. Courts examine substitute complainants on oath, ensuring only legitimate complaints proceed. Source: Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, via India Code.

Clause:
(1) No Court shall take cognizance of an offence punishable under Chapter XXI of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860) except upon a complaint made by some person aggrieved by the offence:
Provided that where such person is under the age of eighteen years, or is an idiot or a lunatic, or is from sickness or infirmity unable to make a complaint, or is a woman who, according to the local customs and manners, ought not to be compelled to appear in public, some other person may, with the leave of the Court, make a complaint on his or her behalf.
(2) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Code, when any offence falling under Chapter XXI of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860) is alleged to have been committed against a person who, at the time of such commission, is the President of India, the Vice-President of India, the Governor of a State, the Administrator of a Union territory or a Minister of the Union or of a State, or any other public servant employed in connection with the affairs of the Union or of a State in respect of his conduct in the discharge of his public functions, a Court of Session may take cognizance of such offence, without the case being committed to it, upon a complaint in writing made by the Public Prosecutor.
(3) Every complaint referred to in sub-section (2) shall set forth the facts which constitute the offence alleged, the nature of such offence and such other particulars as are reasonably sufficient to give notice to the accused of the offence alleged to have been committed by him.
(4) No complaint under sub-section (2) shall be made by the Public Prosecutor except with the previous sanction—

• (a) of the State Government, in the case of a person who is or has been the Governor of that State or a Minister of that State;
  
• (b) of the State Government, in the case of any other public servant employed in connection with the affairs of that State;
  
• (c) of the Central Government, in any other case.
  

Explanation: Defamation cases (IPC Chapter XXI) require a complaint from the aggrieved person, or from others (e.g., for minors or women restricted by custom) with court permission. For defamation against high officials (e.g., President, Governor, Ministers) or public servants regarding official conduct, a Sessions Court can take cognizance on a Public Prosecutor’s complaint, with government sanction, within six months. The aggrieved person retains the right to complain to a Magistrate, balancing individual and public interest protections. Source: Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, via India Code.

Clause:
A Magistrate taking cognizance of an offence on complaint shall examine upon oath the complainant and the witnesses present, if any, and the substance of such examination shall be reduced to writing and shall be signed by the complainant and the witnesses, and also by the Magistrate:
Provided that, when the complaint is made in writing, the Magistrate need not examine the complainant and the witnesses—

• (a) if a public servant acting or purporting to act in the discharge of his official duties or a Court has made the complaint; or
  
• (b) if the Magistrate makes over the case for inquiry or trial to another Magistrate under section 192.
  

Explanation: When a Magistrate takes cognizance of an offence based on a complaint, they must examine the complainant and any present witnesses under oath, recording and signing the statements. Exceptions apply if the complaint is written by a public servant or court, or if the case is transferred to another Magistrate under Section 192, in which case examination may be skipped. If examination occurs before transfer, the new Magistrate need not repeat it, ensuring efficiency while verifying complaints. Source: Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, via India Code.

Clause:
If the complaint is made to a Magistrate who is not competent to take cognizance of the offence, he shall,—

• (a) if the complaint is in writing, return it for presentation to the proper Court with an endorsement to that effect;
  
• (b) if the complaint is not in writing, direct the complainant to the proper Court.
  

Explanation: If a complaint is filed with a Magistrate who lacks jurisdiction or authority to take cognizance, they must return a written complaint to the complainant with instructions to submit it to the correct court or, for oral complaints, direct the complainant to the appropriate court, ensuring cases reach competent authorities. Source: Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, via India Code.

Clause:
(1) Any Magistrate, on receipt of a complaint of an offence of which he is authorised to take cognizance or which has been made over to him under section 192, may, if he thinks fit, postpone the issue of process against the accused, and either inquire into the case himself or direct an investigation to be made by a police officer or by such other person as he thinks fit, for the purpose of deciding whether or not there is sufficient ground for proceeding:
Provided that no such direction for investigation shall be made,—

• (a) where it appears to the Magistrate that the offence complained of is triable exclusively by the Court of Session; or
  
• (b) unless the complainant and the witnesses present (if any) have been examined on oath under section 200.
  

Explanation: A Magistrate can delay issuing a summons or warrant after receiving a complaint to inquire themselves or order an investigation by a police officer or another person to determine if there’s enough basis to proceed. Investigations aren’t ordered for Session Court-exclusive offences or without examining the complainant and witnesses under Section 200. During inquiries, the Magistrate can take witness evidence, and for Session Court cases, must examine all complainant witnesses. Non-police investigators have police-like powers except warrantless arrests, ensuring thorough vetting of complaints. Source: Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, via India Code.

Clause:
If, after considering the statements on oath (if any) of the complainant and of the witnesses and the result of the inquiry or investigation (if any) under section 202, the Magistrate is of opinion that there is no sufficient ground for proceeding, he shall dismiss the complaint, and in every such case he shall briefly record his reasons for so doing.

Explanation: A Magistrate can dismiss a complaint if, after reviewing sworn statements from the complainant and witnesses and any Section 202 inquiry or investigation results, they find insufficient grounds to proceed. They must briefly record their reasons, ensuring transparency and preventing frivolous cases from advancing. Source: Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, via India Code.

Clause:
(1) If in the opinion of a Magistrate taking cognizance of an offence there is sufficient ground for proceeding, and the case appears to be—

• (a) a summons-case, he shall issue a summons for the attendance of the accused, or
  
• (b) a warrant-case, he may issue a warrant, or, if he thinks fit, a summons, for causing the accused to be brought or to appear at a certain time before such Magistrate or (if he has no jurisdiction himself) some other Magistrate having jurisdiction.
  

Explanation: If a Magistrate finds sufficient grounds to proceed, they issue a summons for summons-cases or a warrant (or summons) for warrant-cases to ensure the accused appears. A witness list must be filed first, and written complaints accompany the process. Process fees, if required, must be paid, or the complaint may be dismissed. Section 87 (warrants in absentia) remains unaffected, ensuring proper case initiation. Source: Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, via India Code.

Clause:
(1) Whenever a Magistrate issues a summons, he may, if he sees reason so to do, dispense with the personal attendance of the accused and permit him to appear by his pleader.
(2) But the Magistrate inquiring into or trying the case may, in his discretion, at any stage of the proceedings, direct the personal attendance of the accused, and, if necessary, enforce such attendance in the manner hereinbefore provided.

Explanation: A Magistrate issuing a summons can allow the accused to appear through a lawyer instead of in person, if justified. However, they can later require personal attendance at any stage, enforcing it if needed, balancing convenience with case requirements. Source: Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, via India Code.

Clause:
(1) If, in the opinion of a Magistrate taking cognizance of a petty offence, the case may be summarily disposed of under section 260, the Magistrate shall, except where he is, for reasons to be recorded in writing, of the opinion that the case should not be so disposed of, issue a summons to the accused requiring him either to appear in person or by pleader before the Magistrate on a specified date, or if he desires to plead guilty to the charge without appearing before the Magistrate, to transmit before the specified date, by post or by messenger to the Magistrate, the said plea in writing and the amount of fine specified in the summons or, if he desires to appear by pleader and to plead guilty to the charge through such pleader, to authorise, in writing, the pleader to plead guilty to the charge on his behalf and to pay the fine through such pleader:
Provided that the amount of the fine specified in such summons shall not exceed one hundred rupees.
(2) For the purposes of this section, “petty offence” means any offence punishable only with fine not exceeding one thousand rupees, but does not include any offence so punishable under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (4 of 1939), or under any other law which provides for convicting the accused person in his absence on a plea of guilty.

Explanation: For petty offences (fines up to ₹1,000, excluding Motor Vehicles Act or similar laws), a Magistrate can issue a special summons allowing the accused to appear in person, through a lawyer, or plead guilty by post/messenger, paying a fine (up to ₹100). If summary disposal under Section 260 isn’t suitable, the Magistrate records reasons, streamlining minor offence resolution. Source: Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, via India Code.

Clause:
In any case where the proceeding has been instituted on a police report, the Magistrate shall without delay furnish to the accused, free of cost, a copy of each of the following:—

• (i) the police report;
  
• (ii) the first information report recorded under section 154;
  
• (iii) the statements recorded under sub-section (3) of section 161 of all persons whom the prosecution proposes to examine as its witnesses, excluding therefrom any part in regard to which a request for such exclusion has been made by the police officer under sub-section (6) of section 173;
  
• (iv) the confessions and statements, if any, recorded under section 164;
  
• (v) any other document or relevant extract thereof forwarded to the Magistrate with the police report under sub-section (5) of section 173:
  

Explanation: In police report cases, the Magistrate must promptly provide the accused, free of charge, copies of the police report, FIR, witness statements (Section 161), confessions/statements (Section 164), and other documents submitted under Section 173. The Magistrate can withhold parts of witness statements if justified, and for voluminous documents, allow inspection instead of copies, ensuring the accused’s right to a fair defense. Source: Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, via India Code.

Clause:
Where, in a case instituted otherwise than on a police report, it appears to the Magistrate issuing process under section 204 that the offence is triable exclusively by the Court of Session, the Magistrate shall without delay furnish to the accused, free of cost, a copy of each of the following:—

• (i) the statements recorded under section 200 or section 202, of all persons examined by the Magistrate;
  
• (ii) the statements and confessions, if any, recorded under section 164;
  
• (iii) any documents produced before the Magistrate on which the prosecution proposes to rely:
  

Explanation: In non-police report cases (e.g., complaints) triable only by a Sessions Court, the Magistrate must provide the accused, free of charge, copies of statements from Sections 200/202, confessions/statements from Section 164, and prosecution documents. For voluminous documents, inspection is allowed instead, ensuring the accused is prepared for trial. Source: Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, via India Code.

Clause:
When in a case instituted on a police report or otherwise, the accused appears or is brought before the Magistrate and it appears to the Magistrate that the offence is triable exclusively by the Court of Session, he shall—

• (a) commit the case to the Court of Session;
  
• (b) subject to the provisions of this Code relating to bail, remand the accused to custody during, and until the conclusion of, the trial;
  
• (c) send to that Court the record of the case and the documents and articles, if any, which are to be produced in evidence;
  
• (d) notify the Public Prosecutor of the commitment of the case to the Court of Session.

  Explanation: If an offence is exclusively triable by a Sessions Court, the Magistrate commits the case to that court, remands the accused to custody (subject to bail provisions), sends case records and evidence, and informs the Public Prosecutor, ensuring serious cases are properly escalated. Source: Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, via India Code.

Clause:
(1) When in a case instituted otherwise than on a police report (hereinafter referred to as a complaint case), it is made to appear to the Magistrate, during the course of the inquiry or trial held by him, that an investigation by the police is in progress in relation to the offence which is the subject-matter of the inquiry or trial held by him, the Magistrate shall stay the proceedings of his case and call for a report on the matter from the police officer conducting the investigation.
(2) If a report is made by the investigating police officer under section 173 and on such report cognizance of any offence is taken by the Magistrate against any person who is an accused in the complaint case, the Magistrate shall inquire into or try together the complaint case and the case arising from the police report as if both the cases were instituted on a police report.
(3) If the police report does not relate to any accused in the complaint case or if the Magistrate does not take cognizance of any offence on the police report, he shall proceed with the inquiry or trial, which was stayed under sub-section (1), according to the provisions of this Code.

Explanation: If a complaint case is underway and the Magistrate learns of a police investigation for the same offence, they pause the complaint case and request a police report. If the police report leads to cognizance against a complaint case accused, both cases are tried together as police report cases. If the police report doesn’t involve the complaint’s accused or no cognizance is taken, the complaint case resumes, preventing duplicative proceedings. Source: Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, via India Code.

Clause:
(1) Every charge under this Code shall state the offence with which the accused is charged.
(2) If the law which creates the offence gives it any specific name, the offence may be described in the charge by that name only.
(3) If the law which creates the offence does not give it any specific name, so much of the definition of the offence must be stated as to give the accused notice of the matter with which he is charged.
(4) The law and section of the law against which the offence is said to have been committed shall be mentioned in the charge.
(5) The fact that the charge is made is equivalent to a statement that every legal condition required by law to constitute the offence charged was fulfilled in the particular case.
(6) The charge shall be written in the language of the Court.
(7) If the accused, having been previously convicted of any offence, is liable, by reason of such previous conviction, to enhanced punishment, or to punishment of a different kind, for a subsequent offence, and it is intended to prove such previous conviction for the purpose of affecting the punishment, the fact, date and place of the previous conviction shall be stated in the charge; and if such statement has been omitted, the Court may add it at any time before sentence is passed.

Explanation: A charge must clearly state the offence, using its specific name if available, or enough details to inform the accused. It must cite the law and section violated, imply all legal conditions are met, be in the court’s language, and include prior convictions affecting punishment, which can be added later if omitted, ensuring the accused understands the allegations. Source: Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, via India Code.

Clause:
(1) The charge shall contain such particulars as to the time and place of the alleged offence, and the person (if any) against whom, or the thing (if any) in respect of which, it was committed, as are reasonably sufficient to give the accused notice of the matter with which he is charged.
(2) When the nature of the case is such that the particulars mentioned in sub-section (1) and section 211 do not give the accused sufficient notice of the matter with which he is charged, the charge shall also contain such particulars of the manner in which the alleged offence was committed as will be sufficient for that purpose.

Explanation: The charge must include enough details about the time, place, person, or thing involved in the offence to inform the accused. If these and Section 211 details aren’t enough, the charge must describe how the offence was committed, ensuring the accused fully understands the accusations. Source: Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, via India Code.

Clause:
When the nature of the case is such that the particulars mentioned in sections 211 and 212 do not give the accused sufficient notice of the matter with which he is charged, the charge shall also contain such particulars of the manner in which the alleged offence was committed as will be sufficient for that purpose.

Explanation: If the details required by Sections 211 (offence description) and 212 (time, place, person) don’t adequately inform the accused, the charge must include specifics on how the offence was committed, ensuring clarity for the accused’s defense. Source: Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, via India Code.

Clause:
In every charge words used in describing an offence shall be deemed to have been used in the sense attached to them respectively by the law under which such offence is punishable.

Explanation: Words in a charge describing an offence are interpreted according to the meaning given by the law defining that offence, ensuring consistency with legal definitions. Source: Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, via India Code.

Clause:
No error in stating either the offence or the particulars required to be stated in the charge, and no omission to state the offence or those particulars, shall be regarded at any stage of the case as material, unless the accused was in fact misled by such error or omission, and it has occasioned a failure of justice.

Explanation: Errors or omissions in the charge’s offence description or details are not significant unless they actually mislead the accused and cause a miscarriage of justice, protecting proceedings from technical challenges. Source: Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, via India Code.

Clause:
(1) Any Court may alter or add to any charge at any time before judgment is pronounced.
(2) Every such alteration or addition shall be read and explained to the accused.
(3) If the alteration or addition to a charge is such that proceeding immediately with the trial is not likely, in the opinion of the Court, to prejudice the accused in his defence or the prosecutor in the conduct of the case, the Court may, in its discretion, after such alteration or addition has been made, proceed with the trial as if the altered or added charge had been the original charge.
(4) If the alteration or addition is such that proceeding immediately with the trial is likely, in the opinion of the Court, to prejudice the accused or the prosecutor as aforesaid, the Court may either direct a new trial or adjourn the trial for such period as may be necessary.
(5) If the offence stated in the altered or added charge is one for the prosecution of which previous sanction is required, the case shall not be proceeded with until such sanction is obtained, unless sanction has been already obtained for a prosecution on the same facts as those on which the altered or added charge is founded.

Explanation: Courts can modify or add to charges before judgment, and changes must be explained to the accused. If the change doesn’t prejudice the accused or prosecutor, the trial can continue; otherwise, a new trial or adjournment may be ordered. If the new charge requires sanction, proceedings pause until it’s obtained, unless already secured for the same facts, ensuring fairness. Source: Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, via India Code.

Clause:
Whenever a charge is altered or added to by the Court after the commencement of the trial, the prosecutor and the accused shall be allowed—

• (a) to recall or re-summon, and examine with reference to such alteration or addition, any witness who may have been examined, unless the Court, for reasons to be recorded in writing, considers that the prosecutor or the accused, as the case may be, desires to recall or re-summon such witness for the purpose of vexation or delay or for defeating the ends of justice;
  
• (b) also to call any further witness whom the Court may think to be material.

Explanation: After a charge is altered or added during trial, both the prosecutor and accused can recall or re-examine witnesses regarding the change, unless the court finds it’s for delay or vexation, and reasons are recorded. They can also call new material witnesses, ensuring a fair response to charge changes. Source: Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, via India Code.

Clause:
(1) For every distinct offence of which any person is accused there shall be a separate charge, and every such charge shall be tried separately:
Provided that where the accused person, by an application in writing, so desires and the Magistrate is of opinion that such person is not likely to be prejudiced thereby, the Magistrate may try together all or any number of the charges framed against such person.
(2) Nothing in sub-section (1) shall affect the operation of the provisions of sections 219, 220, 221 and 223.

Explanation: Each distinct offence requires a separate charge and trial, but the accused can request a joint trial in writing, and the Magistrate may allow it if no prejudice is likely. This doesn’t affect Sections 219, 220, 221, and 223, which allow specific joinder of charges, balancing clarity with efficiency. Source: Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, via India Code.

Clause:
(1) When a person is accused of more offences than one of the same kind committed within the space of twelve months from the first to the last of such offences, whether in respect of the same person or not, he may be charged with, and tried at one trial for, any number of them not exceeding three.
(2) Offences are of the same kind when they are punishable with the same amount of punishment under the same section of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860) or of any special or local law:
Provided that, for the purposes of this section, an offence punishable under section 379 of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860) shall be deemed to be an offence of the same kind as an offence punishable under section 380 of the said Code, and that an offence punishable under any section of the said Code, or of any special or local law, shall be deemed to be an offence of the same kind as an attempt to commit such offence, when such an attempt is an offence.

Explanation: Up to three offences of the same kind (punishable under the same law section) committed within a year can be charged and tried together, regardless of the victim. Offences are “same kind” if they carry the same punishment, with theft (IPC Section 379) and house-breaking (Section 380), and attempts, treated as similar, allowing efficient joint trials. Source: Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, via India Code.

Clause:
(1) If, in one series of acts so connected together as to form the same transaction, more offences than one are committed by the same person, he may be charged with, and tried at one trial for, every such offence.
(2) When a person charged with one or more offences of criminal breach of trust or dishonest misappropriation of property as provided in sub-section (2) of section 212 or in sub-section (1) of section 219, is accused of committing, for every such offence, with respect to several items of property, a separate charge in respect of each item shall not be necessary, and he may be charged with, and tried at one trial for, all such offences, if the acts alleged constitute an offence falling within two or more separate definitions of any law by which offences are defined or punished.
(3) If several acts, of which one or more than one would by itself or themselves constitute an offence, constitute when combined a different offence, the person accused of them may be charged with, and tried at one trial for, the offence constituted by such acts when combined, and for any offence constituted by any one, or more, of such acts.
(4) Nothing contained in this section shall affect the operation of section 219.

Explanation: Multiple offences from a single transaction can be tried together. For criminal breach of trust or misappropriation, separate charges per item aren’t needed, and all can be tried together. If combined acts form a different offence, both the combined and individual offences can be tried together. Section 219 remains unaffected, allowing flexible joinder for connected acts. Source: Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, via India Code.

Clause:
(1) If a single act or series of acts is of such a nature that it is doubtful which of several offences the facts which can be proved will constitute, the accused may be charged with having committed all or any of such offences, and any number of such charges may be tried at once; or he may be charged in the alternative with having committed some one of the said offences.
(2) If in such a case the accused is charged with one offence, and it appears in evidence that he committed a different offence for which he might have been charged under the provisions of sub-section (1), he may be convicted of the offence which he is shown to have committed, although he was not charged with it.

Explanation: If it’s unclear which offence applies to an act or series of acts, the accused can be charged with all possible offences or one in the alternative, tried together. If evidence shows a different offence (chargeable under sub-section (1)), the accused can be convicted of it despite not being charged, ensuring flexibility when facts are uncertain. Source: Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, via India Code.

Clause:
(1) When a person is charged with an offence consisting of several particulars, a combination of some only of which constitutes a complete minor offence, and such combination is proved, but the remaining particulars are not proved, he may be convicted of the minor offence, though he was not charged with it.
(2) When a person is charged with an offence and facts are proved which reduce it to a minor offence, he may be convicted of the minor offence, although he was not charged with it.
(3) When a person is charged with an offence, he may be convicted of an attempt to commit such offence although the attempt is not separately charged.
(4) Nothing in this section shall be deemed to authorise a conviction of any minor offence where the conditions requisite for the initiation of proceedings in respect of that minor offence have not been satisfied.

Explanation: If a charged offence includes a minor offence and only the minor offence’s elements are proved, the accused can be convicted of it. If facts reduce the offence to a minor one, or show an attempt, conviction for those is allowed, even if not charged. Convictions for minor offences require meeting their procedural conditions, ensuring fair convictions for lesser offences. Source: Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, via India Code.

Clause:
The following persons may be charged and tried together, namely:—

• (a) persons accused of the same offence committed in the course of the same transaction;
  
• (b) persons accused of an offence and persons accused of abetment of, or attempt to commit, such offence;
  
• (c) persons accused of more than one offence of the same kind, within the meaning of section 219 committed by them jointly within the period of twelve months;
  
• (d) persons accused of different offences committed in the course of the same transaction;
  
• (e) persons accused of an offence which includes theft, extortion, or criminal misappropriation, and persons accused of receiving or retaining, or assisting in the disposal or concealment of, property possession of which is alleged to have been transferred by any such offence committed by the first-named persons;
  
• (f) persons accused of offences under sections 411 and 414 of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860) or either of those sections in respect of stolen property the possession of which has been transferred by one offence;
  
• (g) persons accused of any offence under Chapter XII of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860) relating to counterfeit coin and persons accused of any other offence under the said Chapter relating to the same coin, or of abetment of or attempting to commit any such offence;
  

Explanation: Multiple persons can be tried together if accused of the same offence in one transaction, abetment/attempt, same-kind offences within a year, different offences in one transaction, theft-related offences and handling stolen property, receiving stolen property, or counterfeit coin offences. Earlier chapter provisions apply, allowing efficient joint trials for related accusations. Source: Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, via India Code.

Clause:
When a charge containing more heads than one is framed against the same person, and when a conviction has been had on one or more of them, the complainant, or the officer conducting the prosecution, may, with the consent of the Court, withdraw the remaining charges, or the Court of its own accord may stay the inquiry into, or trial of, such charges, and such withdrawal or stay shall have the effect of an acquittal on such charges, unless the conviction be set aside, in which case the said Court (subject to the order of the Court setting aside the conviction) may proceed with the inquiry into, or trial of, the charges so withdrawn or not stayed.

Explanation: If an accused is charged with multiple offences and convicted on some, the prosecution or complainant, with court consent, can withdraw remaining charges, or the court can stay them, effectively acquitting the accused on those charges. If the conviction is overturned, the court may resume the stayed/withdrawn charges, ensuring efficient case resolution. Source: Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, via India Code.

Clause:
In every trial before a Court of Session, the prosecution shall be conducted by a Public Prosecutor.

Explanation: All trials in a Court of Session must be led by a Public Prosecutor, ensuring professional and impartial representation of the state’s case. Source: Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, via India Code.

Clause:
When the accused appears or is brought before the Court in pursuance of a commitment of the case under section 209, the prosecutor shall open his case by describing the charge brought against the accused and stating by what evidence he proposes to prove the guilt of the accused.

Explanation: After the accused is brought before the Sessions Court following committal under Section 209, the Public Prosecutor opens the case by explaining the charges and outlining the evidence to prove the accused’s guilt, setting the stage for the trial. Source: Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, via India Code.

Clause:
If, upon consideration of the record of the case and the documents submitted therewith, and after hearing the submissions of the accused and the prosecution in this behalf, the Judge considers that there is not sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused, he shall discharge the accused and record his reasons for so doing.

Explanation: If the Sessions Judge, after reviewing case records, documents, and hearing both sides, finds insufficient grounds to proceed, they discharge the accused, recording reasons, preventing unwarranted trials. Source: Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, via India Code.

Clause:
(1) If, after such consideration and hearing as aforesaid, the Judge is of opinion that there is ground for presuming that the accused has committed an offence which—

• (a) is not exclusively triable by the Court of Session, he may, frame a charge against the accused and, by order, transfer the case for trial to the Chief Judicial Magistrate, and thereupon the Chief Judicial Magistrate shall try the offence in accordance with the procedure for the trial of warrant-cases instituted on a police report;
  
• (b) is exclusively triable by the Court, he shall frame in writing a charge against the accused.
  

Explanation: If the Judge finds grounds to presume the accused committed an offence, they frame a charge. If it’s not exclusively triable by the Sessions Court, the case is transferred to the Chief Judicial Magistrate for a warrant-case trial. If it is, the charge is written, read, and explained to the accused, who is asked to plead guilty or opt for trial, ensuring proper case allocation and clarity. Source: Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, via India Code.

Clause:
If the accused pleads guilty, the Judge shall record the plea and may, in his discretion, convict him thereon.

Explanation: If the accused pleads guilty, the Judge records the plea and can convict based on it, at their discretion, allowing swift resolution when guilt is admitted. Source: Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, via India Code.

Clause:
If the accused refuses to plead, or does not plead, or claims to be tried or is not convicted under section 229, the Judge shall fix a date for the examination of witnesses, and may, on the application of the prosecution, issue any process for compelling the attendance of any witness or the production of any document or other thing.

Explanation: If the accused doesn’t plead guilty, claims a trial, or isn’t convicted on a guilty plea, the Judge sets a date for witness examination and can issue processes to ensure witness attendance or document production upon prosecution’s request, advancing the trial. Source: Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, via India Code.

Clause:
(1) On the date so fixed, the Judge shall proceed to take all such evidence as may be produced in support of the prosecution.
(2) The Judge may, in his discretion, permit the cross-examination of any witness to be deferred until any other witness or witnesses have been examined or recall any witness for further cross-examination.

Explanation: On the scheduled date, the Judge takes all prosecution evidence. They can allow deferred cross-examination of witnesses or recall witnesses for further cross-examination at their discretion, ensuring flexible and thorough evidence presentation. Source: Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, via India Code.

Clause:
If, after taking the evidence for the prosecution, examining the accused and hearing the prosecution and the defence on the point, the Judge considers that there is no evidence that the accused committed the offence, the Judge shall record an order of acquittal.

Explanation: After prosecution evidence, accused examination, and hearing both sides, if the Judge finds no evidence of the accused’s guilt, they acquit the accused and record the order, ending the case if evidence is insufficient. Source: Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, via India Code.

Clause:
(1) Where the accused is not acquitted under section 232, he shall be called upon to enter on his defence and adduce any evidence he may have in support thereof.
(2) If the accused puts in any written statement, the Judge shall file it with the record.
(3) If the accused applies for the issue of any process for compelling the attendance of any witness or the production of any document or thing, the Judge shall issue such process unless he considers, for reasons to be recorded, that such application should be refused on the ground that it is made for the purpose of vexation or delay or for defeating the ends of justice.

Explanation: If not acquitted under Section 232, the accused is asked to present their defense and evidence. Written statements are filed, and the Judge issues processes for witness attendance or document production unless the request is deemed vexatious or delaying, with reasons recorded, ensuring the accused’s right to defend. Source: Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, via India Code.

Clause:
When the examination of the witnesses (if any) for the defence is complete, the prosecutor shall sum up his case and the accused or his pleader shall be entitled to reply:
Provided that where any point of law is raised by the accused or his pleader, the prosecutor may, with the permission of the Judge, make his submissions with regard to such point of law.

Explanation: After defense witness examination, the prosecutor summarizes their case, and the accused or their lawyer can respond. If the defense raises a legal point, the prosecutor can address it with the Judge’s permission, ensuring both sides are heard on legal issues. Source: Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, via India Code.

Clause:
(1) After hearing arguments and points of law (if any), the Judge shall give a judgment in the case.
(2) If the accused is convicted, the Judge shall, unless he proceeds in accordance with the provisions of section 360, hear the accused on the question of sentence, and then pass sentence on him according to law.

Explanation: After arguments and legal points, the Judge delivers a judgment. If convicted, unless Section 360 (probation) applies, the Judge hears the accused on sentencing before passing a lawful sentence, ensuring fair sentencing consideration. Source: Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, via India Code.

Clause:
In a case where a previous conviction is charged under the provisions of sub-section (7) of section 211, and the accused does not admit that he has been previously convicted as alleged in the charge, the Judge may, after he has convicted the said accused in the case, take evidence in respect of the alleged previous conviction, and shall record a finding thereon:
Provided that no such charge shall be read out by the Judge nor shall the accused be asked to plead thereto nor shall the previous conviction be referred to by the prosecution or in any evidence adduced by them, unless and until the accused has been convicted under the charge in the case.

Explanation: If a previous conviction is charged under Section 211(7) and the accused denies it, the Judge can take evidence on it after conviction in the main case and record a finding. The conviction charge isn’t read, pleaded, or mentioned until conviction, preventing prejudice during the trial. Source: Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, via India Code.

Clause:
(1) A Court of Session taking cognizance of an offence under sub-section (2) of section 199 shall try the case in accordance with the procedure for the trial of warrant-cases instituted otherwise than on a police report before a Court of Magistrate:
Provided that the person against whom the offence is alleged to have been committed shall, unless the Court of Session, for reasons to be recorded, otherwise directs, be examined as a witness for the prosecution.
(2) Every trial under this section shall be deemed to be a trial instituted on a complaint for the purposes of this Code.
(3) The provisions of section 198(6) shall, so far as they may be applicable, apply also to a trial under this section, and a complaint made under sub-section (2) of section 199 shall be deemed, for the purposes of sub-section (5) of section 199, to have been made at the time when the Court of Session takes cognizance of the offence.
(4) The provisions of section 236 shall apply to a trial under this section as if for the word “convicted” occurring therein, the words “convicted or acquitted” were substituted.

Explanation: For defamation cases under Section 199(2) (against high officials), the Sessions Court follows the warrant-case procedure for non-police report cases before a Magistrate. The aggrieved person is typically a prosecution witness unless the court directs otherwise with reasons. The trial is treated as complaint-based, Section 198(6) applies, and the complaint’s timing is when cognizance is taken. Section 236 applies, allowing evidence on prior convictions post-acquittal or conviction, ensuring tailored procedures for sensitive cases. Source: Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, via India Code.

Clause:
When, in any warrant-case instituted on a police report, the accused appears or is brought before a Magistrate at the commencement of the trial, the Magistrate shall satisfy himself that he has complied with the provisions of section 207.

Explanation: In a warrant-case based on a police report, when the accused appears, the Magistrate must ensure that the accused has received free copies of the police report, FIR, witness statements, confessions, and other documents as required under Section 207, ensuring the accused is prepared for trial. Source: Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, via India Code.

Clause:
If, upon considering the police report and the documents sent with it under section 173 and making such examination, if any, of the accused as the Magistrate thinks necessary and after giving the prosecution and the accused an opportunity of being heard, the Magistrate considers the charge against the accused to be groundless, he shall discharge the accused, and record his reasons for so doing.

Explanation: If, after reviewing the police report, documents, examining the accused (if needed), and hearing both sides, the Magistrate finds the charge baseless, they discharge the accused and record reasons, preventing unnecessary trials. Source: Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, via India Code.

Clause:
(1) If, upon such consideration, examination, if any, and hearing, the Magistrate is of opinion that there is ground for presuming that the accused has committed an offence triable under this Chapter, which such Magistrate is competent to try and which, in his opinion, could be adequately punished by him, he shall frame in writing a charge against the accused.
(2) The charge shall then be read and explained to the accused, and he shall be asked whether he pleads guilty of the offence charged or claims to be tried.

Explanation: If the Magistrate believes there’s evidence suggesting the accused committed an offence they can try and punish adequately, they frame a written charge, read and explain it to the accused, and ask for a guilty plea or trial request, initiating the trial process. Source: Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, via India Code.

Clause:
If the accused pleads guilty, the Magistrate shall record the plea and may, in his discretion, convict him thereon.

Explanation: If the accused pleads guilty, the Magistrate records the plea and can convict based on it, at their discretion, allowing quick resolution when guilt is admitted. Source: Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, via India Code.

Clause:
(1) If the accused refuses to plead or does not plead, or claims to be tried or the Magistrate does not convict the accused under section 241, the Magistrate shall fix a date for the examination of witnesses.
(2) The Magistrate may, on the application of the prosecution, issue a summons to any of its witnesses directing him to attend or to produce any document or other thing.
(3) On the date so fixed, the Magistrate shall proceed to take all such evidence as may be produced in support of the prosecution:
Provided that the Magistrate may permit the cross-examination of any witness to be deferred until any other witness or witnesses have been examined or recall any witness for further cross-examination.

Explanation: If the accused doesn’t plead guilty or isn’t convicted under Section 241, the Magistrate sets a date for witness examination, can summon witnesses or documents on prosecution’s request, and takes prosecution evidence. Cross-examination can be deferred or witnesses recalled at the Magistrate’s discretion, ensuring thorough evidence collection. Source: Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, via India Code.

Clause:
(1) The accused shall then be called upon to enter upon his defence and produce his evidence; and if the accused puts in any written statement, the Magistrate shall file it with the record.
(2) If the accused, after he has entered upon his defence, applies to the Magistrate to issue any process for compelling the attendance of any witness for the purpose of examination or cross-examination, or the production of any document or other thing, the Magistrate shall issue such process unless he considers, for reasons to be recorded, that such application should be refused on the ground that it is made for the purpose of vexation or delay or for defeating the ends of justice.
(3) The Magistrate may, before summoning any witness on an application under sub-section (2), require that the reasonable expenses incurred by the witness in attending for the purposes of the trial be deposited in Court.

Explanation: The accused is asked to present their defense and evidence, with written statements filed. The Magistrate issues processes for witness attendance or document production unless deemed vexatious or delaying, with reasons recorded. Witness expenses may need to be deposited, ensuring the accused’s right to a fair defense. Source: Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, via India Code.

Clause:
(1) When, in any warrant-case instituted otherwise than on a police report, the accused appears or is brought before a Magistrate, the Magistrate shall proceed to hear the prosecution and take all such evidence as may be produced in support of the prosecution.
(2) The Magistrate may, on the application of the prosecution, issue a summons to any of its witnesses directing him to attend or to produce any document or other thing.

Explanation: In warrant-cases not based on police reports (e.g., complaints), when the accused appears, the Magistrate hears the prosecution and takes their evidence. Summons for witnesses or documents can be issued on prosecution’s request, initiating evidence collection for non-police cases. Source: Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, via India Code.

Clause:
(1) If, upon taking all the evidence referred to in section 244, and making such examination, if any, of the accused as the Magistrate thinks necessary, he finds that no case against the accused has been made out which, if unrebutted, would warrant his conviction, the Magistrate shall discharge the accused.
(2) Nothing in this section shall be deemed to prevent a Magistrate from discharging the accused at any previous stage of the case if, for reasons to be recorded by him, he considers the charge to be groundless.

Explanation: After taking prosecution evidence under Section 244 and examining the accused (if needed), if the Magistrate finds no case strong enough for conviction, they discharge the accused. Discharge can also occur earlier if the charge is groundless, with reasons recorded, halting baseless cases. Source: Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, via India Code.

Clause:
(1) If, when such evidence and examination have been taken and made, or at any previous stage of the case, the Magistrate is of opinion that there is ground for presuming that the accused has committed an offence triable under this Chapter, which such Magistrate is competent to try and which, in his opinion, could be adequately punished by him, he shall frame in writing a charge against the accused.
(2) The charge shall then be read and explained to the accused, and he shall be asked whether he pleads guilty or has any defence to make.
(3) If the accused pleads guilty, the Magistrate shall record the plea, and may, in his discretion, convict him thereon.
(4) If the accused refuses to plead, or does not plead or claims to be tried, the Magistrate shall fix a date for the examination of witnesses.
(5) The Magistrate may, on the application of the prosecution, issue a summons to any of its witnesses directing him to attend or to produce any document or other thing.
(6) On the date so fixed, the Magistrate shall proceed to take all such evidence as may be produced in support of the prosecution:
Provided that the Magistrate may permit the cross-examination of any witness to be deferred until any other witness or witnesses have been examined or recall any witness for further cross-examination.

Explanation: If the Magistrate finds grounds for an offence they can try and punish after evidence or earlier, they frame a written charge, explain it, and ask for a plea. A guilty plea may lead to conviction. Otherwise, a date is set for witness examination, summons can be issued, and prosecution evidence is taken, with flexible cross-examination, advancing the trial. Source: Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, via India Code.

Clause:
The accused shall then be called upon to enter upon his defence and produce his evidence; and the provisions of section 243 shall apply to the case.

Explanation: The accused is asked to present their defense and evidence, with Section 243’s rules (filing written statements, summoning witnesses/documents, depositing witness expenses) applying, ensuring a consistent defense process. Source: Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, via India Code.

Clause:
(1) If, in any case under this Chapter in which a charge has been framed, the Magistrate finds the accused not guilty, he shall record an order of acquittal.
(2) Where, in any case under this Chapter, the Magistrate finds the accused guilty, but does not proceed in accordance with the provisions of section 325 or section 360, he shall, after hearing the accused on the question of sentence, pass sentence upon him according to law.
(3) Where, in any case under this Chapter, a previous conviction is charged under the provisions of sub-section (7) of section 211 and the accused does not admit that he has been previously convicted as alleged in the charge, the Magistrate may, after he has convicted the accused, take evidence in respect of the alleged previous conviction, and shall record a finding thereon.

Explanation: If the Magistrate finds the accused not guilty, they record an acquittal. If guilty, unless proceeding under Section 325 (referral to higher court) or Section 360 (probation), they hear the accused on sentencing and pass a lawful sentence. For denied prior convictions charged under Section 211(7), evidence is taken post-conviction, with findings recorded, ensuring fair judgment and sentencing. Source: Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, via India Code.

Clause:
When the proceedings have been instituted upon complaint, and on any day fixed for the hearing of the case, the complainant is absent, and the offence may be lawfully compounded or is not a cognizable offence, the Magistrate may, in his discretion, at any time before the charge has been framed, discharge the accused.

Explanation: In complaint-based cases, if the complainant is absent on a hearing date and the offence is compoundable or non-cognizable, the Magistrate can discharge the accused before framing a charge, at their discretion, addressing complainant non-cooperation. Source: Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, via India Code.

Clause:
(1) If, in any case instituted upon complaint or upon information given to a police officer or to a Magistrate, one or more persons is or are acquitted, any person acquitted may apply to the Magistrate trying the case to issue a summons to the complainant or informant to show cause why he should not pay compensation to such accused person or to each or any of such accused persons when there are more than one, for having been accused without reasonable cause; and the Magistrate may, after hearing the complainant or informant, order him to pay to the accused, or to each or any of them, compensation, not exceeding one hundred rupees, as the Magistrate thinks fit.
(2) No order under sub-section (1) shall be made unless the Magistrate has recorded his reasons for considering that there was no reasonable cause for making the accusation against the accused person or persons.
(3) The Magistrate may, before summoning the complainant or informant under sub-section (1), require that the reasonable expenses incurred by the accused person or persons in attending for the purposes of the trial be deposited in Court.
(4) Compensation ordered to be paid under this section shall be recoverable as if it were a fine.
(5) Any person ordered to pay compensation under this section may appeal against such order, as if it were a conviction, to the Court to which an appeal lies from a conviction by the Magistrate trying the case.
(6) When an order for payment of compensation to an accused person is made in a case which is subject to appeal under sub-section (5), the compensation shall not be paid to him before the period allowed for the presentation of the appeal has elapsed, or, if an appeal is presented, before the appeal has been decided; and where such order is made in a case which is not so subject to appeal, the compensation shall not be paid before the expiration of one month from the date of the order.
(7) The provisions of this section apply to a summons-case as well as to a warrant-case.

Explanation: If acquitted in a complaint or information-based case, the accused can request the Magistrate to summon the complainant/informant to justify the accusation. If found baseless, with reasons recorded, the Magistrate can order compensation (up to ₹100) to the accused, recoverable as a fine. The complainant can appeal, and compensation is delayed pending appeal periods or decisions. Expenses may be deposited, and the section applies to both summons and warrant-cases, deterring frivolous accusations. Source: Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, via India Code.

Clause:
When in a summons-case the accused appears or is brought before the Magistrate, the particulars of the offence of which he is accused shall be stated to him, and he shall be asked whether he pleads guilty or has any defence to make, but it shall not be necessary to frame a formal charge.

Explanation: In a summons-case, when the accused appears, the Magistrate explains the offence details and asks if they plead guilty or wish to defend, without needing a formal written charge, simplifying the process for less serious offences. Source: Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, via India Code.

Clause:
If the accused pleads guilty, the Magistrate shall record the plea, and may, in his discretion, convict him thereon.

Explanation: If the accused admits guilt, the Magistrate records the plea and can convict based on it, at their discretion, allowing swift resolution for admitted offences. Source: Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, via India Code.

Clause:
(1) Where a summons has been issued under section 206 and the accused desires to plead guilty to the charge without appearing before the Magistrate, he shall transmit to the Magistrate, by post or by messenger, a letter containing his plea and also the amount of fine specified in the summons.
(2) The Magistrate may, in his discretion, convict the accused in his absence, on his plea of guilty and sentence him to pay the fine specified in the summons, and the amount transmitted by the accused shall be adjusted towards that fine, or where a pleader is authorised by the accused in writing to plead guilty to the charge on his behalf and such pleader pleads guilty to the charge, the Magistrate may record the plea and may, in his discretion, convict the accused on such plea and sentence him as aforesaid.

Explanation: For petty offences under Section 206, the accused can plead guilty by post or messenger, sending the fine amount, or authorize a lawyer to plead guilty. The Magistrate can convict in absentia, record the plea, and adjust the sent amount toward the fine, streamlining minor case resolutions. Source: Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, via India Code.

Clause:
(1) If the Magistrate does not convict the accused under section 252 or section 253, the Magistrate shall proceed to hear the prosecution and take all such evidence as may be produced in support of the prosecution, and also to hear the accused and take all such evidence as he produces in his defence.
(2) The Magistrate may, if he thinks fit, on the application of the prosecution or the accused, issue a summons to any witness directing him to attend or to produce any document or other thing.
(3) The Magistrate may, before summoning any witness on such application, require that the reasonable expenses of the witness incurred in attending for the purposes of the trial be deposited in Court.

Explanation: If the accused isn’t convicted on a guilty plea under Sections 252 or 253, the Magistrate hears the prosecution, takes their evidence, and then hears the accused’s defense and evidence. Summons for witnesses or documents can be issued on request, with witness expenses possibly required, ensuring a full trial process. Source: Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, via India Code.

Clause:
(1) If the Magistrate, upon taking the evidence referred to in section 254 and such further evidence, if any, as he may, of his own motion, cause to be produced, finds the accused not guilty, he shall record an order of acquittal.
(2) Where the Magistrate does not proceed in accordance with the provisions of section 325 or section 360 he shall, if he finds the accused guilty, pass sentence upon him according to law.
(3) A Magistrate may, under section 252 or section 255, convict the accused of any offence triable under this Chapter which from the facts admitted or proved he appears to have committed, whatever may be the nature of the complaint or summons, if the Magistrate is satisfied that the accused would not be prejudiced thereby.

Explanation: After taking evidence under Section 254 and any additional evidence, if the Magistrate finds the accused not guilty, they record an acquittal. If guilty, unless proceeding under Section 325 (referral to higher court) or Section 360 (probation), they sentence the accused. The Magistrate can convict for any offence proved by facts, even if not in the original complaint, if it doesn’t prejudice the accused, ensuring fair judgments. Source: Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, via India Code.

Clause:
(1) If the summons has been issued on complaint, and on the day appointed for the appearance of the accused, or any day subsequent thereto to which the hearing may be adjourned, the complainant does not appear, the Magistrate shall, notwithstanding anything hereinbefore contained, acquit the accused, unless for some reason he thinks it proper to adjourn the hearing of the case to some other day:
Provided that where the complainant is represented by a pleader or by the officer conducting the prosecution or where the Magistrate is of opinion that the personal attendance of the complainant is not necessary, the Magistrate may dispense with his attendance and proceed with the case.
(2) The provisions of sub-section (1) shall, so far as may be, apply also to cases where the non-appearance of the complainant is due to his death.

Explanation: In complaint-based summons-cases, if the complainant doesn’t appear on the hearing date, the Magistrate acquits the accused unless they decide to adjourn for a reason. If the complainant is represented by a lawyer or prosecutor, or their presence isn’t needed, the case can proceed. This applies to complainant death, ensuring cases aren’t stalled by absence. Source: Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, via India Code.

Clause:
If a complainant, at any time before a final order is passed in any case under this Chapter, satisfies the Magistrate that there are sufficient grounds for permitting him to withdraw his complaint against the accused, or if there be more than one accused, against all or any of them, the Magistrate may permit him to withdraw the same, and shall thereupon acquit the accused against whom the complaint is so withdrawn.

Explanation: Before a final order, if the complainant convinces the Magistrate of sufficient grounds to withdraw the complaint against some or all accused, the Magistrate can allow it, acquitting those accused, resolving cases without full trials. Source: Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, via India Code.

Clause:
In any summons-case instituted otherwise than upon complaint, a Magistrate of the first class or, with the previous sanction of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, any other Magistrate, may, for reasons to be recorded by him, stop the proceedings at any stage without pronouncing any judgment and where such stoppage is made before the evidence of the principal witnesses has been recorded, release the accused, and such release shall have the effect of discharge, but where such stoppage is made after the evidence of the principal witnesses has been recorded, acquit the accused.

Explanation: In non-complaint summons-cases, a First-Class Magistrate or other Magistrate (with Chief Judicial Magistrate’s approval) can halt proceedings for recorded reasons. If stopped before main witness evidence, the accused is discharged; if after, they are acquitted, allowing flexibility to end unnecessary cases. Source: Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, via India Code.

Clause:
When in the course of the trial of a summons-case relating to an offence punishable with imprisonment for a term exceeding six months, it appears to the Magistrate that in the interests of justice, the offence should be tried in accordance with the procedure for the trial of warrant-cases, he may proceed to re-hear the case in the manner provided by this Code for the trial of warrant-cases and may recall any witness who may have been examined.

Explanation: If, during a summons-case trial for an offence with over six months’ imprisonment, the Magistrate believes justice requires a warrant-case procedure, they can switch to that process, rehear the case, and recall witnesses, ensuring a more rigorous trial for serious offences. Source: Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, via India Code.

Clause:
(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Code—

• (a) any Chief Judicial Magistrate;
  
• (b) any Metropolitan Magistrate;
  
• (c) any Magistrate of the first class specially empowered in this behalf by the High Court,
  

• (i) offences not punishable with death, imprisonment for life or imprisonment for a term exceeding two years;
  
• (ii) theft, under section 379 of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860), where the value of the property stolen does not exceed two hundred rupees;
  
• (iii) receiving or retaining stolen property, under section 411 of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860), where the value of the property does not exceed two hundred rupees;
  
• (iv) assisting in the concealment or disposal of stolen property, under section 414 of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860), where the value of such property does not exceed two hundred rupees;
  
• (v) offences under sections 454 and 456 of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860);
  
• (vi) insult with intent to provoke a breach of the peace, under section 504, and criminal intimidation, under section 506 of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860);
  
• (vii) abetment of any of the foregoing offences;
  
• (viii) an attempt to commit any of the foregoing offences, when such attempt is an offence;
  
• (ix) any offence constituted by an act in respect of which a complaint may be made under section 20 of the Cattle-Trespass Act, 1871 (1 of 1871).
  

Explanation: Chief Judicial Magistrates, Metropolitan Magistrates, or specially empowered First-Class Magistrates can try specified minor offences summarily, including theft, receiving stolen property, or insult (up to ₹200 or two years’ imprisonment). If a case seems unsuitable for summary trial, the Magistrate recalls witnesses and rehears it using standard procedures, ensuring flexibility for minor cases. Source: Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, via India Code.

Clause:
The High Court may confer on any Magistrate of the second class power to try summarily any offence which is punishable only with fine or with imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months with or without fine, and any abetment of or attempt to commit any such offence.

Explanation: The High Court can authorize Second-Class Magistrates to conduct summary trials for offences punishable by fine or up to six months’ imprisonment, including abetment or attempts, allowing less senior Magistrates to handle minor cases efficiently. Source: Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, via India Code.

Clause:
(1) In every case tried summarily, the Magistrate shall follow the procedure prescribed for the trial of summons-cases under this Code, except as hereinafter provided.
(2) No sentence of imprisonment for a term exceeding three months shall be passed in the case of any conviction under this Chapter.

Explanation: Summary trials follow the summons-case procedure (Chapter XX), with modifications in this chapter. Sentences are capped at three months’ imprisonment, ensuring quick trials and limited punishment for minor offences. Source: Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, via India Code.

Clause:
In every case tried summarily in which the accused does not plead guilty, the Magistrate shall record—

• (a) the substance of the evidence;
  
• (b) the finding and, in the case of a conviction, a brief statement of the reasons therefor,
  

Explanation: If the accused doesn’t plead guilty in a summary trial, the Magistrate records the evidence’s substance, their findings, and, for convictions, brief reasons, using any form prescribed by the State Government, ensuring minimal but essential documentation. Source: Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, via India Code.

Clause:
In every case tried summarily in which the accused does not plead guilty, the Magistrate shall record the substance of the evidence and a judgment containing a brief statement of the reasons for the finding.

Explanation: For non-guilty pleas in summary trials, the Magistrate records the evidence’s substance and delivers a judgment with a brief explanation of the reasons for their decision, ensuring transparency in the outcome. Source: Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, via India Code.

Clause:
(1) Every such record and judgment shall be written in the language of the Court.
(2) The High Court may authorise any Magistrate empowered to try offences summarily to prepare the aforesaid record or judgment or both by means of an officer appointed in this behalf by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, and the record or judgment so prepared shall be signed by such Magistrate.

Explanation: Records and judgments in summary trials must be in the court’s language. The High Court can allow authorized Magistrates to have these prepared by an appointed officer, with the Magistrate signing them, ensuring proper documentation while easing workload. Source: Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, via India Code.

Clause:
(1) This Chapter shall apply in respect of an accused against whom—

• (a) the report has been forwarded by the officer in charge of the police station under section 173 alleging therein that an offence appears to have been committed by him other than an offence for which the punishment of death or of imprisonment for life or of imprisonment for a term exceeding seven years has been provided under the law for the time being in force; or
  
• (b) a Magistrate has taken cognizance of an offence on complaint, other than an offence for which the punishment of death or of imprisonment for life or of imprisonment for a term exceeding seven years, has been provided under the law for the time being in force, and after examining complainant and witnesses under section 200, issued the process under section 204,
  

Explanation: This section specifies that plea bargaining applies to offences with punishment less than seven years, excluding those punishable by death or life imprisonment, offences affecting the socio-economic condition of the country (as notified by the Central Government), or crimes against women or children below 14. It applies after a police report under Section 173 or a Magistrate’s cognizance under Sections 200 and 204.

Clause:
(1) A person accused of an offence may file an application for plea bargaining in the Court in which such offence is pending for trial.
(2) The application under sub-section (1) shall contain a brief description of the case relating to which the application is filed including the offence to which the case relates and shall be accompanied by an affidavit sworn by the accused stating therein that he has voluntarily preferred, after understanding the nature and extent of punishment provided under the law for the offence, the plea bargaining in his case and that he has not previously been convicted by a Court in a case in which he had been charged with the same offence.
(3) After receiving the application under sub-section (1), the Court shall issue notice to the Public Prosecutor or the complainant of the case, as the case may be, and to the accused to appear on the date fixed for the case.
(4) When the Public Prosecutor or the complainant of the case, as the case may be, and the accused appear on the date fixed under sub-section (3), the Court shall examine the accused in camera, where the other party in the case shall not be present, to satisfy itself that the accused has filed the application voluntarily and where—

• (a) the Court is satisfied that the application has been filed by the accused voluntarily, it shall provide time to the Public Prosecutor or the complainant of the case, as the case may be, and the accused to work out a mutually satisfactory disposition of the case which may include giving to the victim by the accused the compensation and other expenses during the case and thereafter fix the date for further hearing of the case;
  
• (b) the Court finds that the application has not been filed by the accused voluntarily, it shall proceed further in accordance with the provisions of this Code from the stage the application has been filed under this Chapter.

Explanation: An accused can apply for plea bargaining in the trial court, submitting a case description and an affidavit confirming voluntary application and no prior conviction for the same offence. The court notifies the prosecutor or complainant, examines the accused in camera to confirm voluntariness, and, if satisfied, allows time for a mutually satisfactory disposition, including victim compensation. If not voluntary, the case proceeds normally.

Clause:
In working out a mutually satisfactory disposition under clause (a) of sub-section (4) of section 265B, the Court shall follow the following procedure, namely:—

• (a) in a case instituted on a police report, the Court shall issue notice to the Public Prosecutor, the police officer who has investigated the case, the accused and the victim of the case to participate in the meeting to work out a satisfactory disposition of the case:
  Provided that throughout such process of working out a satisfactory disposition, the accused, if he so desires, may be represented by a pleader;
  
• (b) in a case instituted otherwise than on police report, the Court shall issue notice to the accused and the victim of the case who shall participate in a meeting to work out a satisfactory disposition of the case:
  Provided that it shall be the duty of the Court to ensure, throughout such process of working out a satisfactory disposition, that it is completed voluntarily by the parties participating in the meeting.

Explanation: For a mutually satisfactory disposition, the court issues notices for a meeting: in police report cases, to the prosecutor, investigating officer, accused, and victim; in complaint cases, to the accused and victim. The accused may have legal representation, and the court ensures the process is voluntary, promoting fair negotiation.

Clause:
Where in a meeting under section 265C, a satisfactory disposition of the case has been worked out, the Court shall prepare a report of such disposition and such report shall be signed by the presiding officer of the Court and all other persons who participated in the meeting:
Provided that if no such disposition has been worked out, the Court shall record such observation and proceed further in accordance with the provisions of this Code from the stage the application under sub-section (1) of section 265B was filed in such case.

Explanation: If a mutually satisfactory disposition is reached under Section 265C, the court prepares and signs a report with all participants. If no agreement is reached, the court records this and proceeds with the case as per the Code from the plea bargaining application stage.

Clause:
Where a satisfactory disposition of the case has been worked out under section 265D, the Court shall dispose of the case in the following manner, namely:—

• (a) the Court shall award the compensation to the victim in accordance with the disposition under section 265D and hear the parties on the quantum of the punishment, releasing of the accused on probation under section 360 or section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 or after admonition under section 3 of the said Act;
  
• (b) after hearing the parties under clause (a), if the Court is of the view that section 360 or the provisions of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 are attracted, it may release the accused on probation or provide the benefit of the said Act, as the case may be;
  
• (c) if the Court finds that minimum punishment has been provided under the law for the offence committed by the accused, it may sentence the accused to half of such minimum punishment;
  
• (d) in any other case, the Court may sentence the accused to one-fourth of the punishment provided or extendable, as the case may be, for such offence.

Explanation: Upon a satisfactory disposition under Section 265D, the court awards victim compensation, hears parties on punishment, and may release the accused on probation under Section 360 or the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958, or after admonition. If a minimum punishment applies, the court may impose half of it; otherwise, it may impose one-fourth of the possible punishment.

Clause:
The Court shall deliver its judgment in terms of section 265E in the open Court and the same shall be signed by the presiding officer of the Court.

Explanation: The court delivers its judgment as per Section 265E in open court, signed by the presiding officer, ensuring transparency and formal conclusion of the plea bargaining process.

Clause:
The judgment delivered by the Court under section 265F shall be final and no appeal (except the special leave petition under article 136 and writ petition under articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution) shall lie in any Court against such judgment.

Explanation: The judgment under Section 265F is final, with no appeal permitted except through special leave petitions under Article 136 or writ petitions under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution, ensuring limited challenges to plea bargaining outcomes.

Clause:
A Court shall have, for the purposes of discharging its functions under this Chapter, all the powers vested in respect of bail, trial of offences and other matters relating to the disposal of a case in such Court under this Code.

Explanation: The court has all powers related to bail, trial, and case disposal under the Code of Criminal Procedure for plea bargaining, ensuring it can effectively manage the process.

Clause:
The provisions of section 428 shall apply, for setting off the period of detention undergone by the accused against the sentence of imprisonment imposed under this Chapter, in the same manner as they apply in respect of the sentence of imprisonment imposed in any other case under this Code.

Explanation: The period of detention served by the accused is set off against the imprisonment sentence imposed under plea bargaining, as per Section 428, ensuring consistency with other cases under the Code.

Clause:
The provisions of this Chapter shall have effect notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith contained in any other provisions of this Code and nothing in such other provisions shall be construed to constrain the meaning of any provision of this Chapter.
Explanation.—For the purposes of this Chapter, the expression “Public Prosecutor” has the meaning assigned to it under clause (u) of section 2 and includes an Assistant Public Prosecutor appointed under section 25.

Explanation: This chapter’s provisions override any inconsistent provisions in the Code, and the term “Public Prosecutor” includes Assistant Public Prosecutors as defined in Section 2(u) and Section 25, ensuring clarity and precedence in plea bargaining procedures.

Clause:
Notwithstanding anything contained in any law for the time being in force, the statements or facts stated by an accused in an application for plea bargaining filed under section 265B shall not be used for any other purpose except for the purposes of this Chapter.

Explanation: Statements or facts in a plea bargaining application under Section 265B cannot be used for any purpose outside this chapter, protecting the accused from self-incrimination in other proceedings.

Clause:
Nothing in this Chapter shall apply to any Juvenile or Child as defined in clause (k) of section 2 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 (56 of 2000).

Explanation: This chapter does not apply to juveniles or children as defined under the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000, ensuring their cases are handled under juvenile justice laws.

Clause:
In this Chapter,—

• (a) “detained” includes detained under any law providing for preventive detention;
  
• (b) “prison” includes,—
  
• (i) any place which has been declared by the State Government, by general or special order, to be a subsidiary jail;
  
• (ii) any reformatory, Borstal institution or other institution of a like nature.
  

Explanation: This section defines “detained” as including detention under preventive detention laws and “prison” as encompassing subsidiary jails declared by the State Government, reformatories, Borstal institutions, or similar facilities, clarifying terms for the chapter. Source: Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, via India Code.

Clause:
(1) Whenever, in the course of an inquiry, trial or other proceeding under this Code, it appears to a Criminal Court,—

• (a) that a person confined or detained in a prison should be brought before the Court for answering to a charge of an offence, or for the purpose of any proceedings against him, or
  
• (b) that it is necessary for the ends of justice to examine such person as a witness,
  

Explanation: A Criminal Court can order a prisoner’s attendance to answer a charge, participate in proceedings, or give evidence if needed for justice. Orders by Second-Class Magistrates require countersigning by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, accompanied by reasons, and may be declined, ensuring oversight for prisoner transfers. Source: Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, via India Code.

Clause:
(1) The State Government may, at any time, having regard to the matters specified in sub-section (2), by general or special order, direct that any person or class of persons shall not be removed from the prison in which he or they are confined or detained, and thereupon, so long as the order remains in force, no order made under section 267, whether before or after the order of the State Government, shall have effect in respect of such person or class of persons.
(2) Before making an order under sub-section (1), the State Government shall have regard to the following matters, namely:—

• (a) the nature of the offence for which, or the grounds on which, the person or class of persons has been ordered to be confined or detained in prison;
  
• (b) the likelihood of the disturbance of public order if the person or class of persons is allowed to be removed from the prison;
  
• (c) the public interest, generally.
  

Explanation: The State Government can issue orders preventing certain prisoners from being removed from prison under Section 267, considering the offence’s nature, risk of public disorder, and public interest. Such orders override Section 267 orders, ensuring security for high-risk detainees. Source: Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, via India Code.

Clause:
Where the person in respect of whom an order is made under section 267—

• (a) is by reason of sickness or infirmity unfit to be removed from the prison; or
  
• (b) is under committal for trial or under remand pending trial or pending a preliminary investigation; or
  
• (c) is in custody for a period which would expire before the expiration of the time required for complying with the order; or
  
• (d) is a person to whom an order made by the State Government under section 268 applies,
  

Explanation: The prison officer must not comply with a Section 267 order if the prisoner is unfit due to sickness, under trial/remand, in custody expiring soon, or subject to a State Government order under Section 268, and must inform the court with reasons. However, for evidence within 25 km, trial/remand status doesn’t justify non-compliance, balancing health and judicial needs. Source: Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, via India Code.

Clause:
Subject to the provisions of section 269, the officer in charge of the prison shall, upon delivery of an order made under sub-section (1) of section 267 and duly countersigned, where necessary, under sub-section (2) thereof, cause the person named in the order to be taken to the Court in which his attendance is required, so as to be present there at the time mentioned in the order, and shall cause him to be kept in custody in or near the Court until he has been examined or until the Court authorises him to be taken back to the prison in which he was confined or detained.

Explanation: Unless Section 269 applies, the prison officer must bring the prisoner to court as per a Section 267 order (countersigned if needed) at the specified time, keeping them in custody near the court until examined or authorized to return, ensuring secure attendance. Source: Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, via India Code.

Clause:
(1) Where it appears to any Criminal Court that the examination of a person confined or detained in a prison as a witness is necessary for the ends of justice and that his attendance cannot be procured without an amount of delay, expense or inconvenience which, under the circumstances of the case, would be unreasonable, the Court may, instead of making an order under section 267, issue a commission under section 284 for the examination of such person in the prison in which he is confined or detained.
(2) The provisions of sections 284, 285, 286 and 287 shall, so far as may be, apply in relation to the examination of a person under sub-section (1) as they apply in relation to the examination of a person under section 284.

Explanation: If a prisoner’s testimony is needed but their court attendance would cause unreasonable delay, expense, or inconvenience, the court can issue a commission under Section 284 to examine them in prison. Sections 284–287’s rules apply, allowing efficient evidence collection without physical transfer. Source: Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, via India Code.

Clause:
The State Government may determine what shall be, for purposes of this Code, the language of each Court within the State other than the High Court.

Explanation: The State Government decides the language for court proceedings (except High Courts) under the CrPC, ensuring accessibility and consistency in judicial processes. Source: Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, via India Code.

Clause:
Except as otherwise expressly provided, all evidence taken in the course of the trial or other proceeding shall be taken in the presence of the accused, or, when his personal attendance is dispensed with, in the presence of his pleader.

Explanation: Unless specified otherwise, all evidence in trials or proceedings must be recorded with the accused present or, if their attendance is excused, their lawyer present, ensuring the accused’s right to hear evidence. Source: Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, via India Code.

Clause:
(1) In all summons-cases tried before a Magistrate, in all inquiries under sections 145 to 148, and in all proceedings under section 446 otherwise than in the course of a trial, the Magistrate shall, as the examination of each witness proceeds, make a memorandum of the substance of his evidence in the language of the Court:
Provided that if the Magistrate is unable to make such memorandum himself, he shall, after recording the reason for his inability, cause such memorandum to be made in writing or from his dictation in open Court.
(2) Such memorandum shall be signed by the Magistrate and shall form part of the record.

Explanation: In summons-cases, inquiries under Sections 145–148, and Section 446 proceedings (not trials), the Magistrate records a summary of each witness’s evidence in the court’s language during examination. If unable, they record reasons and have it written or dictated in open court, with the memorandum signed and included in the record, ensuring concise documentation. Source: Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, via India Code.

Clause:
(1) In all warrant-cases tried before a Magistrate, the evidence of each witness shall, as his examination proceeds, be taken down in writing either by the Magistrate or, where he is unable to do so, by his dictation in open Court and either in the language of the Court or in the English language.
(2) Where the Magistrate causes the evidence to be taken down, he shall record a certificate that the evidence has been taken down in the presence of the accused or, where his personal attendance is dispensed with, in the presence of his pleader.
(3) The evidence so taken down shall be signed by the Magistrate and shall form part of the record.

Explanation: In warrant-cases, the Magistrate records each witness’s evidence in writing during examination, in the court’s language or English, personally or by dictation in open court if unable. They certify it was recorded with the accused or their lawyer present, sign it, and include it in the record, ensuring accurate evidence documentation. Source: Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, via India Code.

Clause:
(1) In all trials before a Court of Session, the evidence of each witness shall, as his examination proceeds, be taken down in writing either by the presiding Judge himself or by his dictation in open Court.
(2) Such evidence shall ordinarily be taken down in the form of a narrative, but the presiding Judge may, in his discretion, take down or cause to be taken down, any part of such evidence in the form of question and answer.
(3) The evidence so taken down shall be signed by the presiding Judge and shall form part of the record.

Explanation: In Sessions Court trials, the presiding Judge records each witness’s evidence in writing during examination, personally or by dictation in open court, usually as a narrative. They can record specific parts as question-and-answer at their discretion, sign the record, and include it in the case file, ensuring detailed evidence capture. Source: Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, via India Code.

Clause:
In every case where evidence is taken down under section 275 or section 276—

• (a) if the witness gives evidence in the language of the Court, it shall be taken down in that language;
  
• (b) if he gives evidence in any other language, it shall be taken down in that language, if practicable, and if not practicable, a true translation of the evidence in the language of the Court or in the English language shall be prepared and taken down;
  
• (c) when the evidence is taken down in a language other than the language of the Court, a true translation thereof in the language of the Court or in the English language shall be prepared as soon as practicable, signed by the Magistrate or presiding Judge, and shall form part of the record;
  
• (d) when the evidence is taken down in the English language and a translation thereof in the language of the Court is required by any party to the proceeding, such translation shall be prepared and supplied to such party.
  

Explanation: For evidence recorded under Sections 275 (warrant-cases) or 276 (Sessions trials), it’s taken in the court’s language if the witness uses it. If in another language, it’s recorded in that language if possible; otherwise, a translation in the court’s language or English is used. Non-court language evidence gets a signed translation, and English evidence is translated into the court’s language on request, ensuring accessible records. Source: Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, via India Code.

Clause:
(1) As the evidence of each witness taken under section 275 or section 276 is completed, it shall be read over to him in the presence of the accused, if in attendance, or of his pleader, if he appears by pleader, and shall, if necessary, be corrected.
(2) If the witness denies the correctness of any part of the evidence when the same is read over to him, the Magistrate or presiding Judge may, instead of correcting the evidence, make a memorandum of the objection made to it by the witness and shall add such remarks as he thinks necessary.
(3) If the evidence is taken down in a language different from that in which it has been given and the witness does not understand that language, the evidence shall be interpreted to him in the language in which it was given, or in a language which he understands.

Explanation: After recording evidence under Sections 275 or 276, it’s read back to the witness in the presence of the accused or their lawyer and corrected if needed. If the witness disputes any part, the Magistrate or Judge notes the objection and adds remarks instead of altering it. If recorded in a language the witness doesn’t understand, it’s interpreted in their language, ensuring accuracy and fairness. Source: Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, via India Code.

Clause:
(1) Whenever any evidence is given in a language not understood by the accused, and he is present in Court in person, it shall be interpreted to him in open Court in a language understood by him.
(2) If he appears by pleader and the evidence is given in a language other than the language of the Court, and not understood by the pleader, it shall be interpreted to such pleader in the language of the Court.
(3) When documents are put in for the purpose of formal proof, it shall be in the discretion of the Court to interpret as much thereof as appears necessary.

Explanation: If evidence is in a language the accused doesn’t understand, it’s interpreted to them in court in a language they know. If their lawyer doesn’t understand the evidence language (not the court’s language), it’s interpreted to the lawyer in the court’s language. For documents submitted formally, the court decides how much to interpret, ensuring comprehension. Source: Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, via India Code.

Clause:
When a presiding Judge or Magistrate has recorded the evidence of a witness, he shall also record such remarks (if any) as he thinks material respecting the demeanour of such witness whilst under examination.

Explanation: After recording a witness’s evidence, the Judge or Magistrate notes any significant observations about the witness’s behavior or demeanor during examination, aiding in assessing credibility. Source: Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, via India Code.

Clause:
(1) Whenever the accused is examined by a Metropolitan Magistrate, the Magistrate shall make a memorandum of the substance of the examination of the accused in the language of the Court and such memorandum shall be signed by the Magistrate and shall form part of the record.
(2) Whenever the accused is examined by any Magistrate other than a Metropolitan Magistrate, or by a Court of Session, the whole of such examination, including every question put to him and every answer given by him, shall be recorded in full by the presiding Judge or Magistrate himself or where he is unable to do so owing to a physical or other incapacity, under his direction and superintendence by an officer of the Court appointed by him in this behalf.
(3) The record shall, if practicable, be in the language in which the accused is examined or, if that is not practicable, in the language of the Court.
(4) The record shall be shown or read to the accused, or, if he does not understand the language in which it is written, shall be interpreted to him in a language which he understands, and he shall be at liberty to explain or add to his answers.
(5) It shall thereafter be signed by the accused and by the Magistrate or presiding Judge, who shall certify under his own hand that the examination was taken in his presence and that the record contains a full and true account of the statement made by the accused.
(6) Nothing in this section shall be deemed to apply to the examination of an accused person in the course of a summary trial.

Explanation: For accused examinations, Metropolitan Magistrates record a summary memorandum in the court’s language, signed and filed. Other Magistrates or Sessions Courts record the full examination (questions and answers) in the accused’s language or the court’s, personally or by an appointed officer if incapacitated. The record is read or interpreted to the accused, who can clarify answers, and is signed by both, with the Judge/Magistrate certifying its accuracy. This doesn’t apply to summary trials, ensuring detailed and verified records. Source: Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, via India Code.

Clause:
When the services of an interpreter are required by any Criminal Court for the interpretation of any evidence or statement, he shall be bound to state the true interpretation of such evidence or statement.

Explanation: Interpreters in criminal courts must provide accurate translations of evidence or statements, ensuring reliability in multilingual proceedings. Source: Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, via India Code.

Clause:
Every High Court may, by general rules, prescribe the manner in which the evidence of witnesses and the examination of the accused shall be taken down in cases coming before it; and such evidence and examination shall be taken down in accordance with such rules.

Explanation: High Courts can set rules for recording witness evidence and accused examinations in their cases, and these must be followed, allowing customized procedures for higher courts. Source: Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, via India Code.

Clause:
(1) Whenever, in the course of any inquiry, trial or other proceeding under this Code, it appears to a Criminal Court that the examination of a witness is necessary for the ends of justice, and that the attendance of such witness cannot be procured without an amount of delay, expense or inconvenience which, under the circumstances of the case, would be unreasonable, the Court may dispense with such attendance and may issue a commission for the examination of the witness in accordance with the provisions of this Chapter:
Provided that where the examination of a witness is necessary and such witness is the President or the Vice-President of India or the Governor of a State or an Administrator of a Union territory, the Court shall issue a commission for his examination and shall not require his attendance.
(2) The Court may, when issuing a commission for the examination of a witness for the prosecution, direct that such amount as the Court considers reasonable to meet the expenses of the accused, including the pleader’s fees, be paid by the prosecution.

Explanation: If a witness’s testimony is needed but their attendance would cause unreasonable delay, expense, or inconvenience, the court can issue a commission for their examination. Commissions are mandatory for the President, Vice-President, Governors, or Union Territory Administrators. The court may order the prosecution to cover the accused’s expenses for prosecution witness commissions, ensuring access to justice. Source: Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, via India Code.

Clause:
(1) If the witness is within the territories to which this Code extends, the commission shall be directed to the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate or Chief Judicial Magistrate, as the case may be, within whose local jurisdiction the witness is to be found.
(2) If the witness is in India, but in a State or an area to which this Code does not extend, the commission shall be directed to such Court or officer as the Central Government may, by notification, specify in this behalf.
(3) If the witness is in a country or place outside India and arrangements have been made by the Central Government with the Government of such country or place for taking the evidence of witnesses in relation to criminal matters, the commission shall be issued in such form, directed to such Court or officer, and sent to such authority for transmission, as the Central Government may, by notification, prescribe in this behalf.

Explanation: Commissions for witnesses within CrPC jurisdictions go to the local Chief Metropolitan or Judicial Magistrate. For witnesses in India but outside CrPC areas, they go to a court or officer specified by the Central Government. For witnesses abroad, where arrangements exist, commissions follow Central Government-prescribed forms and channels, ensuring proper authority handles examinations. Source: Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, via India Code.

Clause:
Upon receipt of the commission, the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, or Chief Judicial Magistrate, or such Metropolitan or Judicial Magistrate as he may appoint in this behalf, shall summon the witness, examine him, take down his evidence in the same manner as in the trial of warrant-cases and after making a true translation of such evidence, if necessary, return the commission together with the evidence of the witness to the Court issuing the commission.

Explanation: On receiving a commission, the Chief Metropolitan or Judicial Magistrate, or their appointee, summons and examines the witness, records evidence as in warrant-case trials, translates it if needed, and returns the commission with the evidence to the issuing court, ensuring standardized evidence collection. Source: Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, via India Code.

Clause:
(1) The parties to any proceeding under this Code in which a commission is issued may, respectively, forward any interrogatories in writing which the Court issuing the commission may think relevant to the issue, and it shall be lawful for the Magistrate, Court or officer to whom the commission is directed, or to whom the examination of the witness is delegated, to examine the witness upon such interrogatories.
(2) Any such party may appear before such Magistrate, Court or officer by pleader, or if not in custody, in person, and may examine, cross-examine and re-examine, as the case may be, the said witness.

Explanation: Parties in proceedings can submit written questions (interrogatories) for a commissioned witness, which the examining Magistrate or officer can use. Parties can also appear through a lawyer or in person (if not in custody) to examine, cross-examine, or re-examine the witness, ensuring their right to engage with evidence. Source: Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, via India Code.

Clause:
(1) After any commission issued under section 284 has been duly executed, it shall be returned, together with the deposition of the witness examined thereunder, to the Court out of which it issued.
(2) On the return of the commission, the Court shall proceed with the inquiry, trial or other proceeding in accordance with the provisions of this Code, and the deposition taken under the commission shall be read as evidence in the presence of the accused, if he is in attendance, or of his pleader, if he appears by pleader, and shall form part of the record.

Explanation: Once a commission under Section 284 is executed, it and the witness’s deposition are returned to the issuing court. The court continues the proceedings, reading the deposition as evidence in the presence of the accused or their lawyer, and includes it in the record, integrating commissioned evidence into the case. Source: Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, via India Code.

Clause:
In every case in which a commission is issued under section 284, the inquiry, trial or other proceeding may be adjourned for a specified time reasonably sufficient for the execution and return of the commission.

Explanation: When a commission is issued under Section 284, the court can adjourn the inquiry, trial, or proceeding for a reasonable time to allow the commission’s execution and return, ensuring proceedings align with evidence collection. Source: Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, via India Code.

Clause:
(1) The provisions of section 286 and so much of section 287 and section 288 as relate to the execution of a commission and its return shall apply in respect of commissions issued by any Court in the United Kingdom or any other country or place notified by the Central Government under sub-section (3) of section 285, or by any Criminal Court in India to which this Code does not extend, in the same manner as they apply in respect of commissions issued by Courts in India to which this Code extends.
(2) The deposition taken under any such commission shall, on the return of the commission to the Court out of which it issued, be read as evidence in the presence of the accused, if he is in attendance, or of his pleader, if he appears by pleader, and shall form part of the record of the case.

Explanation: Sections 286, 287, and 288’s provisions for executing and returning commissions apply to those issued by courts in the UK, notified foreign countries, or Indian courts outside CrPC jurisdiction. Depositions are read as evidence in the presence of the accused or their lawyer and included in the record, ensuring foreign evidence is handled consistently. Source: Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, via India Code.

Clause:
(1) The deposition of a medical witness taken and attested by a Magistrate in the presence of the accused, or taken on commission under this Chapter, may be given in evidence in any inquiry, trial or other proceeding under this Code, although the deponent is not called as a witness.
(2) The Court may, if it thinks fit, summon the medical witness and examine him as a Court witness.

Explanation: A medical witness’s deposition, taken and attested by a Magistrate with the accused present or via commission, can be used as evidence without calling the witness. The court can summon the medical witness for examination if needed, balancing efficiency and necessity. Source: Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, via India Code.

Clause:
(1) Any document purporting to be a report under the hand of any such gazetted officer of the Mint or of any assay office in India as the Central Government may, by notification, specify in this behalf, upon any matter or thing duly submitted to him for examination and report in the course of any proceeding under this Code, may be used as evidence in any inquiry, trial or other proceeding under this Code, although such officer is not called as a witness.
(2) The Court may, if it thinks fit, summon the officer who made the report and examine him as a Court witness.

Explanation: Reports by gazetted Mint officers or specified assay office officers, submitted in proceedings, can be used as evidence without calling the officer. The court can summon the officer for examination if necessary, ensuring reliable evidence with flexibility. Source: Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, via India Code.

Clause:
(1) Any document purporting to be a report under the hand of a Government scientific expert to whom this section applies, upon any matter or thing duly submitted to him for examination and report in the course of any proceeding under this Code, may be used as evidence in any inquiry, trial or other proceeding under this Code.
(2) The Court may, if it thinks fit, summon the scientific expert who made the report and examine him as a Court witness.
(3) This section applies to the following Government scientific experts, namely:—

• (a) any Chemical Examiner or Assistant Chemical Examiner to Government;
  
• (b) the Chief Inspector of Explosives;
  
• (c) the Director of the Finger Print Bureau;
  
• (d) the Director, Haffkeine Institute, Bombay;
  
• (e) the Director, Deputy Director or Assistant Director of a Central Forensic Science Laboratory or a State Forensic Science Laboratory;
  
• (f) the Serologist to the Government.
  

Explanation: Reports by specified Government scientific experts (e.g., Chemical Examiners, Forensic Directors) can be used as evidence without calling the expert. The court can summon the expert for examination if needed, streamlining use of expert evidence. Source: Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, via India Code.

Clause:
(1) Where any document is filed before any Court by the prosecution or the accused, and both the prosecution and the accused admit the genuineness of such document, no formal proof of such document shall be required and it shall be read in evidence.
(2) The Court may, in its discretion, require formal proof of any such document, notwithstanding the admission of its genuineness by the parties.

Explanation: If both prosecution and accused agree a document’s authenticity, it can be used as evidence without formal proof. The court can still require formal proof at its discretion, balancing efficiency and verification. Source: Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, via India Code.

Clause:
When any application is made to any Court in the course of any inquiry, trial or other proceeding under this Code, and allegations are made therein respecting the conduct of any public servant, the Court may, in its discretion, take evidence in respect of such conduct by affidavit, unless it considers that, in the interests of justice, such evidence should be taken orally in open Court.

Explanation: In proceedings alleging public servant misconduct, the court can accept evidence via affidavit at its discretion, unless oral evidence in open court is deemed necessary for justice, allowing flexible evidence collection. Source: Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, via India Code.

Clause:
(1) The evidence of any person whose evidence is of a formal character may be given by affidavit and may, subject to all just exceptions, be read in evidence in any inquiry, trial or other proceeding under this Code.
(2) The Court may, if it thinks fit, and shall, on the application of the prosecution or the accused, summon and examine any such person as to the facts contained in his affidavit.

Explanation: Formal evidence (e.g., routine or procedural) can be submitted via affidavit and used in proceedings, unless objections arise. The court can summon the affiant for examination at its discretion or if requested by either party, ensuring reliability of formal evidence. Source: Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, via India Code.

Clause:
(1) Affidavits to be used before any Court under this Code may be sworn or affirmed before—

• (a) any Judge or Magistrate, or
  
• (b) any Commissioner of Oaths appointed by a High Court or Court of Session, or
  
• (c) any notary appointed under the Notaries Act, 1952 (53 of 1952).
  

Explanation: Affidavits for court use can be sworn before Judges, Magistrates, oath commissioners, or notaries. They must separate facts known personally by the deponent from those believed true based on information, with sources specified, ensuring clarity and credibility. Source: Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, via India Code.

Clause:
In any inquiry, trial or other proceeding under this Code, a previous conviction or acquittal may be proved, in addition to any other mode provided by any law for the time being in force—

• (a) by an extract certified under the hand of the officer having the custody of the records of the Court in which such conviction or acquittal was had, to be a copy of the sentence or order; or
  
• (b) in case of a conviction, either by a certificate signed by the officer in charge of the jail in which the punishment or any part thereof was undergone, or by production of the warrant of commitment under which the punishment was suffered,
  

Explanation: Previous convictions or acquittals can be proved by certified court extracts, jail certificates, or commitment warrants, along with evidence confirming the accused’s identity, supplementing other legal methods, ensuring accurate proof of prior outcomes. Source: Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, via India Code.

Clause:
(1) If it is proved that an accused person has absconded, and that there is no immediate prospect of arresting him, the Court competent to try such person for the offence complained of may, in his absence, examine the witnesses produced on behalf of the prosecution, and record their depositions and any such deposition may, on the arrest of such person, be given in evidence against him in the inquiry into, or trial for, the offence with which he is charged, if the deponent is dead or incapable of giving evidence or his attendance cannot be procured without an amount of delay, expense or inconvenience which, under the circumstances of the case, would be unreasonable.
(2) If it appears that an offence punishable with death or imprisonment for life has been committed by some person or persons unknown, the High Court or the Sessions Judge may direct that any Magistrate of the first class shall hold an inquiry and examine any witnesses who can give evidence concerning the offence and any depositions so taken may be given in evidence against any person who is subsequently accused of the offence, if the deponent is dead or incapable of giving evidence or beyond the limits of India.

Explanation: If an accused has absconded with no immediate arrest prospect, the competent court can record prosecution witness depositions in their absence, usable later if the witness is dead, incapacitated, or their attendance is unreasonably difficult. For unknown perpetrators of death or life imprisonment offences, the High Court or Sessions Judge can order a First-Class Magistrate to inquire and record witness depositions, usable against later-accused persons if the witness is dead, incapacitated, or outside India, ensuring evidence preservation. Source: Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, via India Code.

Clause:
(1) A person who has once been tried by a Court of competent jurisdiction for an offence and convicted or acquitted of such offence shall, while such conviction or acquittal remains in force, not be liable to be tried again for the same offence, nor on the same facts for any other offence for which a different charge from the one made against him might have been made under sub-section (1) of section 221, or for which he might have been convicted under sub-section (2) thereof.
(2) A person acquitted or convicted of any offence may be afterwards tried, with the consent of the State Government, for any distinct offence for which a separate charge might have been made against him at the former trial under sub-section (1) of section 220.
(3) A person convicted of any offence constituted by any act causing consequences which, together with such act, constituted a different offence from that of which he was convicted, may be afterwards tried for such last-mentioned offence, if the consequences had not happened, or were not known to the Court to have happened, at the time when he was convicted.
(4) A person acquitted or convicted of any offence constituted by any acts may, notwithstanding such acquittal or conviction, be subsequently charged with, and tried for, any other offence constituted by the same acts which he may have committed if the Court by which he was first tried was not competent to try the offence with which he is subsequently charged.
(5) A person discharged under section 258 shall not be tried again for the same offence except with the consent of the Court by which he was discharged or of any other Court to which the first-mentioned Court is subordinate.
(6) Nothing in this section shall affect the provisions of section 26 of the General Clauses Act, 1897 (10 of 1897) or of section 188 of this Code.
Explanation—The dismissal of a complaint, or the discharge of the accused, is not an acquittal for the purposes of this section.

Explanation: This section protects against double jeopardy, preventing retrial for the same offence or same facts after a conviction or acquittal by a competent court, unless specific exceptions apply (e.g., State Government consent for distinct offences, new consequences, or incompetent prior court). Discharges under Section 258 require court consent for retrial, and dismissals or discharges aren’t acquittals, ensuring fairness while allowing limited retrials. Source: Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, via India Code.

Clause:
(1) The Public Prosecutor or Assistant Public Prosecutor in charge of a case may appear and plead without any written authority before any Court in which that case is under inquiry, trial or appeal.
(2) If in any such case any private person instructs a pleader to prosecute any person in any Court, the Public Prosecutor or Assistant Public Prosecutor in charge of the case shall conduct the prosecution, and the pleader so instructed shall act therein under the directions of the Public Prosecutor or Assistant Public Prosecutor, and may, with the permission of the Court, submit written arguments after the evidence is closed in the case.

Explanation: Public Prosecutors or Assistants can represent cases without written authority. If a private person hires a lawyer, the Public Prosecutor leads the prosecution, with the private lawyer acting under their direction and submitting written arguments post-evidence with court permission, ensuring coordinated prosecution. Source: Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, via India Code.

Clause:
(1) Any Magistrate inquiring into or trying a case may permit the prosecution to be conducted by any person other than a Public Prosecutor or Assistant Public Prosecutor, but no person, other than the Advocate-General or Government Advocate or a Public Prosecutor or Assistant Public Prosecutor, shall be entitled to do so without such permission.
(2) Any person conducting the prosecution may do so personally or by a pleader.

Explanation: A Magistrate can allow someone other than a Public Prosecutor to conduct prosecution, but only with permission, except for Advocate-General, Government Advocate, or Public Prosecutors. The permitted person can prosecute personally or through a lawyer, providing flexibility in prosecution. Source: Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, via India Code.

Clause:
Any person accused of an offence before a Criminal Court, or against whom proceedings are instituted under this Code, shall be entitled to be defended by a pleader of his choice.

Explanation: Anyone accused or facing proceedings under the CrPC has the right to be defended by a lawyer of their choice, ensuring their fundamental right to legal representation. Source: Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, via India Code.

Clause:
(1) Where, in a trial before the Court of Session, the accused is not represented by a pleader, and where it appears to the Court that the accused has not sufficient means to engage a pleader, the Court shall assign a pleader for his defence at the expense of the State.
(2) The High Court may, with the previous approval of the State Government, make rules providing for—

• (a) the mode of selecting pleaders for defence under sub-section (1);
  
• (b) the facilities to be allowed to such pleaders by the Courts;
  
• (c) the fees payable to such pleaders by the Government, and generally, for carrying out the purposes of sub-section (1).
  

Explanation: In Sessions Court trials, if an accused lacks a lawyer and can’t afford one, the court assigns a state-funded lawyer. High Courts, with State Government approval, can set rules for selecting lawyers, their facilities, and fees. State Governments can extend this legal aid to other courts via notification, ensuring access to justice for indigent accused. Source: Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, via India Code.

Clause:
(1) In this section, “corporation” means an incorporated company or other body corporate, and includes a society registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860 (21 of 1860).
(2) Where a corporation is the accused person or one of the accused persons in an inquiry or trial, it may appoint a representative for the purpose of the inquiry or trial, and such appointment need not be under the seal of the corporation.
(3) Where a representative of a corporation appears, any requirement of this Code that anything shall be done in the presence of the accused or shall be read or stated or explained to the accused, shall be construed as a requirement that that thing shall be done in the presence of the representative or read or stated or explained to the representative, and any requirement that the accused shall be examined shall be construed as a requirement that the representative shall be examined.
(4) Where a representative of a corporation does not appear, any such requirement as is referred to in sub-section (3) shall not apply.
(5) Where a corporation is accused, every person who, at the time the offence was committed, was in charge of, and was responsible to, the corporation for the conduct of the business of the corporation, as well as the corporation, shall be deemed to be guilty of the offence and shall be liable to be proceeded against and punished accordingly:
Provided that nothing contained in this sub-section shall render any such person liable to any punishment if he proves that the offence was committed without his knowledge or that he exercised all due diligence to prevent the commission of such offence.
(6) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (5), where an offence under this Code has been committed by a corporation and it is proved that the offence has been committed with the consent or connivance of, or is attributable to any neglect on the part of, any director, manager, secretary or other officer of the corporation, such director, manager, secretary or other officer shall also be deemed to be guilty of that offence and shall be liable to be proceeded against and punished accordingly.

Explanation: Corporations (including registered societies) can appoint representatives for inquiries or trials without formal seals. Representatives stand in for the corporation, fulfilling requirements like presence or examination. If no representative appears, these requirements don’t apply. Persons in charge of the corporation’s business at the time of the offence are liable, unless they prove ignorance or due diligence. Directors or officers are liable if their consent, connivance, or neglect contributed to the offence, ensuring accountability for corporate crimes. Source: Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, via India Code.

Clause:
(1) With a view to obtaining the evidence of any person supposed to have been directly or indirectly concerned in or privy to an offence to which this section applies, the Chief Judicial Magistrate or a Metropolitan Magistrate at any stage of the investigation or inquiry into, or the trial of, the offence, and the Magistrate of the first class inquiring into or trying the offence, at any stage of the inquiry or trial, may tender a pardon to such person on condition of his making a full and true disclosure of the whole of the circumstances within his knowledge relative to the offence and to every other person concerned, whether as principal or abettor, in the commission thereof.
(2) This section applies to—

• (a) any offence triable exclusively by the Court of Session;
  
• (b) any offence triable exclusively by a Magistrate of the first class;
  
• (c) any offence punishable with imprisonment which may extend to seven years or with a more severe sentence.
  

• (a) his reasons for so doing;
  
• (b) whether the tender was or was not accepted by the person to whom it was made,
  

• (a) shall be examined as a witness in the Court of the Magistrate taking cognizance of the offence and in the subsequent trial, if any;
  
• (b) shall, unless he is already on bail, be detained in custody until the termination of the trial.
  

• (a) commit it for trial—
  
• (i) to the Court of Session, if the offence is triable exclusively by that Court or if the Magistrate taking cognizance is the Chief Judicial Magistrate;
  
• (ii) to a Court of Special Judge appointed under the Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1952 (46 of 1952), if the offence is triable exclusively by that Court;
  
• (b) in any other case, make over the case to the Chief Judicial Magistrate who shall try the case himself.
  

Explanation: Chief Judicial or Metropolitan Magistrates, or First-Class Magistrates, can offer pardons to accomplices in serious offences (e.g., Sessions Court cases or those with up to seven years’ imprisonment) to gain their testimony, conditional on full disclosure. Magistrates record reasons and acceptance, providing free copies to the accused. Pardoned persons testify and are detained until trial unless on bail. The case is then committed to the appropriate court or tried by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, facilitating prosecution of serious crimes. Source: Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, via India Code.

Clause:
At any time after commitment of a case but before judgment is passed, the Court to which the commitment is made may, with a view to obtaining at the trial the evidence of any person supposed to have been directly or indirectly concerned in, or privy to, any such offence, direct the Chief Judicial Magistrate or a Metropolitan Magistrate to tender a pardon on the same condition to such person.

Explanation: After a case is committed but before judgment, the receiving court (e.g., Sessions Court) can order a Chief Judicial or Metropolitan Magistrate to offer a pardon to an accomplice for their testimony, on condition of full disclosure, aiding trial evidence collection. Source: Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, via India Code.

Clause:
(1) Where, in regard to a person who has accepted a tender of pardon made under section 306 or section 307, the Public Prosecutor certifies that such person has, either by wilfully concealing anything essential or by giving false evidence, not complied with the condition on which the tender was made, such person may be tried for the offence in respect of which the pardon was so tendered or for any other offence of which he appears to have been guilty in connection with the same matter, and also for the offence of giving false evidence:
Provided that such person shall not be tried in respect of the offence of giving false evidence except with the sanction of the High Court, and nothing contained in section 195 or section 340 shall apply to that offence.
(2) Any statement made by such person accepting the tender of pardon and recorded by a Magistrate under section 164 or by a Court under sub-section (4) of section 306 may be given in evidence against him at such trial.
(3) At such trial, the accused shall be entitled to plead that he has complied with the condition upon which the tender of pardon was made; but such plea shall not affect any right of the accused to have the question whether he has so complied tried by the Court.
(4) At such trial, the Court shall—

• (a) if it is a Court of Session, before the charge is read out and explained to the accused;
  
• (b) if it is the Court of a Magistrate, before the evidence of the witnesses for the prosecution is taken,
  

Explanation: If a pardoned person fails to fully disclose or gives false evidence, as certified by the Public Prosecutor, they can be tried for the original offence, related offences, or giving false evidence (with High Court sanction). Their prior statements are admissible, and they can plead compliance, which the court evaluates before judgment. If non-compliant, they face conviction; if compliant, acquittal, ensuring accountability for pardon conditions. Source: Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, via India Code.

Clause:
(1) In every inquiry or trial, the proceedings shall be held as expeditiously as possible, and in particular, when the examination of witnesses has once begun, the same shall be continued from day to day until all the witnesses in attendance have been examined, unless the Court finds that, for reasons to be recorded, an adjournment of the case beyond the following day is necessary.
(2) If the Court, after taking cognizance of an offence, or commencement of trial, finds it necessary or advisable to postpone the commencement of, or adjourn, any inquiry or trial, it may, from time to time, for reasons to be recorded, postpone or adjourn the same on such terms as it thinks fit, for such time as it considers reasonable, and may by a warrant remand the accused if in custody:
Provided that no Magistrate shall remand an accused person to custody under this section for a term exceeding fifteen days at a time:
Provided further that when witnesses are in attendance, no adjournment or postponement shall be granted, without examining them, except for special reasons to be recorded in writing.
(3) Every order made under this section by a Court other than a High Court shall be in writing signed by the presiding Judge or Magistrate.
Explanation—If sufficient evidence has been obtained to raise a suspicion that the accused may have committed an offence, and it appears likely that further evidence may be obtained by a remand, this is a reasonable cause for a remand.

Explanation: Courts must conduct inquiries and trials quickly, continuing witness examinations daily unless adjournment is justified with recorded reasons. Courts can postpone or adjourn proceedings for reasonable periods with recorded reasons, remanding the accused if needed, but Magistrates can’t remand beyond 15 days at a time. Adjournments with witnesses present require special recorded reasons, and non-High Court orders must be written and signed. Remands are justified if evidence suggests guilt and more evidence is likely, ensuring efficient yet fair proceedings. Source: Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, via India Code.

Clause:
(1) Any Judge or Magistrate may, at any stage of any inquiry, trial or other proceeding, after due notice to the parties, visit and inspect any place in which an offence is alleged to have been committed, or any other place which it is in his opinion necessary to view for the purpose of properly appreciating the evidence given at such inquiry or trial, and shall without unnecessary delay record a memorandum of any relevant facts observed at such inspection.
(2) Such memorandum shall form part of the record of the case and if the prosecutor, complainant or accused or any other party to the case, so desires, a copy of the memorandum shall be furnished to him free of cost.

Explanation: Judges or Magistrates can inspect crime scenes or relevant locations after notifying parties, recording observations in a memorandum that becomes part of the case record. Free copies are provided on request, aiding evidence evaluation. Source: Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, via India Code.

Clause:
Any Court may, at any stage of any inquiry, trial or other proceeding under this Code, summon any person as a witness, or examine any person in attendance, though not summoned as a witness, or recall and re-examine any person already examined; and the Court shall summon and examine or recall and re-examine any such person if his evidence appears to it to be essential to the just decision of the case.

Explanation: Courts can summon witnesses, examine attendees not summoned, or recall witnesses at any stage if their testimony is essential for a just decision, ensuring all relevant evidence is considered. Source: Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, via India Code.

Clause:
Subject to any rules made by the State Government, any Criminal Court may, if it thinks fit, order payment, on the part of Government, of the reasonable expenses of any complainant, or any witness attending for the purposes of any inquiry, trial or other proceeding before such Court under this Code.

Explanation: Courts can order the government to pay reasonable expenses for complainants or witnesses attending proceedings, subject to State Government rules, supporting their participation. Source: Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, via India Code.

Clause:
(1) In every inquiry or trial, for the purpose of enabling the accused personally to explain any circumstances appearing in the evidence against him, the Court—

• (a) may at any stage, without previously warning the accused, put such questions to him as the Court considers necessary;
  
• (b) shall, after the witnesses for the prosecution have been examined and before he is called on for his defence, question him generally on the case:
  

Explanation: Courts can question the accused at any stage without warning and must question them generally after prosecution witnesses testify, to explain evidence against them, except in summons-cases where attendance is waived. No oath is taken, and refusal or false answers don’t lead to punishment, but answers can be used in the case or other related trials, ensuring the accused’s opportunity to respond. Source: Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, via India Code.

Clause:
(1) Any party to a proceeding may, as soon as may be, after the close of his evidence, address concise oral arguments, and may, before he concludes the oral arguments, submit a memorandum to the Court setting forth concisely and under distinct headings, the arguments in support of his case and every such memorandum shall form part of the record.
(2) A copy of every such memorandum shall be simultaneously furnished to the opposite party.
(3) No adjournment of the proceedings shall be granted for the purpose of preparing the memorandum, but the Court may, if it thinks fit, allow reasonable time for the preparation of oral arguments.

Explanation: After presenting evidence, parties can make concise oral arguments and submit a memorandum outlining arguments, which becomes part of the record. Copies are given to the opposing party, and no adjournments are allowed for memorandum preparation, though courts may allow time for oral arguments, streamlining case conclusions. Source: Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, via India Code.

Clause:
(1) Any person accused of an offence before a Criminal Court shall be a competent witness for the defence and may give evidence on oath in disproof of the charges made against him or any person charged together with him at the same trial:
Provided that—

• (a) he shall not be called as a witness except on his own request in writing;
  
• (b) his failure to give evidence shall not be made the subject of any comment by any of the parties or the Court or give rise to any presumption against himself or any person charged together with him at the same trial.
  

Explanation: An accused can testify as a defense witness under oath to refute charges, but only if they request it in writing. Their choice not to testify can’t be commented on or used against them. Statements under Section 313 can be used in the trial or other related trials, protecting their rights while allowing testimony. Source: Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, via India Code.

Clause:
Except as provided in sections 306 and 307, no influence, by means of any promise or threat or otherwise, shall be used to an accused person to induce him to disclose or withhold any matter within his knowledge.

Explanation: Except for pardons under Sections 306 and 307, no promises, threats, or other influences can be used to make an accused disclose or withhold information, protecting against coerced statements. Source: Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, via India Code.

Clause:
(1) If the accused in any case, not being a case referred to in section 299, cannot be secured without great inconvenience to himself or others, or if his presence cannot be obtained without undue delay, the Court may, if it thinks fit, proceed with the inquiry or trial in his absence, after recording the reasons for doing so, and may, if it thinks fit, take steps to secure his appearance at a later stage of the proceedings.
(2) The Court may, if it thinks fit, and shall, when the accused appears to be of unsound mind, at any stage of any inquiry or trial, dispense with the personal attendance of the accused, and proceed with the inquiry or trial in his absence, and may, at any subsequent stage of the proceedings, direct the personal attendance of the accused.
(3) The provisions of this section shall override any other provision of this Code which requires the personal attendance of the accused at any stage of any inquiry or trial.

Explanation: Except for cases under Section 299, courts can conduct inquiries or trials without the accused if their presence causes great inconvenience or delay, recording reasons and possibly securing later attendance. For accused of unsound mind, courts can or must proceed without them, directing attendance later if needed. This overrides other attendance requirements, ensuring flexibility for exceptional cases. Source: Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, via India Code.

Clause:
If the accused, though not of unsound mind, cannot be made to understand the proceedings, the Court may proceed with the inquiry or trial; and, in the case of a Court other than a High Court, if such proceedings result in a conviction, the proceedings shall be forwarded to the High Court with a report of the circumstances of the case, and the High Court shall pass thereon such order as it thinks fit.

Explanation: If an accused, not mentally unsound, can’t understand proceedings, the court can continue. For convictions in non-High Courts, the case is sent to the High Court with a report, and the High Court issues appropriate orders, ensuring oversight for fair outcomes. Source: Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, via India Code.

Clause:
(1) Where, in the course of any inquiry into, or trial of, an offence, it appears from the evidence that any person not being the accused has committed any offence for which such person could be tried together with the accused, the Court may proceed against such person for the offence which he appears to have committed.
(2) Where such person is not attending the Court, he may be arrested or summoned, or otherwise proceeded against, as the circumstances of the case may require.
(3) Where any person is proceeded against under sub-section (1), the proceedings in respect of such person shall commence afresh, and the witnesses shall be re-heard.
(4) The provisions of this section shall not apply to any person against whom proceedings cannot be taken without the sanction of the Central Government or the State Government or without a complaint by a person authorised in this behalf.

Explanation: If evidence during an inquiry or trial suggests someone not accused committed an offence triable with the accused, the court can proceed against them. Non-attending persons can be arrested or summoned. Proceedings against them start anew with witnesses re-heard, but this doesn’t apply if government sanction or authorized complaints are needed, ensuring justice for emerging suspects. Source: Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, via India Code.

Clause:
(1) The offences punishable under the sections of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860) specified in the first two columns of the Table next following may be compounded by the persons mentioned in the third column of that Table:—
[Table listing offences, sections, and persons who can compound, e.g., 298, 323, 334, 335, 336, 337, 338, 341, 342, 343, 344, 346, 352, 355, 358, 426, 427, 447, 448, 451, 453, 454, 456, 457, 458, 491, 497, 498, 500, 501, 502, 504, 506, 508, with respective persons like the injured person, husband, or defamed person.]
(2) The offences punishable under the sections of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860) specified in the first two columns of the Table next following may, with the permission of the Court before which any prosecution for such offence is pending, be compounded by the persons mentioned in the third column of that Table:—
[Table listing offences, e.g., 312, 325, 326, 345, 348, 349, 428, 429, 430, 452, 455, 459, 499, 509, with respective persons like the woman, injured person, or owner.]
(3) When any offence is compoundable under this section, the abetment of such offence or an attempt to commit such offence (when such attempt is itself an offence) may be compounded in like manner.
(4) (a) When the person who would otherwise be competent to compound an offence under this section is under the age of eighteen years or is an idiot or a lunatic, any person competent to contract on his behalf may, with the permission of the Court, compound such offence.
(b) When the person who would otherwise be competent to compound an offence under this section is dead, the legal representative, as defined in the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (5 of 1908), of such person may, with the permission of the Court, compound such offence.
(5) When the accused has been committed for trial or when he has been convicted and an appeal is pending, no composition for the offence shall be allowed without the leave of the Court to which he is committed, or, as the case may be, before which the appeal is to be heard.
(6) A High Court or Court of Session acting in the exercise of its powers of revision under section 401 may allow any person to compound any offence which such person is competent to compound under this section.
(7) No offence shall be compounded if the accused is, by reason of a previous conviction, liable either to enhanced punishment or to a punishment of a different kind for such offence.
(8) The composition of an offence under this section shall have the effect of an acquittal of the accused with whom the offence has been compounded.
(9) No offence shall be compounded except as provided by this section.

Explanation: Certain IPC offences can be settled by specified persons (e.g., victims) without court permission, while others require court approval. Abetment or attempts of compoundable offences are also compoundable. Minors, incapacitated persons, or deceased victims’ representatives can compound with court permission. Compounding after commitment or during appeals needs court leave, and High Courts/Sessions Courts can allow it in revisions. Compounding isn’t allowed for enhanced punishment cases, results in acquittal, and must follow this section’s rules, promoting amicable resolutions. Source: Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, via India Code.

Clause:
The Public Prosecutor or Assistant Public Prosecutor in charge of a case may, with the consent of the Court, at any time before the judgment is pronounced, withdraw from the prosecution of any person either generally or in respect of any one or more of the offences for which he is tried; and, upon such withdrawal,—

• (a) if it is made before a charge has been framed, the accused shall be discharged in respect of such offence or offences;
  
• (b) if it is made after a charge has been framed, or when under this Code no charge is required, he shall be acquitted in respect of such offence or offences:
  

• (i) was against any law relating to a matter to which the executive power of the Union extends, or
  
• (ii) was investigated by the Delhi Special Police Establishment under the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946 (25 of 1946), or
  
• (iii) involved the misappropriation or destruction of, or damage to, any property belonging to the Central Government, or
  
• (iv) was committed by a person in the service of the Central Government while acting or purporting to act in the discharge of his official duty,
  

Explanation: Public Prosecutors can withdraw from prosecuting an accused before judgment with court consent, leading to discharge (pre-charge) or acquittal (post-charge or no charge needed). For Central Government-related offences, prosecutors not appointed by the Central Government need its permission to withdraw, which must be shown to the court, ensuring oversight for sensitive cases. Source: Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, via India Code.

Clause:
(1) If, in the course of an inquiry or trial before a Magistrate in any district, the evidence appears to him to disclose an offence which such Magistrate is not competent to try or to commit for trial, he shall stay the proceedings and submit the case, with a brief report explaining its nature, to the Chief Judicial Magistrate, or to such other Magistrate, having jurisdiction, as the Chief Judicial Magistrate directs.
(2) The Magistrate to whom the case is submitted may, if so empowered, either try the case himself or commit it for trial, or send it to another Magistrate having jurisdiction to try it or commit it for trial.

Explanation: If a Magistrate finds an offence beyond their jurisdiction during an inquiry or trial, they halt proceedings and refer the case to the Chief Judicial Magistrate or another authorized Magistrate with a report. The receiving Magistrate can try, commit, or transfer the case, ensuring proper handling of complex cases. Source: Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, via India Code.

Clause:
If, in any inquiry into an offence or a trial before a Magistrate, it appears to him at any stage of the proceedings before signing judgment that the case is one which ought to be tried by the Court of Session, he shall commit it to that Court under the provisions hereinbefore contained and thereupon the provisions of Chapter XVIII shall apply to the commitment so made.

Explanation: If a Magistrate realizes during an inquiry or trial that the case should be tried by a Sessions Court, they commit it to that court before judgment, following Chapter XVIII’s commitment procedures, ensuring serious cases are escalated appropriately. Source: Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, via India Code.

Clause:
(1) Where a person, having been convicted of an offence punishable under Chapter XII or Chapter XVII of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860) with imprisonment for a term of three years or upwards, is again accused of any offence punishable under either of those Chapters with imprisonment for a term of three years or upwards, and the Magistrate is satisfied that there is no sufficient reason why such person should not be tried by a Court of Session, such person shall be committed to the Court of Session for trial.
(2) The provisions of Chapter XVIII shall apply to every commitment made under this section.

Explanation: If a person previously convicted of coinage or property offences (IPC Chapters XII or XVII, 3+ years’ imprisonment) is accused again of similar offences, the Magistrate, unless there’s sufficient reason otherwise, commits them to the Sessions Court for trial, following Chapter XVIII’s procedures, ensuring repeat offenders face higher scrutiny. Source: Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, via India Code.

Clause:
(1) Whenever a Magistrate is of opinion, after hearing the evidence for the prosecution and the accused, that the accused is guilty, and that he ought to receive a punishment different in kind from, or more severe than, that which such Magistrate is empowered to inflict, or, being a Magistrate of the second class, is of opinion that the accused ought to be required to execute a bond under section 106, he may record the opinion and submit his proceedings, and forward the accused, to the Chief Judicial Magistrate to whom he is subordinate.
(2) When a Magistrate submits his proceedings under sub-section (1), the Chief Judicial Magistrate may pass such sentence or order as he is empowered to pass or make, or he may, if he is of opinion that the accused ought to receive a punishment different in kind from, or more severe than, that which he is empowered to inflict, submit his proceedings, and forward the accused, to the Court of Session or the High Court, as the case may be.
(3) When proceedings are submitted under sub-section (2) to the Court of Session or the High Court, such Court may pass such sentence or order as it is empowered to pass or make.

Explanation: If a Magistrate believes an accused deserves a harsher or different punishment than they can impose, or a Second-Class Magistrate thinks a Section 106 bond is needed, they refer the case to the Chief Judicial Magistrate. The Chief Judicial Magistrate can sentence within their powers or forward to the Sessions Court or High Court for harsher penalties, ensuring appropriate punishment. Source: Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, via India Code.

Clause:
(1) Whenever any Magistrate, after having heard and recorded the whole or any part of the evidence in an inquiry or a trial, ceases to exercise jurisdiction therein, and is succeeded by another Magistrate who exercises such jurisdiction, the Magistrate so succeeding may act on the evidence so recorded by his predecessor, or partly recorded by his predecessor and partly recorded by himself:
Provided that if the succeeding Magistrate is of opinion that further examination of any of the witnesses whose evidence has already been recorded is necessary in the interests of justice, he may re-summon any such witness, and after such further examination, cross-examination and re-examination, if any, as he may permit, he shall proceed with the inquiry or trial.
(2) Nothing in this section applies to summary trials or to cases in which proceedings have been stayed under section 322 or in which proceedings have been submitted to a superior Magistrate under section 325.
(3) When a case is transferred under the provisions of this Code from one Magistrate to another Magistrate, the former shall be deemed to cease to exercise jurisdiction therein, and to be succeeded by the latter within the meaning of sub-section (1).

Explanation: If a Magistrate leaves a case after recording evidence, the succeeding Magistrate can use that evidence or record additional evidence. They can re-summon witnesses if needed for justice. This doesn’t apply to summary trials, stayed cases under Section 322, or cases sent to superiors under Section 325. Transfers deem the original Magistrate succeeded, ensuring continuity. Source: Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, via India Code.

Clause:
(1) The place in which any Criminal Court is held for the purpose of inquiring into or trying any offence shall be deemed to be an open Court, to which the public generally may have access, so far as the same can conveniently contain them:
Provided that the presiding Judge or Magistrate may, if he thinks fit, order at any stage of any inquiry into, or trial of, any particular case, that the public generally, or any particular person, shall not have access to, or be or remain in, the room or building used by the Court.
(2) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1), the inquiry into and trial of rape or an offence under section 376, section 376A, section 376B, section 376C or section 376D of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860) shall be conducted in camera:
Provided that the presiding Judge or Magistrate, if he thinks fit, may permit any particular person to have access to, or be or remain in, the room or building used by the Court.
(3) Where any proceedings are held in camera, the Court may, if it thinks fit, permit the publication of such proceedings, or any part thereof, in the interests of justice, but shall not permit the publication of the name of any party to the proceedings or any matter which may lead to the identification of any such party.

Explanation: Criminal courts are generally open to the public, but the presiding Judge or Magistrate can restrict access to specific cases or persons. Rape and related IPC offences (Sections 376, 376A–D) must be tried in camera, though specific individuals may be allowed access. In-camera proceedings can be published if just, but identifying details of parties are protected, balancing transparency and privacy. Source: Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, via India Code.

Clause:
(1) When a Magistrate holding an inquiry or a trial has reason to believe that the person against whom the inquiry or trial is being held is of unsound mind and consequently incapable of making his defence, the Magistrate shall inquire into the fact of such unsoundness of mind, and shall cause such person to be examined by the civil surgeon of the district or such other medical officer as the State Government may direct, and thereupon shall examine such surgeon or other officer as a witness, and shall reduce the examination to writing.
(2) Pending such examination and inquiry, the Magistrate may deal with such person in accordance with the provisions of section 330.
(3) If such Magistrate is of opinion that the person referred to in sub-section (1) is of unsound mind and consequently incapable of making his defence, he shall record a finding to that effect and shall postpone further proceedings in the case.

Explanation: If a Magistrate suspects an accused is of unsound mind and unable to defend themselves, they must investigate by having a civil surgeon or designated medical officer examine the accused. The examination is recorded, and the officer testifies. Pending this, the accused is handled per Section 330. If found unsound, the Magistrate records this and postpones proceedings, ensuring fair treatment. Source: Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, via India Code.

Clause:
(1) If at the trial of any person before a Magistrate or Court of Session, it appears to the Magistrate or Court that such person is of unsound mind and consequently incapable of making his defence, the Magistrate or Court shall, in the first instance, try the fact of such unsoundness and incapacity, and if the Magistrate or Court, after considering such medical and other evidence as may be produced before him or it, is satisfied of the fact, he or it shall record a finding to that effect and shall postpone further proceedings in the case.
(2) The trial of the fact of the unsoundness of mind and incapacity of the accused shall be deemed to be part of his trial before the Magistrate or Court.

Explanation: If a Magistrate or Sessions Court believes an accused is of unsound mind and unable to defend themselves during trial, they first investigate this by reviewing medical and other evidence. If confirmed, they record the finding and postpone the trial, treating the mental inquiry as part of the trial, ensuring procedural fairness. Source: Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, via India Code.

Clause:
(1) Whenever a person is found, under section 328 or section 329, to be of unsound mind and incapable of making his defence, the Magistrate or Court, as the case may be, whether the case is one in which bail may be taken or not, may release him on sufficient security being given that he shall be properly taken care of and shall be prevented from doing injury to himself or to any other person, and for his appearance when required before the Magistrate or Court or such officer as the Magistrate or Court appoints in this behalf.
(2) If the case is one in which, in the opinion of the Magistrate or Court, bail should not be taken, or if sufficient security is not given, the Magistrate or Court, as the case may be, shall order the accused to be detained in safe custody in such place and manner as he or it may think fit, and shall report the action taken to the State Government:
Provided that no order for the detention of the accused in a lunatic asylum shall be made otherwise than in accordance with such rules as the State Government may have made under the Indian Lunacy Act, 1912 (4 of 1912).

Explanation: If an accused is found unsound under Sections 328 or 329, the court can release them on bail with security to ensure proper care, safety, and future appearance, regardless of the case’s bail eligibility. If bail is deemed inappropriate or security isn’t provided, the court orders safe custody and informs the State Government, following Lunacy Act rules for asylum detention, balancing care and safety. Source: Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, via India Code.

Clause:
(1) Whenever an inquiry or a trial is postponed under section 328 or section 329, the Magistrate or Court, as the case may be, may at any time after the person concerned has ceased to be of unsound mind, resume the inquiry or trial, and require the accused to appear or be brought before such Magistrate or Court.
(2) When the accused has been released under section 330, and the sureties for his appearance produce him to the officer whom the Magistrate or Court appoints in this behalf, the certificate of such officer that the accused has ceased to be of unsound mind shall be receivable in evidence.

Explanation: If an inquiry or trial is postponed due to the accused’s unsound mind under Sections 328 or 329, it can resume once they recover, with the accused required to appear. If released on bail under Section 330, a certificate from the appointed officer confirming recovery is admissible evidence, facilitating resumption of proceedings. Source: Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, via India Code.

Clause:
(1) If, when the accused appears or is again brought before the Magistrate or Court, as the case may be, the Magistrate or Court considers him to be of sound mind and capable of making his defence, the inquiry or trial shall proceed.
(2) If the Magistrate or Court considers the accused to be still of unsound mind and consequently incapable of making his defence, he or it shall act according to the provisions of section 328 or section 329, as the case may be.

Explanation: When an accused reappears, the Magistrate or Court assesses their mental state. If found sound and capable of defending, the inquiry or trial continues. If still unsound, the court follows Sections 328 or 329, ensuring appropriate handling based on mental capacity. Source: Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, via India Code.

Clause:
When the accused has been committed to the Court of Session for trial, and it appears to such Court that the accused was of sound mind at the time when he is alleged to have committed the offence, but that he is of unsound mind at the time of the trial and consequently incapable of making his defence, the Court shall proceed under the provisions of section 329 and, if the accused is found to be of unsound mind and incapable of making his defence, postpone further proceedings in the case.

Explanation: If a Sessions Court finds that an accused was mentally sound when committing the alleged offence but is unsound and unable to defend at trial, it follows Section 329 procedures. If confirmed unsound, the trial is postponed, addressing mental state at trial time. Source: Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, via India Code.

Clause:
Whenever any person is acquitted upon the ground that, at the time at which he is alleged to have committed an offence, he was, by reason of unsoundness of mind, incapable of knowing the nature of the act alleged as constituting the offence, or that it was wrong or contrary to law, the finding shall state specifically that the accused was so acquitted on that ground, and the provisions of section 335 shall apply to him.

Explanation: If an accused is acquitted because they were of unsound mind at the time of the offence and couldn’t understand the act’s nature or legality, the court’s finding must specify this, and Section 335’s provisions apply, ensuring proper post-acquittal handling. Source: Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, via India Code.

Clause:
(1) Whenever the finding states that the accused person committed the act alleged, but that he is acquitted on the ground that, by reason of unsoundness of mind, he was incapable of knowing the nature of the act or that it was wrong or contrary to law, the Magistrate or Court before whom or which the trial has been held shall, if such act would, but for the incapacity found, have constituted an offence, order such person to be detained in safe custody in such place and manner as the Magistrate or Court thinks fit, and shall report the action taken to the State Government:
Provided that no order for the detention of the accused in a lunatic asylum shall be made otherwise than in accordance with such rules as the State Government may have made under the Indian Lunacy Act, 1912 (4 of 1912).
(2) Where such person is detained under the provisions of sub-section (1), the State Government may, from time to time, make such order as it thinks fit for the custody, care or treatment of such person, or for his delivery to a relative or friend under section 337.

Explanation: If an accused is acquitted due to unsoundness of mind at the time of the offence but committed the act, the court orders safe custody if the act would have been an offence, reporting to the State Government. Asylum detention follows Lunacy Act rules. The State Government can issue orders for custody, care, treatment, or delivery to relatives, ensuring safety and care. Source: Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, via India Code.

Clause:
The State Government may empower the officer in charge of the jail in which a person is confined under the provisions of section 330 or section 335 to discharge all or any of the functions of the Inspector-General of Prisons under section 337 or section 338.

Explanation: The State Government can authorize jail officers holding persons under Sections 330 or 335 to perform duties of the Inspector-General of Prisons under Sections 337 or 338, streamlining administrative functions for detained persons. Source: Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, via India Code.

Clause:
If such person is detained under the provisions of section 330, and in the case of a person detained in a jail, the Inspector-General of Prisons, or, in the case of a person detained in a lunatic asylum, the visitors of such asylum or any two of them shall certify that, in his or their opinion, such person is capable of making his defence, he shall be taken before the Magistrate or Court, as the case may be, at such time as the Magistrate or Court appoints, and the Magistrate or Court shall deal with such person under the provisions of section 332; and the certificate of such Inspector-General or visitors as aforesaid shall be receivable as evidence.

Explanation: If a person detained under Section 330 in a jail or asylum is certified by the Inspector-General of Prisons or two asylum visitors as capable of defending themselves, they are brought before the court, which proceeds per Section 332. The certificate is admissible evidence, facilitating trial resumption. Source: Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, via India Code.

Clause:
(1) If such person is detained under the provisions of section 330 or section 335, and such Inspector-General of Prisons or visitors of the lunatic asylum, as the case may be, shall certify that, in his or their judgment, such person may be released without danger of his doing injury to himself or to any other person, the State Government may thereupon order him to be released, or to be detained in custody, or to be transferred to a public lunatic asylum if he has not been already sent to such an asylum; and, in case it orders him to be transferred to an asylum, may appoint a Commission, consisting of a judicial officer not below the rank of a Magistrate and two medical officers, to make formal inquiry into the state of mind of such person, taking such evidence as is necessary, and to report to the State Government, which may order his release or detention in accordance with such report.
(2) The certificate of such Inspector-General or visitors as aforesaid shall be receivable as evidence.

Explanation: If a person detained under Sections 330 or 335 is certified by the Inspector-General or asylum visitors as safe for release, the State Government can order release, continued detention, or transfer to an asylum. For asylum transfers, a Commission with a judicial and two medical officers investigates and reports, guiding the State Government’s decision. The certificate is admissible, ensuring safe release decisions. Source: Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, via India Code.

Clause:
(1) Whenever any relative or friend of any person detained under the provisions of section 330 or section 335 desires that he shall be delivered to his care and custody, the State Government may, upon the application of such relative or friend and on his giving security to the satisfaction of such State Government, that the person delivered shall—

• (a) be properly taken care of and prevented from doing injury to himself or to any other person;
  
• (b) be produced for the inspection of such officer, and at such times and places, as the State Government may direct;
  
• (c) in the case of a person detained under section 330, be produced when required before such Magistrate or Court,
  

Explanation: A relative or friend can request custody of a person detained under Sections 330 or 335, providing security to ensure care, safety, inspection, and court appearances (for Section 330 cases). The State Government may approve delivery. If the person, whose trial was postponed due to unsoundness, is later certified as capable of defending, they are brought to court per Section 332, with the certificate admissible, enabling family care with safeguards. Source: Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, via India Code.

Clause:
(1) When, upon an application made to it in this behalf or otherwise, any Court is of opinion that it is expedient in the interests of justice that an inquiry should be made into any offence referred to in clause (b) of sub-section (1) of section 195, which appears to have been committed in or in relation to a proceeding in that Court, or, as the case may be, in respect of a document produced or given in evidence in a proceeding in that Court, such Court may, after such preliminary inquiry, if any, as it thinks necessary,—

• (a) record a finding to that effect;
  
• (b) make a complaint thereof in writing;
  
• (c) send it to a Magistrate of the first class having jurisdiction;
  
• (d) take sufficient security for the appearance of the accused before such Magistrate, or if the alleged offence is non-bailable and the Court thinks it necessary so to do, send the accused in custody to such Magistrate; and
  
• (e) bind over any person to appear and give evidence before such Magistrate.
  

• (a) in the case of a High Court, by such officer of the Court as the Court may appoint;
  
• (b) in any other case, by the presiding officer of the Court.
  

Explanation: If a court believes an offence under Section 195(1)(b) (e.g., perjury, false evidence, or document-related offences) was committed in its proceedings, it can hold a preliminary inquiry, record findings, file a written complaint, and send it to a First-Class Magistrate. It secures the accused’s appearance or custody and binds witnesses. Superior courts can act if the original court doesn’t, and complaints are signed by designated officers, ensuring judicial integrity. Source: Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, via India Code.

Clause:
Any person on whose application any Court other than a High Court has refused to make a complaint under sub-section (1) or sub-section (2) of section 340, or against whom such a complaint has been made by such Court, may appeal to the Court to which such former Court is subordinate within the meaning of sub-section (4) of section 195, and the superior Court may thereupon, after notice to the parties concerned, direct the withdrawal of the complaint, or, as the case may be, making of the complaint which such former Court might have made under section 340, and, if it makes such complaint, the provisions of that section shall apply accordingly.

Explanation: If a non-High Court refuses to file a Section 340 complaint or files one against someone, the affected person can appeal to the superior court (per Section 195(4)). The superior court, after notifying parties, can order withdrawal or filing of the complaint, following Section 340 procedures, providing a remedy for judicial errors. Source: Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, via India Code.

Clause:
Any Court dealing with an application made to it for filing a complaint under section 340 or an appeal under section 341, shall have power to make such order as to costs as may be just.

Explanation: Courts handling Section 340 complaint applications or Section 341 appeals can order costs as deemed fair, ensuring financial accountability in judicial proceedings. Source: Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, via India Code.

Clause:
(1) A Magistrate to whom a complaint is made under section 340 or section 341 shall, notwithstanding anything contained in Chapter XV, proceed, as far as may be, to deal with the case as if it were instituted on a police report.
(2) Where it is brought to the notice of such Magistrate, or of any other Magistrate to whom the case may be transferred, that an appeal is pending against the decision arrived at in the judicial proceeding out of which the matter has arisen, he shall stay the proceedings in the complaint until such appeal is decided.

Explanation: A Magistrate receiving a Section 340 or 341 complaint treats it like a case based on a police report, bypassing Chapter XV procedures. If an appeal related to the original judicial proceeding is pending, the Magistrate pauses the complaint proceedings until the appeal is resolved, ensuring procedural harmony. Source: Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, via India Code.

Clause:
(1) If, at the time of delivery of any judgment or final order disposing of any judicial proceeding, a Court of Session or Magistrate of the first class expresses an opinion that any witness appearing in such proceeding has knowingly or wilfully given false evidence or has fabricated false evidence with the intention that such evidence should be used in such proceeding, it or he may, if satisfied that it is necessary and expedient in the interest of justice that the witness should be tried summarily for giving or fabricating, as the case may be, false evidence, take cognizance of the offence and may, after giving the offender a reasonable opportunity of showing cause why he should not be punished for such offence, try such offender summarily and sentence him to imprisonment for a term which may extend to three months, or to fine which may extend to five hundred rupees, or with both.
(2) In every such case the Court shall follow, as nearly as may be practicable, the procedure prescribed for summary trials.
(3) Nothing in this section shall affect the power of the Court to make a complaint under section 340 for the offence, where it does not choose to proceed under this section.
(4) Where, after any action is initiated under sub-section (1), it is made to appear to the Court of Session or Magistrate of the first class that an appeal or an application for revision has been preferred or filed against the judgment or order in which the opinion referred to in that sub-section has been expressed, it or he shall stay further proceedings of the trial until such appeal or application for revision is disposed of.

Explanation: If a Sessions Court or First-Class Magistrate believes a witness gave or fabricated false evidence intentionally during a proceeding, they can summarily try the witness after giving them a chance to respond, imposing up to three months’ imprisonment, a 500-rupee fine, or both, following summary trial procedures. Courts can still file a Section 340 complaint instead, and must pause the trial if an appeal or revision against the original judgment is filed, balancing swift justice with fairness. Source: Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, via India Code.

Clause:
(1) When any such offence as is described in section 175, section 178, section 179, section 180 or section 228 of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860) is committed in the view or presence of any Civil, Criminal or Revenue Court, the Court may cause the offender to be detained in custody and may, at any time before the rising of the Court on the same day, take cognizance of the offence and, after giving the offender a reasonable opportunity of showing cause why he should not be punished under this section, sentence the offender to fine not exceeding two hundred rupees, and, in default of payment of fine, to simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to one month, unless such fine be sooner paid.
(2) In every such case the Court shall record the facts constituting the offence, with the statement (if any) made by the offender, as well as the finding and sentence.
(3) If the offence is under section 228 of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860), the record shall show the nature and stage of the judicial proceeding in which the Court interrupted or insulted was sitting, and the nature of the interruption or insult.

Explanation: If offences like refusing to produce documents (IPC Section 175), refusing oath (Section 178), refusing to answer questions (Section 179), refusing to sign statements (Section 180), or intentional insult (Section 228) occur in court’s presence, the court can detain the offender, take cognizance, and, after hearing them, impose a fine up to 200 rupees or up to one month’s imprisonment if unpaid. The court records the offence details, offender’s statement, and sentence, specifying details for Section 228 offences, ensuring immediate contempt handling. Source: Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, via India Code.

Clause:
(1) If the Court in any case considers that a person accused of any of the offences referred to in section 345 and committed in its view or presence should be imprisoned otherwise than in default of payment of fine, or that a fine exceeding two hundred rupees should be imposed upon him, or such Court is for any other reason of opinion that the case should not be disposed of under section 345, such Court, after recording the facts constituting the offence and the statement of the accused as provided in section 345, may forward the case to a Magistrate having jurisdiction to try the same, and may require security to be given for the appearance of such person before such Magistrate, or if such person is not let off on his own recognizance, send him in custody to such Magistrate.
(2) The Magistrate to whom any case is forwarded under this section shall proceed to deal with it, as far as may be, as if it were instituted on a police report.

Explanation: If a court believes a contempt offence under Section 345 deserves harsher punishment (beyond a 200-rupee fine or one month’s imprisonment) or shouldn’t be handled summarily, it records the offence and accused’s statement, then forwards the case to a competent Magistrate, securing the accused’s appearance or custody. The Magistrate treats it like a police report case, allowing for stricter penalties. Source: Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, via India Code.

Clause:
When the State Government so directs, any Registrar or any Sub-Registrar appointed under the Indian Registration Act, 1908 (16 of 1908), shall be deemed to be a Civil Court within the meaning of sections 345 and 346.

Explanation: If directed by the State Government, Registrars or Sub-Registrars under the Indian Registration Act, 1908, are considered Civil Courts for Sections 345 and 346, enabling them to handle contempt offences committed in their presence, extending judicial authority. Source: Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, via India Code.

Clause:
When any Court has under section 345 adjudged an offender to be guilty of an offence, it may, if it thinks fit, discharge the offender on his submitting an apology to the satisfaction of the Court.

Explanation: If a court finds an offender guilty under Section 345 for contempt, it can discharge them if they offer a satisfactory apology, providing a lenient resolution option. Source: Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, via India Code.

Clause:
If any witness or person called to produce a document or thing before a Criminal Court refuses, without lawful excuse, to answer a question put to him or to produce any document or thing in his possession or power which the Court requires him to produce, the Court may, before the rising of the Court on the same day, sentence him to simple imprisonment, or commit him to custody, for a term which may extend to seven days, unless in the meantime such person consents to answer the question or produce the document or thing, and, in default of such consent, the Court may thereafter commit him to custody for a further term which may extend to one month, unless such consent is sooner given.

Explanation: If a witness or person refuses without valid reason to answer questions or produce required documents or items in a Criminal Court, the court can imprison or detain them for up to seven days on the same day. If they still refuse, the court can extend detention up to one month until compliance, enforcing court authority. Source: Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, via India Code.

Clause:
(1) If any witness being summoned to appear before a Criminal Court intentionally omits to attend, or departs from the Court without permission after having attended, such Court may, after giving such witness a reasonable opportunity of showing cause why he should not be punished under this section, take cognizance of the offence and sentence him to fine not exceeding one hundred rupees.
(2) In every such case the Court shall record the facts constituting the offence, with the statement (if any) made by the offender, as well as the finding and sentence.

Explanation: If a summoned witness intentionally fails to appear or leaves a Criminal Court without permission, the court can, after hearing their explanation, fine them up to 100 rupees, recording the offence details, statement, and sentence, addressing non-compliance summarily. Source: Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, via India Code.

Clause:
(1) Any person sentenced by any Court under section 344, section 345, section 349 or section 350 may, notwithstanding anything contained in this Code, appeal to the Court to which decrees or orders made in such Court are ordinarily appealable.
(2) The provisions of Chapter XXIX shall, so far as they are applicable, apply to appeals under this section, and the Appellate Court may either confirm the sentence, set it aside, or reduce the sentence, or enhance it after giving the appellant an opportunity of being heard.

Explanation: Persons convicted under Sections 344 (false evidence), 345 (contempt), 349 (refusing to answer/produce), or 350 (non-attendance) can appeal to the court that typically hears appeals from the convicting court, despite other CrPC provisions. Chapter XXIX’s appeal procedures apply, and the Appellate Court can confirm, cancel, reduce, or enhance the sentence after hearing the appellant, ensuring review of summary punishments. Source: Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, via India Code.

Clause:
Except as provided in sections 344, 345, 349 and 350, no Judge of a Criminal Court (other than a Judge of a High Court) or Magistrate shall try any person for any offence referred to in section 195, when such offence is committed before himself or in contempt of his authority, or is brought under his notice as such Judge or Magistrate in the course of a judicial proceeding.

Explanation: Except for offences under Sections 344, 345, 349, and 350, no Criminal Court Judge (except High Court Judges) or Magistrate can try Section 195 offences (e.g., perjury, false evidence) committed in their presence, as contempt, or noticed during judicial proceedings, ensuring impartiality by avoiding self-adjudication. Source: Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, via India Code.

Clause:
(1) The judgment in every trial in any Criminal Court of original jurisdiction shall be pronounced in open Court by the presiding officer immediately after the termination of the trial or at some subsequent time of which notice shall be given to the parties or their pleaders,—

• (a) by delivering the whole of the judgment; or
  
• (b) by reading out the whole of the judgment; or
  
• (c) by reading out the operative part of the judgment and explaining the substance of the judgment in a language which is understood by the accused or his pleader.
  

Explanation: Judgments in criminal trials must be pronounced in open court, either immediately or later with notice, by delivering, reading, or summarizing the operative part in a language the accused understands. Written judgments are signed, and copies are provided free to parties (immediately if summarized) or the accused (if imprisoned). If the accused doesn’t understand the language, the judgment is interpreted. Absence of parties or notice defects doesn’t invalidate the judgment, and Section 465’s provisions remain unaffected, ensuring accessibility and fairness. Source: Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, via India Code.

Clause:
(1) Every judgment referred to in section 353,—

• (a) shall be written in the language of the Court;
  
• (b) shall contain the point or points for determination, the decision thereon and the reasons for the decision;
  
• (c) shall specify the offence (if any) of which, and the section of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860) or other law under which, the accused is convicted and the punishment to which he is sentenced;
  
• (d) if it be a judgment of acquittal, shall state the offence of which the accused is acquitted and direct that he be set at liberty.
  

Explanation: Judgments must be in the court’s language, detailing issues, decisions, reasons, offences, and punishments (or acquittals with release orders). For unclear IPC sections, courts judge in the alternative. Death or life imprisonment sentences require reasons, with special reasons for death, which must specify hanging. Short sentences (under three months) for serious offences need reasons, except in summary trials or till court rises. Orders under Sections 117, 138(2), 125, 145, or 147 must also include issues, decisions, and reasons, ensuring clear and justified rulings. Source: Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, via India Code.

Clause:
Instead of recording a judgment in the manner hereinbefore provided, a Metropolitan Magistrate shall record the following particulars, namely:—

• (a) the serial number of the case;
  
• (b) the date of the commission of the offence;
  
• (c) the name of the complainant (if any);
  
• (d) the name of the accused person, and his parentage and residence;
  
• (e) the offence complained of or proved;
  
• (f) the plea of the accused and his examination (if any);
  
• (g) the final order;
  
• (h) the date of such order;
  
• (i) in any case in which a fine or a sentence of imprisonment is imposed, a brief statement of the reasons for the conviction.
  

Explanation: Metropolitan Magistrates record simplified judgments, including case number, offence date, complainant, accused details, offence, plea, examination, final order, order date, and brief conviction reasons for fines or imprisonment, streamlining documentation for urban courts. Source: Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, via India Code.

Clause:
(1) When any person, having been convicted by a Court in India of an offence punishable under section 215, section 489A, section 489B, section 489C or section 489D of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860), or of any offence punishable under Chapter XII or Chapter XVII of that Code, with imprisonment for a term of three years or upwards, is again convicted of any offence punishable under any of those sections or Chapters with imprisonment for a term of three years or upwards, any Court may, if it thinks fit, at the time of passing a judgment of conviction, also order that his residence and any change of residence after his release be notified as hereinafter provided for a term not exceeding five years from the date of the expiration of such sentence.
(2) The provisions of sub-section (1) with reference to the offences named therein, apply also to criminal conspiracies to commit such offences and to the abetment of such offences and attempts to commit them.
(3) If such conviction is set aside on appeal or otherwise, such order shall become void.
(4) An order under this section may also be made by an Appellate Court or by the High Court or Court of Session when exercising its powers of revision.
(5) The State Government may, by notification, make rules to carry out the provisions of this section relating to the notification of residence or change of residence by released convicts.
(6) Any person against whom an order under this section is made and who contravenes any rule made under sub-section (5) shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to one year, or with fine, or with both.

Explanation: For repeat convictions of serious IPC offences (e.g., Sections 215, 489A–D, or Chapters XII/XVII with 3+ years’ imprisonment), courts can order the convicted person to notify their residence and changes for up to five years post-sentence. This applies to conspiracies, abetments, and attempts. Orders are void if convictions are overturned, and Appellate or Revision Courts can issue them. State Governments make notification rules, and violations are punishable by up to one year’s imprisonment, fine, or both, aiding post-release monitoring. Source: Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, via India Code.

Clause:
(1) When a Court imposes a sentence of fine or a sentence (including a sentence of death) of which fine forms a part, the Court may, when passing judgment, order the whole or any part of the fine recovered to be applied—

• (a) in defraying the expenses properly incurred in the prosecution;
  
• (b) in the payment to any person of compensation for any loss or injury caused by the offence, when compensation is, in the opinion of the Court, recoverable by such person in a Civil Court;
  
• (c) when any person is convicted of any offence for having caused the death of another person or of having abetted the commission of such an offence, in paying compensation to the persons who are, under the Fatal Accidents Act, 1855 (13 of 1855), entitled to recover damages from the person sentenced for the loss resulting to them from such death;
  
• (d) when any person is convicted of any offence which includes theft, criminal misappropriation, criminal breach of trust, or cheating, or of having dishonestly received or retained, or of having voluntarily assisted in disposing of, stolen property knowing or having reason to believe the same to be stolen, in compensating any bona fide purchaser of such property for the loss of the same if such property is restored to the possession of the person entitled thereto.
  

Explanation: Courts can order fines to cover prosecution expenses, compensate victims for losses recoverable civilly, pay heirs for deaths under the Fatal Accidents Act, or compensate bona fide purchasers of stolen property. Payments wait until appeal periods end or appeals are decided. Even without fines, courts can order compensation for victims’ losses. Appellate or Revision Courts can issue such orders, and civil courts consider prior compensation, supporting victim relief. Source: Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, via India Code.

Clause:
(1) Whenever any person causes a police officer to arrest another person, if it appears to the Magistrate by whom the case is heard that there was no sufficient ground for causing such arrest, the Magistrate may award such compensation, not exceeding one hundred rupees, to be paid by the person so causing the arrest to the person so arrested, for his loss of time and expenses in the matter, as the Magistrate thinks fit.
(2) In such cases, if more persons than one are arrested, the Magistrate may, in like manner, award to each of them such compensation, not exceeding one hundred rupees, as such Magistrate thinks fit.
(3) An order for payment of compensation under this section may be enforced in the same manner as a fine.

Explanation: If a Magistrate finds no sufficient grounds for an arrest caused by someone, they can order up to 100 rupees compensation per arrested person for their time and expenses. This is enforceable like a fine, protecting against wrongful arrests. Source: Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, via India Code.

Clause:
(1) Whenever any complaint of a non-cognizable offence is made to a Court, the Court, if it convicts the accused, may, in addition to the penalty imposed upon him, order him to pay to the complainant, in whole or in part, the cost incurred by him in the prosecution, and may further order that in default of payment, the accused shall suffer simple imprisonment for a period not exceeding thirty days.
(2) The cost awarded under sub-section (1) may be recovered as if it were a fine.
(3) An order under this section may also be made by an Appellate Court or by the High Court or Court of Session when exercising its powers of revision.

Explanation: In non-cognizable offence cases, if the accused is convicted, the court can order them to pay the complainant’s prosecution costs, with up to 30 days’ imprisonment for non-payment. Costs are recovered like fines, and Appellate or Revision Courts can issue such orders, supporting complainants in minor cases. Source: Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, via India Code.

Clause:
(1) When any person not under twenty-one years of age is convicted of an offence punishable with fine only or with imprisonment for a term of seven years or less, or when any person under twenty-one years of age or any woman is convicted of an offence not punishable with death or imprisonment for life, and no previous conviction is proved against the offender, if it appears to the Court before which he is convicted, regard being had to the age, character, antecedents or physical or mental condition of the offender and to the circumstances in which the offence was committed, that it is expedient that the offender should be released on probation of good conduct, the Court may, instead of sentencing him at once to any punishment, direct that he be released on his entering into a bond, with or without sureties, to appear and receive sentence when called upon during such period (not exceeding three years) as the Court may direct and in the meantime to keep the peace and be of good behaviour:
Provided that where any first offender is convicted by a Magistrate of the second class not specially empowered by the High Court, and the Magistrate is of opinion that the offender should be dealt with under this section, he shall record his opinion to that effect and submit the proceedings to a Magistrate of the first class, or to the Chief Judicial Magistrate, as directed by the High Court, forwarding the accused to, or taking bail for his appearance before, such Magistrate, who shall dispose of the case accordingly.
(2) Where proceedings are submitted to a Magistrate of the first class or to the Chief Judicial Magistrate as provided in the proviso to sub-section (1), such Magistrate may thereupon pass such order as he might have passed if he had originally tried the case.
(3) When any person is convicted of an offence attended with circumstances which, in the opinion of the Court, make it expedient that he should be released after due admonition, the Court may, instead of passing any sentence, admonish him and release him.
(4) In any case in which a person is convicted before a Court of an offence punishable with imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years, or with fine, or with both, and no previous conviction is proved against him, the Court may, if it appears to the Court, having regard to the age, character, antecedents or physical or mental condition of the offender and to the trivial nature of the offence or to any extenuating circumstances under which the offence was committed, that it is expedient to release the offender after admonition, make an order under sub-section (3).
(5) Nothing in this section shall affect the provisions of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 (20 of 1958), or the Children Act, 1960 (60 of 1960), or any other law for the time being in force for the treatment, training or rehabilitation of youthful offenders.
(6) An order under this section may be made by any Appellate Court or by the High Court or Court of Session when exercising its powers of revision.
(7) When an order has been made under this section in respect of any offender, the High Court or Court of Session may, on appeal when there is a right of appeal to such Court, or when exercising its powers of revision, set aside such order, and in lieu thereof pass sentence on such offender according to law:
Provided that the High Court or Court of Session shall not under this sub-section inflict a greater punishment than might have been inflicted by the Court by which the offender was convicted.
(8) Nothing in this section shall be deemed to preclude a Court from passing an order under section 357 or section 359 in any case in which it makes an order under this section.
(9) The provisions of this section shall not apply to any offence under Chapter IXA of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860).
(10) The provisions of this section shall be applicable to all Courts in India except those in the State of Jammu and Kashmir.

Explanation: Courts can release certain first-time offenders (under 21 or women for non-life/death offences, or others for offences with up to 7 years’ imprisonment or fine) on probation with a bond for good behavior (up to 3 years) or after admonition, considering age, character, and circumstances. Second-Class Magistrates refer such cases to First-Class or Chief Judicial Magistrates. Probation and admonition don’t affect other laws like the Probation of Offenders Act, and Appellate/Revision Courts can issue or modify orders, respecting original punishment limits. Compensation orders remain possible, but the section excludes IPC Chapter IXA offences and Jammu and Kashmir courts, promoting rehabilitation. Source: Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, via India Code.

Clause:
Where in any case the Court could have dealt with,—

• (a) an accused person under section 360 or under the provisions of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 (20 of 1958), or
  
• (b) a youthful offender under the Children Act, 1960 (60 of 1960), or any other law for the time being in force for the treatment, training or rehabilitation of youthful offenders,
  

Explanation: If a court could have used Section 360, the Probation of Offenders Act, or laws for youthful offenders (e.g., Children Act) but chooses not to, it must record special reasons in the judgment, ensuring transparency in denying probation or rehabilitation. Source: Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, via India Code.

Clause:
Save as otherwise provided by this Code or by any other law for the time being in force, no Court, when it has signed its judgment or final order disposing of a case, shall alter or review the same except to correct a clerical or arithmetical error.

Explanation: Once a court signs a judgment or final order, it cannot alter or review it except to fix clerical or mathematical errors, unless allowed by the CrPC or other laws, ensuring finality of decisions. Source: Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, via India Code.

Clause:
(1) When a judgment is pronounced, a copy thereof shall be immediately made available for the perusal of the parties or their pleaders free of cost, and, if the accused applies for a copy, it shall be given to him free of cost.
(2) When the accused is sentenced to imprisonment, a copy of the judgment shall be given to him free of cost immediately after the pronouncement of the judgment.
(3) When a person, not being the accused, applies for a copy of the judgment or of any order, the Court may, if it thinks fit, order that a copy be supplied to him on payment of such fees, if any, as may be prescribed by rules made by the State Government in this behalf.
(4) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (3), a copy of the judgment or order may be supplied free of cost to any person, not being the accused, if the Court considers that it is necessary in the interests of justice so to do.
(5) When the accused is sentenced to death by any Court and an appeal lies from such judgment, a copy of the judgment shall be sent to the Court to which the appeal lies, and a copy shall be given to the accused free of cost.
(6) A copy of the judgment or order referred to in this section may be given in addition to the accused, to such other person or persons as the Court may, for reasons to be recorded, determine.

Explanation: After pronouncement, judgment copies are available for free to parties or their lawyers for review, and to the accused on request or if imprisoned. Non-accused persons pay for copies unless the court waives fees for justice. Death sentence judgments are sent to the appellate court and given free to the accused. Courts can provide copies to others for recorded reasons, ensuring access to judicial decisions. Source: Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, via India Code.

Clause:
The original judgment shall be filed with the record of the case and where the original is recorded in a language different from that of the Court and the accused so requires, a translation thereof into the language of the Court shall be added to such record.

Explanation: The original judgment is filed with the case record. If it’s in a different language from the court’s and the accused requests, a translation into the court’s language is included, ensuring the accused’s understanding. Source: Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, via India Code.

Clause:
In cases tried by the Court of Session or a Chief Judicial Magistrate, the Court or such Magistrate, as the case may be, shall forward a copy of its or his finding and sentence (if any) to the District Magistrate within whose local jurisdiction the trial was held.

Explanation: Sessions Courts or Chief Judicial Magistrates must send copies of their findings and sentences to the District Magistrate of the trial’s jurisdiction, ensuring administrative oversight and record-keeping. Source: Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, via India Code.

Clause:
(1) When the Court of Session passes a sentence of death, the proceedings shall be submitted to the High Court, and the sentence shall not be executed unless it is confirmed by the High Court.
(2) The Court passing the sentence shall commit the convicted person to jail custody under a warrant.

Explanation: When a Sessions Court imposes a death sentence, it must send the case records to the High Court for confirmation. The sentence cannot be carried out until the High Court approves. The convicted person is held in jail custody under a warrant, ensuring oversight and review of capital punishment. Source: Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, via India Code.

Clause:
(1) If, when such proceedings are submitted, the High Court thinks that a further inquiry should be made into, or additional evidence taken upon, any point bearing upon the guilt or innocence of the convicted person, it may make such inquiry or take such evidence itself, or direct it to be made or taken by the Court of Session.
(2) Unless the High Court otherwise directs, the presence of the convicted person may be dispensed with when such inquiry is made or such evidence is taken.
(3) When the inquiry or evidence (if any) is not made or taken by the High Court, the result of such inquiry or evidence shall be certified to the High Court.

Explanation: When reviewing a death sentence, the High Court can order further inquiry or additional evidence on matters affecting the convicted person’s guilt or innocence, conducting it itself or directing the Sessions Court to do so. The convicted person’s presence may not be required unless the High Court specifies. Results from the Sessions Court are certified to the High Court, ensuring thorough review. Source: Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, via India Code.

Clause:
In any case submitted under section 366, the High Court—

• (a) may confirm the sentence, or pass any other sentence warranted by law, or
  
• (b) may annul the conviction, and convict the accused of any offence of which the Court of Session might have convicted him, or order a new trial on the same or an amended charge, or
  
• (c) may acquit the accused person:
  

Explanation: For a death sentence submitted under Section 366, the High Court can confirm the sentence, impose a different legal sentence, annul the conviction and convict for another offence the Sessions Court could have, order a new trial, or acquit the accused. Confirmation waits until the appeal period expires or any appeal is resolved, ensuring careful review of capital cases. Source: Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, via India Code.

Clause:
In every case so submitted, the confirmation of the sentence, or any new sentence or order passed by the High Court, shall, when such Court consists of two or more Judges, be made, passed and signed by at least two of them.

Explanation: When a High Court with multiple Judges reviews a death sentence, the confirmation, new sentence, or order must be made and signed by at least two Judges, ensuring collective judicial accountability in capital cases. Source: Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, via India Code.

Clause:
Where any such case is heard before a Bench of Judges and such Judges are equally divided in opinion, the case shall be referred to a third Judge who shall deliver the judgment in the case, and such judgment shall be deemed to be the judgment of the High Court.

Explanation: If High Court Judges in a death sentence confirmation case are equally split, the case goes to a third Judge, whose judgment becomes the High Court’s final decision, resolving deadlocks in capital cases. Source: Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, via India Code.

Clause:
In cases submitted by the Court of Session to the High Court for the confirmation of a sentence of death, the proper officer of the High Court shall, without delay, after the order of confirmation or other order has been made by the High Court, send a copy of the order, under the seal of the High Court and attested with his official signature, to the Court of Session.

Explanation: After the High Court confirms a death sentence or issues another order, its officer promptly sends a sealed, signed copy to the Sessions Court, ensuring clear communication for execution or further action. Source: Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, via India Code.

Clause:
No appeal shall lie from any judgment or order of a Criminal Court except as provided for by this Code or by any other law for the time being in force:
Provided that the victim shall have a right to appeal against any order passed by the Court under section 357A or against any order passed by the Court acquitting the accused or convicting for a lesser offence or imposing inadequate compensation, and such appeal shall lie to the Court to which an appeal ordinarily lies against the order of conviction of such Court.

Explanation: Appeals from criminal court judgments or orders are not allowed unless specifically permitted by the CrPC or other laws. However, victims can appeal against orders under Section 357A (victim compensation), acquittals, convictions for lesser offences, or inadequate compensation, to the court that typically hears appeals from the original court’s conviction orders, ensuring victims’ rights to seek justice. Source: Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, via India Code.

Clause:
Any person,—

• (i) who has been ordered under section 117 to give security for keeping the peace or for good behaviour, or
  
• (ii) who is aggrieved by any order refusing to accept or rejecting a surety under section 121,
  

Explanation: Anyone ordered under Section 117 to provide security for peace or good behavior, or aggrieved by a Section 121 order refusing or rejecting a surety, can appeal to the Sessions Court. This doesn’t apply to cases before a Sessions Judge under Section 122(2) or (4), providing a review mechanism for security-related orders. Source: Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, via India Code.

Clause:
(1) Any person convicted on a trial held by a High Court in its extraordinary original criminal jurisdiction may appeal to the Supreme Court.
(2) Any person convicted on a trial held by a Sessions Judge or an Additional Sessions Judge or on a trial held by any other Court in which a sentence of imprisonment for more than seven years has been passed against him or against any other person convicted at the same trial, may appeal to the High Court.
(3) Save as otherwise provided in sub-section (2), any person,—

• (a) convicted on a trial held by a Metropolitan Magistrate or Assistant Sessions Judge or Magistrate of the first class, or of the second class, or
  
• (b) sentenced under section 325, or
  
• (c) in respect of whom an order has been made or a sentence has been passed under section 360 by any Magistrate,
  

Explanation: Convictions by a High Court in its extraordinary jurisdiction can be appealed to the Supreme Court. Convictions by Sessions/Additional Sessions Judges or sentences over seven years from other courts go to the High Court. Other convictions by Metropolitan/Assistant Sessions/First or Second-Class Magistrates, sentences under Section 325, or orders/sentences under Section 360 by Magistrates are appealable to the Sessions Court, defining appellate jurisdictions. Source: Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, via India Code.

Clause:
Notwithstanding anything contained in section 374, where an accused person has pleaded guilty and has been convicted on such plea, there shall be no appeal,—

• (a) if the conviction is by a High Court; or
  
• (b) if the conviction is by a Court of Session, Metropolitan Magistrate, or Magistrate of the first or second class, except as to the extent or legality of the sentence.
  

Explanation: If an accused pleads guilty and is convicted, no appeal is allowed for High Court convictions, or for convictions by Sessions Courts, Metropolitan Magistrates, or First/Second-Class Magistrates, except to challenge the sentence’s extent or legality, limiting appeals in guilty plea cases. Source: Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, via India Code.

Clause:
Notwithstanding anything contained in section 374, there shall be no appeal by a convicted person in any of the following cases, namely:—

• (a) where a High Court passes only a sentence of imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months or of fine not exceeding one thousand rupees, or of both such imprisonment and fine;
  
• (b) where a Court of Session or a Metropolitan Magistrate passes only a sentence of imprisonment for a term not exceeding three months or of fine not exceeding two hundred rupees, or of both such imprisonment and fine;
  
• (c) where a Magistrate of the first class passes only a sentence of fine not exceeding one hundred rupees; or
  
• (d) where, in a case tried summarily, a Magistrate empowered to act under section 260 passes only a sentence of fine not exceeding two hundred rupees:
  

• (i) that the person convicted is ordered to furnish security to keep the peace; or
  
• (ii) that a direction for imprisonment in default of payment of fine is included in the sentence; or
  
• (iii) that more than one sentence of fine is passed in the case, if the total amount of fine imposed does not exceed the amount hereinbefore specified in respect of the case.

  Explanation: No appeal is allowed for minor sentences: High Court sentences up to 6 months’ imprisonment or 1,000 rupees fine; Sessions Court/Metropolitan Magistrate sentences up to 3 months or 200 rupees; First-Class Magistrate fines up to 100 rupees; or summary trial fines up to 200 rupees under Section 260. Appeals are allowed if other punishments are added, but not for peace bonds, imprisonment for unpaid fines, or multiple fines within the specified limits, reducing appellate burden for petty cases. Source: Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, via India Code.

Clause:
(1) Save as otherwise provided in sub-section (2), the State Government may, in any case of conviction on a trial held by any Court other than a High Court, direct the Public Prosecutor to present an appeal against the sentence on the ground of its inadequacy—

• (a) to the Court of Session, if the sentence is passed by a Magistrate;
  
• (b) to the High Court, if the sentence is passed by any other Court.
  

• (a) to the Court of Session, if the sentence is passed by a Magistrate;
  
• (b) to the High Court, if the sentence is passed by any other Court.
  

Explanation: The State Government can appeal against inadequate sentences from non-High Court convictions, directing the Public Prosecutor to appeal to the Sessions Court (for Magistrate sentences) or High Court (for others). The Central Government can do the same for cases investigated by the Delhi Special Police or other central agencies. Appellate courts can enhance sentences only after giving the accused a chance to argue against it, allowing pleas for acquittal or reduction, ensuring fairness in sentence reviews. Source: Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, via India Code.

Clause:
(1) Save as otherwise provided in sub-section (2), and subject to the provisions of sub-sections (3) and (5),—

• (a) the District Magistrate may, in any case, direct the Public Prosecutor to present an appeal to the Court of Session from an order of acquittal passed by a Magistrate in respect of a cognizable and non-bailable offence;
  
• (b) the State Government may, in any case, direct the Public Prosecutor to present an appeal to the High Court from an original or appellate order of an acquittal passed by any Court other than a High Court, not being an order under clause (a) or an order of acquittal passed by the Court of Session in revision.
  

• (a) to the Court of Session, from an order of acquittal passed by a Magistrate in respect of a cognizable and non-bailable offence;
  
• (b) to the High Court from an original or appellate order of an acquittal passed by any Court other than a High Court (not being an order under clause (a)) or an order of acquittal passed by the Court of Session in revision.
  

Explanation: The District Magistrate can direct appeals to the Sessions Court against Magistrate acquittals in cognizable, non-bailable offences. The State or Central Government (for Delhi Special Police or central agency cases) can appeal to the High Court against acquittals by non-High Courts, except Sessions Court revision acquittals, with High Court leave. Complainants in complaint-based cases can appeal to the High Court with special leave (within 6 months for public servants, 60 days for others). If leave is denied, no government appeal is allowed, balancing prosecution and complainant rights. Source: Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, via India Code.

Clause:
Where the High Court has, on appeal, reversed an order of acquittal of an accused person and convicted him and sentenced him to death or to imprisonment for life or to imprisonment for a term of ten years or more, he may appeal to the Supreme Court.

Explanation: If the High Court reverses an acquittal on appeal and convicts the accused, sentencing them to death, life imprisonment, or 10+ years’ imprisonment, the accused can appeal to the Supreme Court, providing a higher review for severe sentences. Source: Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, via India Code.

Clause:
Notwithstanding anything contained in this Chapter, when more persons than one are convicted in one trial, and an appealable judgment or order has been passed in respect of any of such persons, all or any of the persons convicted at such trial shall have a right of appeal.

Explanation: In trials with multiple convicted persons, if an appealable judgment or order is passed for any of them, all convicted persons from that trial can appeal, ensuring equal appellate rights in joint trials. Source: Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, via India Code.

Clause:
(1) Subject to the provisions of sub-section (2), an appeal to the Court of Session or Sessions Judge shall be heard by the Sessions Judge or by an Additional Sessions Judge:
Provided that an appeal from a sentence of death or of imprisonment for life shall be heard by a Sessions Judge.
(2) An Additional Sessions Judge shall hear only such appeals as the Sessions Judge of the division may, by general or special order, make over to him or as the High Court may, by special order, direct him to hear.

Explanation: Appeals to the Sessions Court are heard by the Sessions Judge or Additional Sessions Judge, but death or life imprisonment sentence appeals are heard only by the Sessions Judge. Additional Sessions Judges hear appeals assigned by the Sessions Judge or directed by the High Court, organizing appellate workload. Source: Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, via India Code.

Clause:
Every appeal shall be made in the form of a petition in writing presented by the appellant or his pleader, and every such petition shall (unless the Court to which it is presented otherwise directs) be accompanied by a copy of the judgment or order appealed against.

Explanation: Appeals must be filed as written petitions by the appellant or their lawyer, typically including a copy of the appealed judgment or order, unless the appellate court waives this requirement, standardizing appeal submissions. Source: Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, via India Code.

Clause:
If the appellant is in jail, he may present his petition of appeal and the copies accompanying the same to the officer in charge of the jail, who shall thereupon forward such petition and copies to the proper Appellate Court.

Explanation: Jailed appellants can submit their appeal petition and copies to the jail officer, who forwards them to the appropriate appellate court, ensuring access to appeals for incarcerated persons. Source: Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, via India Code.

Clause:
(1) If upon examining the petition of appeal and copy of the judgment or order appealed against, the Appellate Court considers that there is no sufficient ground for interfering, it may dismiss the appeal summarily:
Provided that—

• (a) no appeal presented under section 382 shall be dismissed unless the appellant or his pleader has had a reasonable opportunity of being heard in support of the same;
  
• (b) no appeal presented under section 383 shall be dismissed except after giving the appellant a reasonable opportunity of being heard in support of the same, unless the Appellate Court considers that the appeal is frivolous or that the production of the appellant in custody before the Court would involve unnecessary inconvenience or expense.
  

Explanation: Appellate courts can summarily dismiss appeals if they find no grounds for interference after reviewing the petition and judgment. Appeals under Section 382 require a hearing for the appellant or lawyer, while those under Section 383 (jailed appellants) need a hearing unless the appeal is frivolous or producing the appellant is inconvenient. Courts may, but aren’t required to, call case records. Non-Supreme/High Courts must record reasons for dismissal, ensuring fair consideration. Source: Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, via India Code.

Clause:
(1) If the Appellate Court does not dismiss the appeal summarily, it shall cause notice of the time and place at which such appeal will be heard to be given—

• (i) to the appellant or his pleader;
  
• (ii) to such officer as the State Government may appoint in this behalf;
  
• (iii) if the appeal is from a judgment of conviction in a case instituted upon complaint, to the complainant;
  
• (iv) if the appeal is under section 377 or section 378, to the accused, if such appeal is not from an order of acquittal, and in any other case, to the accused, if his presence is necessary for the hearing of the appeal.
  

Explanation: For non-summarily dismissed appeals, the appellate court notifies the appellant, state officer, complainant (in complaint-based cases), and accused (in Section 377/378 appeals or if needed) of the hearing time and place. It retrieves case records unless the appeal concerns only sentence extent/legality. If appealing only sentence severity, other grounds require court permission, ensuring structured hearings. Source: Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, via India Code.

Clause:
After perusing such record and hearing the appellant or his pleader, if he appears, and the Public Prosecutor, if he appears, and in case of an appeal under section 377 or section 378, the accused, if he appears, the Appellate Court may, if it considers that there is no sufficient ground for interfering, dismiss the appeal, or may—

• (a) in an appeal from an order of acquittal, reverse such order and direct that further inquiry be made, or that the accused be re-tried or committed for trial, as the case may be, or find him guilty and pass sentence on him according to law;
  
• (b) in an appeal from a conviction—
  
  • (i) reverse the finding and sentence and acquit or discharge the accused, or order him to be re-tried by a Court of competent jurisdiction subordinate to such Appellate Court or committed for trial, or
    
  • (ii) alter the finding, maintaining the sentence, or
    
  • (iii) with or without altering the finding, alter the nature or the extent, or the nature and extent, of the sentence, but not so as to enhance the sentence;
    
• (c) in an appeal for enhancement of sentence—
  
  • (i) reverse the finding and sentence and acquit or discharge the accused or order him to be re-tried by a Court competent to try the offence, or
    
  • (ii) alter the finding maintaining the sentence, or
    
  • (iii) with or without altering the finding, alter the nature or the extent, or the nature and extent, of the sentence, so as to enhance or reduce the same, as the case may be;
    
• (d) in an appeal from any other order, alter or reverse such order;
  
• (e) make any amendment or any consequential or incidental order that may be just or proper:
  

Explanation: After reviewing records and hearing parties, appellate courts can dismiss appeals if no grounds exist. For acquittals, they can order further inquiry, retrial, or convict and sentence. For convictions, they can acquit, order retrial, or alter findings/sentences without enhancement. For enhancement appeals, they can acquit, retry, or adjust sentences up or down. Other orders can be altered/reversed, and just amendments made. Sentence enhancement requires a hearing, and punishments cannot exceed the original court’s limits, ensuring balanced appellate powers. Source: Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, via India Code.

Clause:
The rules contained in Chapter XXVII as to the judgment of a Criminal Court of original jurisdiction shall apply, so far as may be practicable, to the judgment in appeal of a Court of Session or Chief Judicial Magistrate:
Provided that, unless the Appellate Court otherwise directs, the accused shall not be brought up, or required to attend, to hear judgment delivered.

Explanation: Sessions Courts and Chief Judicial Magistrates’ appellate judgments follow Chapter XXVII’s rules for original judgments (e.g., content, language) as feasible. The accused isn’t required to be present for judgment delivery unless the court directs, streamlining appellate processes. Source: Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, via India Code.

Clause:
(1) Whenever a case is decided on appeal by the High Court under this Chapter, it shall certify its judgment or order to the Court by which the finding, sentence or order appealed against was recorded or passed and if such Court is that of a Judicial Magistrate other than the Chief Judicial Magistrate or a Metropolitan Magistrate, the High Court’s judgment or order shall be sent through the Chief Judicial Magistrate or the Metropolitan Magistrate, as the case may be.
(2) The Court to which the High Court certifies its judgment or order shall thereupon make such orders as are conformable to the judgment or order of the High Court; and, if necessary, the record shall be amended in accordance therewith.

Explanation: High Court appeal decisions are certified to the original court, or via the Chief Judicial Magistrate/Metropolitan Magistrate for other Judicial Magistrates. The lower court implements the High Court’s orders and amends records as needed, ensuring compliance with appellate rulings. Source: Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, via India Code.

Clause:
(1) Pending any appeal by a convicted person, the Appellate Court may, for reasons to be recorded by it in writing, order that the execution of the sentence or order appealed against be suspended and, also, if he is in confinement, that he be released on bail, or on his own bond:
Provided that the Appellate Court shall, before releasing on bail or on his own bond a convicted person who is convicted of an offence punishable with death or imprisonment for life or imprisonment for a term of not less than ten years, record reasons in writing for such release and shall also hear the Public Prosecutor before passing such order.
(2) The power conferred by this section on an Appellate Court may be exercised also by the High Court in the case of an appeal by a convicted person to a Court subordinate thereto.
(3) Where the convicted person satisfies the Court by which he is convicted that he intends to present an appeal, that Court shall,—

• (i) where such person, being on bail, is sentenced to imprisonment for a term not exceeding three years, or
  
• (ii) where the offence of which such person has been convicted is a bailable offence, and he is on bail,
  

Explanation: Appellate courts can suspend sentences and grant bail to convicted appellants, recording reasons. For death, life, or 10+ year sentences, reasons and Public Prosecutor hearings are mandatory. High Courts can exercise this for subordinate court appeals. Convicting courts grant bail for short sentences (up to 3 years) or bailable offences if an appeal is intended, unless special reasons exist, suspending the sentence during bail. Time on bail is excluded from the sentence term, balancing liberty and justice. Source: Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, via India Code.

Clause:
When an appeal is presented under section 378, the High Court may issue a warrant directing that the accused be arrested and brought before it or any subordinate Court, and the Court before which he is brought may commit him to prison pending the disposal of the appeal or admit him to bail.

Explanation: In acquittal appeals under Section 378, the High Court can order the accused’s arrest and presentation before itself or a subordinate court, which can detain them or grant bail pending the appeal, ensuring the accused’s availability during review. Source: Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, via India Code.

Clause:
(1) In dealing with any appeal under this Chapter, the Appellate Court, if it thinks additional evidence to be necessary, may either take such evidence itself, or direct it to be taken by a Magistrate, or when the Appellate Court is a High Court, by a Court of Session or a Magistrate.
(2) When the additional evidence is taken by the Court of Session or the Magistrate, it or he shall certify such evidence to the Appellate Court, and such Court shall thereupon proceed to dispose of the appeal.
(3) The accused or his pleader shall have the right to be present when such evidence is taken.
(4) The taking of evidence under this section shall be subject to the provisions of Chapter XXIII, as if it were an inquiry.

Explanation: Appellate courts can take additional evidence themselves or direct Magistrates (or Sessions Courts, if a High Court) to do so if needed. Lower courts certify the evidence to the appellate court for appeal disposal. The accused or their lawyer can be present, and evidence-taking follows Chapter XXIII’s inquiry rules, ensuring thorough review. Source: Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, via India Code.

Clause:
When an appeal under this Chapter is heard by a High Court before a Bench of Judges and they are divided in opinion, the appeal, with their opinions, shall be laid before another Judge of that Court, and that Judge, after such hearing as he thinks fit, shall deliver his opinion, and the judgment or order shall follow that opinion:
Provided that if one of the Judges constituting the Bench, or, where the appeal is laid before another Judge under this section, that Judge, so requires, the appeal shall be re-heard and decided by a larger Bench of Judges.

Explanation: If High Court Judges hearing an appeal are equally divided, the case goes to another Judge, whose opinion determines the judgment. If any Judge or the third Judge requests, a larger Bench re-hears and decides the appeal, resolving deadlocks. Source: Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, via India Code.

Clause:
Judgments and orders passed by an Appellate Court upon an appeal shall be final, except in the cases provided for in section 377, section 378, section 379 or Chapter XXX.

Explanation: Appellate court judgments and orders are final, except for appeals under Sections 377 (sentence inadequacy), 378 (acquittal), 379 (High Court convictions with severe sentences), or Chapter XXX (reference/revision), ensuring closure unless specified. Source: Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, via India Code.

Clause:
(1) Every appeal under section 377 or section 378 shall finally abate on the death of the accused.
(2) Every other appeal under this Chapter (except an appeal from a sentence of fine) shall finally abate on the death of the appellant:
Provided that where the appeal is against a conviction and sentence of death or of imprisonment, and the appellant dies during the pendency of the appeal, any of his near relatives may, within thirty days of the death of the appellant, apply to the Appellate Court for leave to continue the appeal; and if leave is granted, the appeal shall not abate.
(3) For the purposes of the proviso to sub-section (2), the expression “near relative” means a parent, spouse, lineal descendant, brother or sister.

Explanation: Appeals under Sections 377 (sentence inadequacy) or 378 (acquittal) end with the accused’s death. Other appeals, except fine-related ones, end with the appellant’s death, but for death or imprisonment sentence appeals, near relatives (parent, spouse, child, sibling) can seek leave within 30 days to continue, preventing abatement if granted, balancing finality and family interests. Source: Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, via India Code.

Clause:
(1) Where any Court is satisfied that a case pending before it involves a question as to the validity of any Act, Ordinance or Regulation or of any provision contained in an Act, Ordinance or Regulation, the determination of which is necessary for the disposal of the case, and is of opinion that such Act, Ordinance, Regulation or provision is invalid or inoperative, but has not been so declared by the High Court to which that Court is subordinate or by the Supreme Court, the Court shall state a case setting out its opinion and the reasons therefor, and refer the same for the decision of the High Court.
Explanation.—In this section, “Regulation” means any Regulation as defined in the General Clauses Act, 1897 (10 of 1897), or in any other law for the time being in force.
(2) A Court of Session or a Metropolitan Magistrate may, if it or he thinks fit in any case pending before it or him to which the provisions of sub-section (1) do not apply, refer for the decision of the High Court any question of law arising in the hearing of such case.
(3) Any Court making a reference to the High Court under sub-section (1) or sub-section (2) may, pending the decision of the High Court thereon, either commit the accused to jail or release him on bail to appear when called upon.

Explanation: If a court believes a case involves a question about the validity of a law or provision, which it thinks is invalid but not yet declared so by the High Court or Supreme Court, it must refer the issue to the High Court with its opinion and reasons. Sessions Courts or Metropolitan Magistrates can also refer other legal questions to the High Court. Pending the High Court’s decision, the accused can be jailed or bailed, ensuring legal clarity. Source: Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, via India Code.

Clause:
(1) When a question has been so referred under section 395, the High Court shall pass such order thereon as it thinks fit, and shall cause a copy of such order to be sent to the Court by which the reference was made, which shall dispose of the case conformably to the said order.
(2) The High Court may direct by whom the costs of such reference shall be paid.

Explanation: The High Court decides questions referred under Section 395 and sends its order to the referring court, which must follow it to dispose of the case. The High Court can also assign reference costs, ensuring compliance and cost allocation. Source: Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, via India Code.

Clause:
(1) The High Court or any Sessions Judge may call for and examine the record of any proceeding before any inferior Criminal Court situate within its or his local jurisdiction for the purpose of satisfying itself or himself as to the correctness, legality or propriety of any finding, sentence or order, recorded or passed, and as to the regularity of any proceedings of such inferior Court, and may, when calling for such record, direct that the execution of any sentence or order be suspended, and if the accused is in confinement, that he be released on bail or on his own bond pending the examination of the record.
Explanation.—All Magistrates, whether Executive or Judicial, and whether exercising original or appellate jurisdiction, shall be deemed to be inferior to the Sessions Judge for the purposes of this sub-section and of section 398.
(2) The powers of revision conferred by sub-section (1) shall not be exercised in relation to any interlocutory order passed in any appeal, inquiry, trial or other proceeding.
(3) If an application under this section has been made by any person either to the High Court or to the Sessions Judge, no further application by the same person shall be entertained by the other of them.

Explanation: The High Court or Sessions Judge can review records of lower criminal courts (all Magistrates are inferior to Sessions Judges) to check the correctness, legality, or propriety of findings, sentences, orders, or proceedings. They can suspend sentences or grant bail during review. Revision powers don’t apply to interlocutory orders, and a person cannot apply for revision to both courts for the same issue, ensuring oversight without redundancy. Source: Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, via India Code.

Clause:
On examining any record under section 397 or otherwise, the High Court or the Sessions Judge may direct the Chief Judicial Magistrate by himself or by any of the Magistrates subordinate to him to make, or direct any subordinate Magistrate to make, further inquiry into any complaint which has been dismissed under section 203 or sub-section (4) of section 204, or into the case of any person accused of an offence who has been discharged:
Provided that no Court shall make any direction under this section for inquiry into the case of any person who has been discharged unless such person has had an opportunity of showing cause why such direction should not be made.

Explanation: During revision under Section 397 or otherwise, the High Court or Sessions Judge can order the Chief Judicial Magistrate or subordinate Magistrates to further inquire into dismissed complaints (under Sections 203 or 204(4)) or cases of discharged accused. For discharged persons, a chance to argue against the inquiry is required, ensuring fairness in revisiting cases. Source: Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, via India Code.

Clause:
(1) In the case of any proceeding the record of which has been called for by himself, the Sessions Judge may exercise all or any of the powers which may be exercised by the High Court under sub-section (1) of section 401.
(2) Where any proceeding by way of revision is commenced before a Sessions Judge under sub-section (1), the provisions of sub-sections (2), (3), (4) and (5) of section 401 shall, so far as may be, apply to such proceeding and references in the said sub-sections to the High Court shall be construed as references to the Sessions Judge.
(3) Where any application for revision is made by or on behalf of any person before the Sessions Judge, the decision of the Sessions Judge thereon in relation to such person shall be final and no further proceeding by way of revision at the instance of such person shall be entertained by the High Court or any other Court.

Explanation: A Sessions Judge can exercise High Court revision powers under Section 401(1) for records they call. Revision proceedings before a Sessions Judge follow Section 401(2)–(5) rules, with references to the High Court meaning the Sessions Judge. A Sessions Judge’s revision decision is final for the applicant, barring further revision by the High Court or others, streamlining lower-level revisions. Source: Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, via India Code.

Clause:
An Additional Sessions Judge shall have and may exercise all the powers of a Sessions Judge under this Chapter in respect of any case which may be transferred to him by or under any general or special order of the Sessions Judge.

Explanation: An Additional Sessions Judge can use all Sessions Judge revision powers under Chapter XXX for cases transferred by the Sessions Judge’s general or special order, ensuring efficient case distribution. Source: Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, via India Code.

Clause:
(1) In the case of any proceeding the record of which has been called for by itself or which otherwise comes to its knowledge, the High Court may, in its discretion, exercise any of the powers conferred on a Court of Appeal by sections 386, 389, 390 and 391 or on a Court of Session by section 307 and, when the Judges composing the Court of revision are equally divided in opinion, the case shall be disposed of in the manner provided by section 392.
(2) No order under this section shall be made to the prejudice of the accused or other person unless he has had an opportunity of being heard either personally or by pleader in his own defence.
(3) Nothing in this section shall be deemed to authorise a High Court to convert a finding of acquittal into one of conviction.
(4) Where under this Code an appeal lies and no appeal is brought, no proceeding by way of revision shall be entertained at the instance of the party who could have appealed.
(5) Where under this Code an appeal lies but an application for revision has been made to the High Court by any person and the High Court is satisfied that such application was made under the erroneous belief that no appeal lies thereto and that it is necessary in the interests of justice so to do, the High Court may treat the application for revision as a petition of appeal and deal with the same accordingly.

Explanation: The High Court can use appellate powers (Sections 386, 389–391) or Sessions Court powers (Section 307) for revision of records it calls or learns about, with split opinions resolved per Section 392. Orders prejudicing the accused require a hearing. The High Court cannot turn acquittals into convictions, and parties who could appeal cannot seek revision instead. If a revision is filed due to a mistaken belief no appeal was possible, the High Court can treat it as an appeal if just, ensuring flexible but fair revisions. Source: Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, via India Code.

Clause:
(1) Whenever one or more persons convicted at the same trial makes or make an application to a High Court for revision and any other person convicted at the same trial makes an application to the Sessions Judge for revision, the High Court shall decide, having regard to the general convenience of the parties and the importance of the questions involved, which of the two Courts should finally dispose of the applications for revision and when the High Court decides that all the applications for revision should be disposed of by itself, the High Court shall direct that the applications for revision pending before the Sessions Judge be transferred to itself and where the High Court decides that it is not necessary for it to dispose of the applications for revision, it shall direct that the applications for revision made to it be transferred to the Sessions Judge.
(2) Whenever any application for revision is transferred to the High Court, that Court shall deal with the same as if it were an application duly made before itself.
(3) Whenever any application for revision is transferred to the Sessions Judge, that Judge shall deal with the same as if it were an application duly made before himself.
(4) Where an application for revision is transferred by the High Court to the Sessions Judge, no further application for revision shall lie to the High Court or to any other Court at the instance of the person or persons whose applications for revision have been disposed of by the Sessions Judge.

Explanation: If co-convicted persons from the same trial apply for revision to the High Court and Sessions Judge, the High Court decides which court handles all applications, considering convenience and question importance. It can transfer Sessions Judge applications to itself or its own to the Sessions Judge. Transferred applications are treated as originally filed in the receiving court. No further revision is allowed if the Sessions Judge disposes of transferred applications, centralizing revision management. Source: Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, via India Code.

Clause:
Save as otherwise expressly provided by this Code, no party has any right to be heard either personally or by pleader before any Court exercising its powers of revision; but the Court may, if it thinks fit, when exercising such powers, hear any party either personally or by pleader.

Explanation: Parties have no automatic right to be heard in revision proceedings unless the CrPC specifies, but the revising court can choose to hear them personally or through a lawyer, allowing discretionary fairness. Source: Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, via India Code.

Clause:
When the record of any trial held by a Metropolitan Magistrate is called for by the High Court or Court of Session under section 397, the Magistrate may submit with the record a statement setting forth the grounds of his decision or order and any facts which he thinks material to the issue; and the Court shall consider such statement before overruling or setting aside the said decision or order.

Explanation: When a High Court or Sessions Court calls for a Metropolitan Magistrate’s trial record under Section 397, the Magistrate can submit a statement explaining their decision, order, and relevant facts. The revising court must consider this statement before altering the decision or order, ensuring informed revisions. Source: Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, via India Code.

Clause:
When a case is revised under this Chapter by the High Court or a Sessions Judge, it or he shall, in the manner provided by section 388, certify its decision or order to the Court by which the finding, sentence or order revised was recorded or passed, and the Court to which the decision or order is so certified shall thereupon make such orders as are conformable to the decision so certified; and, if necessary, the record shall be amended in accordance therewith.

Explanation: After revising a case, the High Court or Sessions Judge certifies its decision or order to the original court per Section 388 procedures. The lower court implements conforming orders and amends records if needed, ensuring revision outcomes are enforced. Source: Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, via India Code.

Clause:
(1) Whenever it is made to appear to the Supreme Court that an order under this section is expedient for the ends of justice, it may direct that any particular case or appeal be transferred from one High Court to another High Court or from a Criminal Court subordinate to one High Court to a Criminal Court of equal or superior jurisdiction subordinate to another High Court.
(2) The Supreme Court may act under this section only on the application of the Attorney-General of India or of a party interested, and every such application shall be made by motion, which shall, except when the applicant is the Attorney-General of India or the Advocate-General of the State, be supported by affidavit or affirmation.
(3) Where any application for the exercise of the powers conferred by this section is dismissed, the Supreme Court may, if it is of opinion that the application was frivolous or vexatious, order the applicant to pay by way of compensation to any person who has opposed the application, such sum not exceeding one thousand rupees as it may consider appropriate in the circumstances of the case.

Explanation: The Supreme Court can transfer cases or appeals between High Courts or from a court under one High Court to an equal or superior court under another High Court if it serves justice. Applications must come from the Attorney-General, Advocate-General, or an interested party, supported by affidavit (except for the Attorney-General/Advocate-General). If a frivolous or vexatious application is dismissed, the applicant may pay up to 1,000 rupees compensation to opponents, ensuring fair and serious transfer requests. Source: Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, via India Code.

Clause:
(1) Whenever it is made to appear to the High Court—

• (a) that a fair and impartial inquiry or trial cannot be had in any Criminal Court subordinate thereto, or
  
• (b) that some question of law of unusual difficulty is likely to arise, or
  
• (c) that an order under this section is required by any provision of this Code, or will tend to the general convenience of the parties or witnesses, or is expedient for the ends of justice,
  

• (i) that any offence be inquired into or tried by any Court not qualified under sections 177 to 185 (both inclusive), but in other respects competent to inquire into or try such offence;
  
• (ii) that any particular case or appeal, or class of cases or appeals, be transferred from a Criminal Court subordinate to its authority to any other such Criminal Court of equal or superior jurisdiction;
  
• (iii) that any particular case be committed for trial to a Court of Session; or
  
• (iv) that any particular case or appeal be transferred to and tried before itself.
  

Explanation: The High Court can transfer cases or appeals if a fair trial is impossible, complex legal questions arise, the CrPC requires it, or it aids convenience or justice. It can assign cases to competent courts, transfer between equal/superior courts, commit cases to Sessions Courts, or try cases itself. Transfers can be initiated by lower court reports, party applications, or the High Court’s own motion, but intra-sessions division transfers require prior Sessions Judge rejection. Applications need affidavits (except from the Advocate-General), accused applicants may need bonds, and the Public Prosecutor gets 24-hour notice. The High Court can stay proceedings (not affecting remand powers), award up to 1,000 rupees compensation for frivolous applications, and follows original court procedures for cases it tries. Section 197 orders are unaffected, ensuring flexible and fair transfers. Source: Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, via India Code.

Clause:
(1) Whenever it is made to appear to a Sessions Judge that an order under this sub-section is expedient for the ends of justice, he may order that any particular case be transferred from one Criminal Court to another Criminal Court in his sessions division.
(2) The Sessions Judge may act either on the report of the lower Court, or on the application of a party interested, or on his own initiative.
(3) The provisions of sub-sections (3), (4), (5), (6), (7) and (9) of section 407 shall apply in relation to an application to the Sessions Judge for an order under sub-section (1) as they apply in relation to an application to the High Court for an order under sub-section (1) of section 407, except that sub-section (7) of that section shall so apply as if for the words “one thousand rupees” occurring therein, the words “two hundred and fifty rupees” were substituted.

Explanation: A Sessions Judge can transfer cases between criminal courts in their division if it serves justice, based on lower court reports, party applications, or their own initiative. The application process mirrors Section 407(3)–(7), (9), requiring affidavits (except for Advocate-General), bonds for accused, 24-hour Public Prosecutor notice, stay powers (not affecting remand), and no impact on Section 197 orders. Frivolous application compensation is capped at 250 rupees, ensuring localized transfer authority. Source: Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, via India Code.

Clause:
(1) A Sessions Judge may withdraw any case or appeal from, or recall any case or appeal which he has made over to, any Assistant Sessions Judge or Chief Judicial Magistrate subordinate to him.
(2) At any time before the trial of the case or the hearing of the appeal has commenced before the Additional Sessions Judge, a Sessions Judge may recall any case or appeal which he has made over to any Additional Sessions Judge.
(3) Where a Sessions Judge withdraws or recalls a case or appeal under sub-section (1) or sub-section (2), he may either try the case in his own Court or hear the appeal himself, or make it over in accordance with the provisions of this Code to another Court for trial or hearing, as the case may be.

Explanation: A Sessions Judge can withdraw or recall cases or appeals from Assistant Sessions Judges or Chief Judicial Magistrates, or from Additional Sessions Judges before trial or appeal hearing starts. The Sessions Judge can then try/hear the case/appeal themselves or assign it to another court per CrPC rules, ensuring flexible case management. Source: Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, via India Code.

Clause:
(1) Any Chief Judicial Magistrate may withdraw any case from, or recall any case which he has made over to, any Magistrate subordinate to him, and may inquire into or try such case himself, or refer it for inquiry or trial to any other such Magistrate competent to inquire into or try the same.
(2) Any Judicial Magistrate may recall any case made over by him under sub-section (2) of section 192 to any other Magistrate and may inquire into or try such case himself.

Explanation: A Chief Judicial Magistrate can withdraw or recall cases from subordinate Magistrates, then handle them themselves or assign them to another competent Magistrate. Any Judicial Magistrate can recall cases transferred under Section 192(2) to another Magistrate and handle them themselves, allowing case reallocation for efficiency or justice. Source: Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, via India Code.

Clause:
Any District Magistrate or Sub-divisional Magistrate may—

• (a) make over, for disposal, any proceeding which has been started before him to any Magistrate subordinate to him;
  
• (b) withdraw any case from, or recall any case which he has made over to, any Magistrate subordinate to him, and dispose of such proceeding himself or refer it for disposal to any other Magistrate.

Explanation: District or Sub-divisional Magistrates can transfer proceedings to subordinate Magistrates for disposal or withdraw/recall cases from them, then handle the cases themselves or assign them to another Magistrate, providing administrative flexibility for Executive Magistrates. Source: Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, via India Code.

Clause:
A Sessions Judge or Magistrate making an order under section 408, section 409, section 410 or section 411 shall record his reasons for making it.

Explanation: When a Sessions Judge or Magistrate orders case transfers or withdrawals under Sections 408–411, they must record their reasons, ensuring transparency and accountability in case reassignments. Source: Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, via India Code.

Clause:
When in a case submitted to the High Court for the confirmation of a sentence of death, the Court of Session receives the order of confirmation or other order of the High Court thereon, it shall cause such order to be carried into effect by issuing a warrant or taking such other steps as may be necessary.

Explanation: When the High Court confirms a death sentence or issues another order under Section 368, the Sessions Court must execute it by issuing a warrant or taking necessary steps, ensuring the High Court’s decision is implemented. Source: Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, via India Code.

Clause:
When a sentence of death is passed by the High Court in appeal or in revision, the Court of Session shall, on receiving the order of the High Court, cause the sentence to be carried into effect by issuing a warrant.

Explanation: If the High Court imposes a death sentence in an appeal or revision, the Sessions Court executes it by issuing a warrant upon receiving the order, ensuring prompt implementation of the High Court’s ruling. Source: Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, via India Code.

Clause:
(1) Where a person is sentenced to death by the High Court and an appeal from its judgment lies to the Supreme Court under sub-clause (a) or sub-clause (b) of clause (1) of article 134 of the Constitution, the High Court shall order the execution of the sentence to be postponed until the period allowed for preferring such appeal has expired, or, if an appeal is preferred within that period, until such appeal is disposed of.
(2) Where a sentence of death is passed or confirmed by the High Court, and the person sentenced makes an application to the High Court for the grant of a certificate under article 132 or under sub-clause (c) of clause (1) of article 134 of the Constitution, the High Court shall order the execution of the sentence to be postponed until such application is disposed of by the High Court, or if a certificate is granted on such application, until the period allowed for preferring an appeal to the Supreme Court on such certificate has expired.
(3) Where a sentence of death is passed or confirmed by the High Court, and the High Court is satisfied that the person sentenced intends to present a petition to the Supreme Court for the grant of special leave to appeal under article 136 of the Constitution, the High Court shall order the execution of the sentence to be postponed for such period as it considers sufficient to enable him to present such petition.

Explanation: If the High Court sentences someone to death and an appeal to the Supreme Court is possible under Article 134(1)(a) or (b), execution is postponed until the appeal period expires or the appeal is decided. If the person applies for a certificate under Article 132 or 134(1)(c), execution is delayed until the application is resolved or, if granted, until the appeal period expires. If the High Court believes the person intends to seek special leave under Article 136, execution is postponed to allow petition filing, ensuring time for higher appeals. Source: Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, via India Code.

Clause:
If a woman sentenced to death is found to be pregnant, the High Court shall order the execution of the sentence to be postponed, and may, if it thinks fit, commute the sentence to imprisonment for life.

Explanation: If a woman sentenced to death is pregnant, the High Court must postpone execution and can commute the sentence to life imprisonment if deemed appropriate, protecting the unborn child and ensuring humane treatment. Source: Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, via India Code.

Clause:
(1) Except when otherwise provided by any law for the time being in force, the State Government may direct in what place any person liable to be imprisoned or committed to custody under this Code shall be confined.
(2) If any person liable to be imprisoned or committed to custody under this Code is in confinement in a civil jail, the Court or Magistrate ordering the imprisonment or committal may direct that the person be removed to a criminal jail.
(3) When a person is removed to a criminal jail under sub-section (2), he shall, on being released therefrom, be sent back to the civil jail, unless either—

• (a) three years have elapsed since he was removed to the criminal jail, in which case he shall be deemed to have been released from the civil jail under section 58 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (5 of 1908), or section 23 of the Provincial Insolvency Act, 1920 (5 of 1920), as the case may be; or
  
• (b) the Court which ordered his imprisonment in the civil jail has certified to the officer in charge of the criminal jail that he is entitled to be released under section 58 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (5 of 1908), or under section 23 of the Provincial Insolvency Act, 1920 (5 of 1920), as the case may be.

Explanation: The State Government can decide where a person sentenced to imprisonment or custody is confined, unless another law specifies otherwise. Courts or Magistrates can move a person from a civil to a criminal jail. If moved, they return to the civil jail upon release unless 3 years have passed (deeming civil jail release under civil or insolvency laws) or the civil jail court certifies release eligibility, balancing confinement types. Source: Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, via India Code.

Clause:
(1) Where the accused is sentenced to imprisonment for life or to imprisonment for a term in cases other than those provided for by section 413, the Court passing the sentence shall forthwith forward a warrant to the jail or other place in which he is, or is to be, confined, and, unless the accused is already confined in such jail or other place, shall forward him to such jail or other place, with the warrant:
Provided that where the accused is sentenced to imprisonment till the rising of the Court, it shall not be necessary to prepare or forward a warrant to a jail, and the accused may be confined in such place as the Court may direct.
(2) Where the accused is not present in Court when he is sentenced to such imprisonment as is mentioned in sub-section (1), the Court shall issue a warrant for the arrest of the accused for the purpose of forwarding him to the jail or other place in which he is to be confined; and the sentence shall commence on the date on which such warrant is executed.

Explanation: For life imprisonment or term imprisonment (except Section 413 cases), the sentencing court sends a warrant to the jail or confinement place and forwards the accused there, unless already confined. No warrant is needed for imprisonment until court rises, and the court can choose the confinement place. If the accused is absent, the court issues an arrest warrant, and the sentence starts when executed, ensuring proper confinement. Source: Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, via India Code.

Clause:
Every warrant for the execution of a sentence of imprisonment shall be directed to the officer in charge of the jail or other place in which the prisoner is, or is to be, confined.

Explanation: Warrants for executing imprisonment sentences must be addressed to the officer managing the jail or confinement place, ensuring clear instructions for sentence enforcement. Source: Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, via India Code.

Clause:
When the prisoner is to be confined in a jail, the warrant shall be lodged with the jailor.

Explanation: If a prisoner is to be confined in a jail, the execution warrant is given to the jailor, ensuring proper custody and sentence enforcement. Source: Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, via India Code.

Clause:
(1) When an offender has been sentenced to pay a fine, the Court passing the sentence may take action for the recovery of the fine in either or both of the following ways, that is to say, it may—

• (a) issue a warrant for the levy of the amount by attachment and sale of any movable property belonging to the offender;
  
• (b) issue a warrant to the Collector of the district, authorising him to realise the amount as arrears of land revenue from the movable or immovable property, or both, of the defaulter:
  

• (a) regulate the manner in which warrants under clause (a) of sub-section (1) are to be executed, and for the summary determination of any claims made by any person other than the offender in respect of any property attached in execution of such warrant;
  
• (b) authorise the Collector of the district, when authorised to realise the amount as arrears of land revenue, to stay the proceedings for such realisation on such terms as to security or payment by instalments or otherwise as he thinks fit.
  

Explanation: To recover a fine, the sentencing court can issue a warrant to seize and sell the offender’s movable property or authorize the district Collector to recover it as land revenue arrears from movable or immovable property. If the sentence includes imprisonment for non-payment and the offender serves the full term, no warrant is issued unless special written reasons are given or part of the fine remains unpaid. The State Government can make rules to regulate warrant execution, handle third-party property claims, and allow the Collector to pause recovery with conditions like security or installments, ensuring effective fine collection. Source: Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, via India Code.

Clause:
A warrant issued under clause (a) of sub-section (1) of section 421 by any Court may be executed within the local jurisdiction of that Court, and it shall authorise the attachment and sale of any such property outside such jurisdiction, when it is endorsed by the District Magistrate within whose district such property is found.

Explanation: A warrant under Section 421(1)(a) for seizing and selling movable property can be executed in the issuing court’s jurisdiction. For property outside that jurisdiction, the warrant authorizes attachment and sale if endorsed by the District Magistrate of the area where the property is located, enabling cross-jurisdictional fine recovery. Source: Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, via India Code.

Clause:
Notwithstanding anything contained in this Code, where a fine is imposed by any Court in any territory to which this Code does not extend, and a warrant for the levy of such fine is issued by such Court to the Collector of any district in any territory to which this Code extends, such warrant shall be deemed to be a warrant issued under clause (b) of sub-section (1) of section 421, and the Collector shall proceed to realise the amount in the manner provided in that section.

Explanation: If a court in a territory outside the CrPC’s scope issues a fine and sends a warrant to a Collector in a CrPC-applicable area, the warrant is treated as one under Section 421(1)(b). The Collector recovers the fine as land revenue arrears per Section 421, ensuring fines from non-CrPC areas are enforceable. Source: Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, via India Code.

Clause:
(1) When an offender has been sentenced to fine only and to imprisonment in default of payment of the fine, and the fine is not paid forthwith, the Court may—

• (a) order that the fine shall be payable either in full on or before a date not more than thirty days from the date of the order, or in two or three instalments, of which the first shall be payable on or before a date not more than thirty days from the date of the order and the other or others at an interval or at intervals, as the case may be, of not more than thirty days;
  
• (b) suspend the execution of the sentence of imprisonment and release the offender, on the execution by the offender of a bond, with or without sureties, as the Court thinks fit, conditioned for his appearance before the Court on the date or dates on or before which payment of the fine or the instalment thereof, as the case may be, is to be made; and if the amount of the fine or of any instalment, as the case may be, is not realised on or before the latest date on which it is payable under the order, the Court may direct the sentence of imprisonment to be carried into execution at once.
  

Explanation: If an offender is sentenced to a fine with imprisonment for non-payment and doesn’t pay immediately, the court can allow payment within 30 days or in 2–3 installments (first due within 30 days, others within 30-day intervals) and suspend imprisonment, releasing the offender on a bond (with or without sureties) to appear for payment deadlines. If the fine or installment isn’t paid by the due date, imprisonment is enforced. This applies to other money payment orders with imprisonment for non-payment; if the person refuses the bond, imprisonment is imposed immediately, offering flexibility for payment. Source: Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, via India Code.

Clause:
Every warrant for the execution of any sentence may be issued either by the Judge or Magistrate who passed the sentence, or by his successor in office.

Explanation: Warrants to execute any sentence can be issued by the sentencing Judge or Magistrate or their successor, ensuring continuity in sentence enforcement. Source: Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, via India Code.

Clause:
(1) When a sentence of death, imprisonment for life or fine is passed under this Code on an escaped convict, such sentence shall, subject to the provisions hereinbefore contained, take effect immediately.
(2) When a sentence of imprisonment for a term is passed under this Code on an escaped convict,—

• (a) if such sentence is severer in kind than the sentence which such convict was undergoing when he escaped, the new sentence shall take effect immediately;
  
• (b) if such sentence is not severer in kind than the sentence which such convict was undergoing when he escaped, the new sentence shall take effect after he has suffered imprisonment for a further period equal to that which, at the time of his escape, remained unexpired of his former sentence.
  

Explanation: For an escaped convict, sentences of death, life imprisonment, or fines take effect immediately, subject to prior provisions. For term imprisonment, a severer sentence (e.g., rigorous vs. simple imprisonment) starts immediately; a non-severer sentence starts after serving the remaining term of the original sentence at escape. Rigorous imprisonment is considered severer than simple imprisonment, ensuring appropriate sequencing of punishments. Source: Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, via India Code.

Clause:
(1) When a person already undergoing a sentence of imprisonment is sentenced on a subsequent conviction to imprisonment or imprisonment for life, such imprisonment or imprisonment for life shall commence at the expiration of the imprisonment to which he has been previously sentenced, unless the Court directs that the subsequent sentence shall run concurrently with such previous sentence:
Provided that where a person who has been sentenced to imprisonment by an order under section 122 in default of furnishing security is, whilst undergoing such sentence, sentenced to imprisonment for an offence committed prior to such order, the latter sentence shall commence immediately.
(2) When a person already undergoing a sentence of imprisonment for life is sentenced on a subsequent conviction to imprisonment for a term or imprisonment for life, the subsequent sentence shall run concurrently with such previous sentence.

Explanation: If someone already imprisoned is sentenced again to imprisonment or life imprisonment, the new sentence starts after the current one, unless the court orders concurrent running. However, if imprisoned for defaulting on a Section 122 security order and then sentenced for a prior offence, the new sentence starts immediately. For someone with a life sentence, any new term or life sentence runs concurrently, managing multiple sentences fairly. Source: Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, via India Code.

Clause:
Where an accused person has, on conviction, been sentenced to imprisonment for a term, not being imprisonment in default of payment of fine, the period of detention, if any, undergone by him during the investigation, inquiry or trial of the same case and before the date of such conviction, shall be set off against the term of imprisonment imposed on him on such conviction, and the liability of such person to undergo imprisonment on such conviction shall be restricted to the remainder, if any, of the term of imprisonment imposed on him.

Explanation: When an accused is sentenced to imprisonment (not for defaulting on a fine), any detention time during the case’s investigation, inquiry, or trial before conviction is deducted from the sentence term. The person serves only the remaining term, if any, ensuring fair credit for pre-conviction detention. Source: Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, via India Code.

Clause:
(1) Nothing in section 426 or section 427 shall be held to excuse any person from any part of the punishment to which he is liable upon his former or subsequent conviction.
(2) When an award of imprisonment in default of payment of a fine is imposed on a person who is already undergoing a sentence of imprisonment, or imprisonment for life, such award shall not be deemed to be an award of imprisonment for the purposes of section 428.

Explanation: Sections 426 and 427 do not exempt anyone from punishment for prior or later convictions. Imprisonment for defaulting on a fine, imposed on someone already serving imprisonment or life imprisonment, isn’t counted as imprisonment under Section 428 for detention set-off, preserving full punishment liability. Source: Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, via India Code.

Clause:
When a sentence has been fully executed, the officer executing it shall return the warrant to the Court from which it was issued, with an endorsement under his hand certifying the manner in which the sentence has been executed.

Explanation: After fully executing a sentence, the executing officer returns the warrant to the issuing court with a signed endorsement detailing how the sentence was carried out, ensuring documentation of completion. Source: Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, via India Code.

Clause:
Any money (other than a fine) payable by virtue of any order made under this Code, and the method of recovery of which is not otherwise expressly provided for, shall be recoverable as if it were a fine:
Provided that section 421 shall, in its application to an order under section 359, by virtue of this section, be construed as if in the proviso to sub-section (1) of section 421, after the words and figures “under section 357”, the words and figures “or an order for payment of costs under section 359” had been inserted.

Explanation: Money (except fines) ordered under the CrPC, without a specified recovery method, is recovered like a fine under Section 421. For cost orders under Section 359, Section 421’s proviso is read as including these costs alongside Section 357 orders, ensuring consistent recovery mechanisms. Source: Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, via India Code.

Clause:
(1) When any person has been sentenced to punishment for an offence, the appropriate Government may, at any time, without conditions or upon any conditions which the person sentenced accepts, suspend the execution of his sentence or remit the whole or any part of the punishment to which he has been sentenced.
(2) Whenever an application is made to the appropriate Government for the suspension or remission of a sentence, the appropriate Government may require the presiding Judge of the Court before or by which the conviction was had or confirmed, to state his opinion as to whether the application should be granted or refused, together with his reasons for such opinion and also to forward with the statement of such opinion a certified copy of the record of the trial or of such record thereof as exists.
(3) If any condition on which a sentence has been suspended or remitted is not fulfilled by the person to whom the suspension or remission was granted, the appropriate Government may, after giving such person an opportunity of showing cause why the suspension or remission should not be cancelled, cancel the suspension or remission, and thereupon such person may, if at large, be arrested by any police officer without warrant and remanded to undergo the unexpired portion of the sentence.
(4) The appropriate Government may, with the consent of the person sentenced, substitute for the punishment to which he has been sentenced a punishment different in kind, provided that the substituted punishment is not greater than that which might have been awarded by the Court which convicted him.
(5) The condition on which a sentence is suspended or remitted under this section may be one to be fulfilled by the person in whose favour the sentence is suspended or remitted, or one independent of his will, and in particular, may include a condition that such person shall be placed under the supervision of a probation officer, if the appropriate Government thinks fit, for such period, not exceeding three years, as that Government may specify in that behalf.
(6) The provisions of the above sub-sections shall, so far as may be, apply in relation to sentences of imprisonment for life as they apply in relation to sentences of imprisonment for a term.
(7) In this section and in section 433, the expression “appropriate Government” means,—

• (a) in cases where the sentence is for an offence against any law relating to a matter to which the executive power of the Union extends, the Central Government;
  
• (b) in other cases, the Government of the State within which the offender is sentenced.
  

Explanation: The appropriate Government (Central for Union matters, State otherwise) can suspend or remit sentences, with or without conditions, at any time. For suspension/remission applications, it may seek the presiding Judge’s opinion and trial records. If conditions are unmet, the Government can cancel suspension/remission after a hearing, allowing arrest and serving the remaining sentence. With consent, it can substitute a different, non-harsher punishment. Conditions may include probation supervision (up to 3 years) or other terms. These rules apply to life imprisonment, ensuring flexible and supervised sentence relief. Source: Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, via India Code.

Clause:
The appropriate Government may, without the consent of the person sentenced, commute—

• (a) a sentence of death, for any other punishment provided by the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860);
  
• (b) a sentence of imprisonment for life, for imprisonment for a term not exceeding fourteen years or for fine;
  
• (c) a sentence of rigorous imprisonment, for simple imprisonment for any term to which that person might have been sentenced, or for fine;
  
• (d) a sentence of simple imprisonment, for fine.
  

Explanation: The appropriate Government can commute sentences without the person’s consent: death to any Indian Penal Code punishment, life imprisonment to up to 14 years or fine, rigorous imprisonment to simple imprisonment or fine, and simple imprisonment to fine, allowing sentence reduction for mercy or policy reasons. Source: Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, via India Code.

Clause:
The powers conferred by sections 432 and 433 upon the State Government to remit or commute a sentence, in any case where the sentence is for an offence—

• (a) which was investigated by the Delhi Special Police Establishment constituted under the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946 (25 of 1946), or by any other agency empowered to make investigation into an offence under any Central Act other than this Code, or
  
• (b) which involved the misconduct of a person holding public office and which was investigated by an officer of the State Government exercising the powers of a Superintendent of Police, or by an officer of higher rank,
  

Explanation: For death sentences in cases investigated by the Delhi Special Police, other central agencies, or involving public official misconduct investigated by a senior State officer, the Central Government can also remit or commute under Sections 432 and 433, but only after consulting the State Government where the offender was sentenced, sharing authority in significant cases. Source: Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, via India Code.

Clause:
(1) The powers conferred by sections 432 and 433 upon the State Government shall, in any case where the sentence is for an offence—

• (a) which was investigated by the Delhi Special Police Establishment constituted under the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946 (25 of 1946), or by any other agency empowered to make investigation into an offence under any Central Act other than this Code, or
  
• (b) which involved the misconduct of a person holding public office and which was investigated by an officer of the State Government exercising the powers of a Superintendent of Police, or by an officer of higher rank,
  

Explanation: State Governments must consult the Central Government before exercising Section 432 or 433 powers (suspension, remission, commutation) for sentences in cases investigated by the Delhi Special Police, other central agencies, or involving public official misconduct investigated by senior State officers. Similarly, for convictions under Union executive laws, State Governments need Central Government consultation, ensuring coordination in sensitive cases. Source: Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, via India Code.

Clause:
(1) When any person other than a person accused of a non-bailable offence is arrested or detained without warrant by an officer in charge of a police station, or appears or is brought before a Court, and is prepared at any time while in the custody of such officer or at any stage of the proceeding before such Court to give bail, such person shall be released on bail:
Provided that such officer or Court, if he or it thinks fit, may, instead of taking bail from such person, discharge him on his executing a bond without sureties for his appearance as hereinafter provided:
Provided further that nothing in this section shall be deemed to affect the provisions of sub-section (3) of section 116 or section 446A.
(2) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1), where a person has failed to comply with the conditions of the bail-bond as regards the time and place of attendance, the Court may refuse to release him on bail, when on a subsequent occasion in the same case he appears before the Court or is brought in custody and any such refusal shall be without prejudice to the powers of the Court to call upon any person bound by such bond to pay the penalty thereof under section 446.

Explanation: For bailable offences, a person arrested without a warrant or brought to court must be released on bail if they offer it while in custody or during proceedings. The police or court can instead discharge them on a bond without sureties for appearance. This doesn’t affect Section 116(3) or 446A. If the person violates bail conditions (e.g., misses court), the court may deny bail on later appearances, without limiting its power to impose penalties under Section 446, ensuring compliance. Source: Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, via India Code.

Clause:
(1) When any person accused of, or suspected of, the commission of any non-bailable offence is arrested or detained without warrant by an officer in charge of a police station or appears or is brought before a Court other than the High Court or Court of Session, he may be released on bail, but—

• (i) such person shall not be so released if there appear reasonable grounds for believing that he has been guilty of an offence punishable with death or imprisonment for life;
  
• (ii) such person shall not be so released if such offence is a cognizable offence and he had been previously convicted of an offence punishable with death, imprisonment for life or imprisonment for seven years or more, or he had been previously convicted on two or more occasions of a cognizable offence punishable with imprisonment for three years or more but not less than seven years:
  

• (a) in order to ensure that such person shall attend in accordance with the conditions of the bond executed under this Chapter, or
  
• (b) in order to ensure that such person shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of which he is accused or of the commission of which he is suspected, or
  
• (c) otherwise in the interests of justice.
  

Explanation: For non-bailable offences, courts (except High Court/Sessions Court) or police can grant bail unless there’s reason to believe the accused committed an offence punishable by death/life imprisonment or has prior serious convictions (death, life, or 7+ years, or multiple 3–7 year offences). Bail may be granted to those under 16, women, or sick/infirm, or for other just reasons. Bail isn’t denied just for witness identification if the accused agrees to comply. If no reasonable grounds exist for a non-bailable offence but inquiry is needed, bail or a bond without sureties is granted. For serious offences (7+ years or specific IPC chapters), conditions ensure attendance, non-reoffending, or justice. Reasons for granting bail are recorded, and bail can be revoked. If a Magistrate’s trial exceeds 60 days, the accused in custody is bailed unless reasons are recorded. Post-trial, pre-judgment, an accused likely not guilty is released on a bond for judgment day, balancing justice and liberty. Source: Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, via India Code.

Clause:
(1) When any person has reason to believe that he may be arrested on an accusation of having committed a non-bailable offence, he may apply to the High Court or the Court of Session for a direction under this section; and that Court may, if it thinks fit, direct that in the event of such arrest, he shall be released on bail.
(2) When the High Court or the Court of Session makes a direction under sub-section (1), it may include such conditions in such directions in the light of the facts of the particular case, as it may think fit, including—

• (a) a condition that the person shall make himself available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required;
  
• (b) a condition that the person shall not, directly or indirectly, make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer;
  
• (c) a condition that the person shall not leave India without the previous permission of the Court;
  
• (d) such other condition as may be imposed under sub-section (3) of section 437, as if the bail were granted under that section.
  

Explanation: If someone fears arrest for a non-bailable offence, they can apply to the High Court or Sessions Court for anticipatory bail. The court may grant it with conditions like cooperating with police, not tampering with witnesses, not leaving India without permission, or other Section 437(3) conditions. If arrested, the person is released on bail if they offer it, and the Magistrate follows the court’s direction, preventing unnecessary detention. Source: Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, via India Code.

Clause:
(1) A High Court or Court of Session may direct—

• (a) that any person accused of an offence and in custody be released on bail, and if the offence is of the nature specified in sub-section (3) of section 437, may impose any condition which it considers necessary for the purposes mentioned in that sub-section;
  
• (b) that any condition imposed by a Magistrate when releasing any person on bail be set aside or modified:
  

Explanation: The High Court or Sessions Court can grant bail to any accused in custody, imposing conditions for serious offences per Section 437(3). They can also modify or cancel a Magistrate’s bail conditions. For offences triable only by Sessions Courts or punishable by life imprisonment, the Public Prosecutor must be notified of bail applications unless impractical. These courts can also order the arrest and custody of someone previously bailed, offering broad bail oversight. Source: Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, via India Code.

Clause:
(1) The amount of every bond executed under this Chapter shall be fixed with due regard to the circumstances of the case and shall not be excessive.
(2) The High Court or Court of Session may direct that the bail required by a police officer or Magistrate be reduced.

Explanation: Bonds under this chapter must be set at a reasonable amount based on case circumstances and not be excessive. The High Court or Sessions Court can order a reduction in bail amounts set by police or Magistrates, ensuring affordability and fairness. Source: Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, via India Code.

Clause:
(1) Before any person is released on bail or released on his own bond, a bond for such sum of money as the police officer or Court, as the case may be, thinks sufficient shall be executed by such person, and, when he is released on bail, by one or more sufficient sureties conditioned that such person shall attend at the time and place mentioned in the bond, and shall continue so to attend until otherwise directed by the police officer or Court, as the case may be.
(2) If the case so requires, the bond shall also bind the person released on bail to appear when called upon at the High Court, Court of Session or other Court to answer the charge.
(3) For the purpose of determining whether the sureties are fit or sufficient, the Court may accept affidavits in proof of the facts contained therein relating to the sufficiency or fitness of the sureties, or, if it thinks fit, may either hold an inquiry itself or cause an inquiry to be made by a Magistrate subordinate to the Court, as to such sufficiency or fitness.

Explanation: Before release on bail or personal bond, the accused must execute a bond for an amount deemed sufficient by the police or court. For bail, one or more sureties must also sign, ensuring the accused attends court as specified until directed otherwise. The bond may require appearance at higher courts if needed. Courts can use affidavits or inquiries (by themselves or a subordinate Magistrate) to verify surety suitability, ensuring reliable guarantees. Source: Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, via India Code.

Clause:
(1) As soon as the bond has been executed, the person for whose appearance it has been executed shall be released; and, when he is in jail, the Court admitting him to bail shall issue an order of release to the officer in charge of the jail, and such officer on receipt of the order shall release him.
(2) Nothing in this section, section 436 or section 437 shall be deemed to require the release of any person liable to be detained for some matter other than that in respect of which the bond was executed.

Explanation: Once the bail bond is executed, the person is released immediately. If in jail, the court issues a release order to the jail officer, who must comply. However, this doesn’t mandate release if the person is detained for other matters unrelated to the bond, ensuring detention for separate issues is unaffected. Source: Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, via India Code.

Clause:
If, through mistake or fraud, insufficient sureties have been accepted, or if they afterwards become insufficient, the Court may issue a warrant of arrest directing that the person released on bail be brought before it and may order him to find sufficient sureties, and, on his failing so to do, may commit him to jail.

Explanation: If bail sureties are insufficient due to mistake, fraud, or later inadequacy, the court can arrest the bailed person, order them to provide sufficient sureties, and jail them if they fail, ensuring bail reliability. Source: Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, via India Code.

Clause:
(1) All or any sureties for the attendance and appearance of a person released on bail may at any time apply to a Magistrate to discharge the bond, either wholly or so far as relates to the applicants.
(2) On such application being made, the Magistrate shall issue his warrant of arrest directing that the person so released be brought before him.
(3) On the appearance of such person pursuant to the warrant, or on his voluntary surrender, the Magistrate shall direct the bond to be discharged either wholly or so far as relates to the applicants, and shall call upon such person to find other sufficient sureties, and, if he fails to do so, may commit him to jail.

Explanation: Sureties can apply to a Magistrate to be discharged from a bail bond, fully or partially. The Magistrate arrests the bailed person, who must appear or surrender. The bond is then discharged as requested, and the person must provide new sureties; if they fail, they are jailed, allowing sureties to exit responsibly. Source: Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, via India Code.

Clause:
When any person is required by any Court or officer to execute a bond with or without sureties, such Court or officer may, except in the case of a bond for good behaviour, permit him to deposit a sum of money or Government promissory notes to such amount as the Court or officer may fix in lieu of executing such bond.

Explanation: Instead of a bond (with or without sureties), a court or officer can allow a person to deposit money or Government promissory notes of a fixed amount, except for good behaviour bonds, offering an alternative to secure compliance. Source: Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, via India Code.

Clause:
(1) Where a bond under this Code is for appearance, or for production of property, before a Court or officer and it is proved to the satisfaction of that Court or officer, or of some other Court to which the case is transferred, that the bond has been forfeited, the Court shall record the grounds of such proof, and may call upon any person bound by such bond to pay the penalty thereof or to show cause why it should not be paid.
(2) If sufficient cause is not shown and the penalty is not paid, the Court may proceed to recover the same as if such penalty were a fine imposed by it under this Code:
Provided that where such penalty is not paid and cannot be recovered in the manner aforesaid, the person so bound as surety shall be liable, by order of the Court ordering the recovery of the penalty, to imprisonment in civil jail for a term which may extend to six months.
(3) The Court may, at its discretion, remit any portion of the penalty mentioned and enforce payment in part only.
(4) Where a surety to a bond dies before the bond is forfeited, his estate shall be discharged from all liability in respect of the bond.
(5) Where any person who has furnished a bond under this Code is sentenced to imprisonment, and has, in consequence, to be imprisoned, the bond shall be deemed to be discharged, to the extent to which it relates to his appearance before a Court or officer, as the case may be.

Explanation: If a bond for appearance or property production is forfeited, the court records proof and demands the penalty or a reason not to pay. If no cause is shown and payment isn’t made, the penalty is recovered like a fine. If unrecoverable, sureties face up to 6 months in civil jail. The court can reduce the penalty. A surety’s estate is free if they die before forfeiture. If the bonded person is imprisoned, the bond is discharged for appearance obligations, ensuring fair penalty enforcement. Source: Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, via India Code.

Clause:
Without prejudice to the provisions of section 446, where a bond under this Code is for appearance of a person in a case and it is forfeited for breach of a condition—

• (a) the bond executed by such person as well as the bond, if any, executed by one or more of his sureties in that case shall stand cancelled; and
  
• (b) thereafter no such person shall be released only on his own bond in that case, if the Police Officer or the Court, as the case may be, for appearance before whom the bond was executed, is satisfied that there was no sufficient cause for the failure of such person to comply with the condition of the bond:
  

Explanation: If a bond for appearance is forfeited due to a breached condition, the person’s bond and any surety bonds are cancelled. The person cannot be released on their own bond in that case if the police or court finds no valid reason for the breach, unless they’re given a hearing. This strengthens enforcement without affecting Section 446 penalties. Source: Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, via India Code.

Clause:
When any surety to a bond under this Code becomes insolvent or dies, or when any bond is forfeited under the provisions of section 446, the Court by whose order such bond was taken, or a Magistrate of the first class may order the person from whom such bond was demanded to find sufficient sureties, and, if he fails to find such sureties, may proceed as if the bond had not been executed.

Explanation: If a surety becomes insolvent, dies, or a bond is forfeited under Section 446, the court or a First-Class Magistrate can order the bonded person to provide new sufficient sureties. If they fail, the court proceeds as if no bond existed, ensuring continued compliance or custody. Source: Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, via India Code.

Clause:
When the person required by any Court, or officer to execute a bond is a minor, such Court or officer may accept, in lieu thereof, a bond executed by a surety or sureties only.

Explanation: If a minor is required to execute a bond, the court or officer can accept a bond from a surety or sureties instead, accommodating the minor’s legal incapacity. Source: Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, via India Code.

Clause:
All orders passed under section 446 shall be appealable,—

• (i) in the case of an order made by a Magistrate, to the Sessions Judge;
  
• (ii) in the case of an order made by a Court of Session, to the Court to which an appeal lies from an order of such Court.
  

Explanation: Orders under Section 446 (bond forfeiture penalties) can be appealed: Magistrate’s orders to the Sessions Judge, and Sessions Court’s orders to the court handling its appeals, ensuring review of penalty decisions. Source: Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, via India Code.

Clause:
The High Court or Court of Session may direct any Magistrate to levy the amount due on a bond for appearance or for production of property executed under this Code.

Explanation: The High Court or Sessions Court can order a Magistrate to collect amounts owed on bonds for appearance or property production, ensuring enforcement of bond obligations. Source: Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, via India Code.

Clause:
When any property is produced before any Criminal Court during an inquiry or trial, the Court may make such order as it thinks fit for the proper custody of such property pending the conclusion of the inquiry or trial, and, if the property is subject to speedy and natural decay, or if it is otherwise expedient so to do, the Court may, after recording such evidence as it thinks necessary, order it to be sold or otherwise disposed of.
Explanation.—For the purposes of this section, “property” includes—

• (a) property of any kind or document which is produced before the Court or which is in its custody,
  
• (b) any property regarding which an offence appears to have been committed or which appears to have been used for the commission of any offence.

Explanation: During an inquiry or trial, a court can order how property presented to it should be kept until the case ends. If the property (including documents, items related to an offence, or used in one) is perishable or disposal is expedient, the court can order its sale or disposal after recording evidence, ensuring proper management of case-related items. Source: Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, via India Code.

Clause:
(1) When an inquiry or trial in any Criminal Court is concluded, the Court may make such order as it thinks fit for the disposal, by destruction, confiscation or delivery to any person claiming to be entitled to possession thereof or otherwise, of any property or document produced before it or in its custody, or regarding which any offence appears to have been committed, or which has been used for the commission of any offence.
(2) An order may be made under sub-section (1) for the delivery of any property to any person claiming to be entitled to the possession thereof, without any condition or on condition that he executes a bond, with or without sureties, to the satisfaction of the Court, engaging to restore such property to the Court if the order made under sub-section (1) is modified or set aside on appeal or revision.
(3) A Court of Session may, instead of itself making an order under sub-section (1), direct the property to be delivered to the Chief Judicial Magistrate, who shall thereupon deal with it in the manner provided in sections 457, 458 and 459.
(4) Except where the property is livestock or is subject to speedy and natural decay, or where a bond has been executed in pursuance of sub-section (2), an order made under sub-section (1) shall not be carried out for two months, or when an appeal or revision is presented, until such appeal or revision has been disposed of.
(5) In this section, the term “property” includes, in the case of property regarding which an offence appears to have been committed, not only such property as has been originally in the possession or under the control of any party, but also any property into or for which the same may have been converted or exchanged, and anything acquired by such conversion or exchange, whether immediately or otherwise.

Explanation: After an inquiry or trial, the court can order the disposal of property or documents (produced, in custody, related to an offence, or used in one) by destruction, confiscation, or delivery to someone entitled. Delivery may require a bond to return the property if an appeal or revision changes the order. Sessions Courts can delegate disposal to the Chief Judicial Magistrate per Sections 457–459. Except for livestock, perishable items, or bonded property, disposal waits 2 months or until appeals/revisions are resolved. “Property” includes converted or exchanged items, ensuring comprehensive disposal authority. Source: Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, via India Code.

Clause:
When any person is convicted of any offence which includes, or amounts to, theft or receiving stolen property, and it is proved that any other person bought the stolen property from him in good faith without knowing or having reason to believe that the property was stolen, and that any money has on his arrest been taken out of the possession of the convicted person, the Court may, on the application of such purchaser and on the restitution of the stolen property to the person entitled to the possession thereof, order that out of such money a sum not exceeding the price paid by such purchaser be delivered to him.

Explanation: If someone is convicted of theft or receiving stolen property, and another person innocently bought the stolen property without knowing it was stolen, the court can order that money found on the convicted person at arrest (up to the purchase price) be paid to the buyer, provided the stolen property is returned to its rightful owner, protecting good-faith purchasers. Source: Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, via India Code.

Clause:
Any person aggrieved by an order made by a Court under section 452 or section 453 may appeal against it to the Court to which appeals ordinarily lie from convictions by the former Court.

Explanation: Anyone dissatisfied with a court’s order under Section 452 (property disposal) or Section 453 (payment to innocent buyers) can appeal to the court that typically hears appeals from the original court’s convictions, ensuring a review mechanism. Source: Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, via India Code.

Clause:
(1) On a conviction under section 292, section 293, section 501 or section 502 of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860), the Court may order the destruction of all the copies of the thing in respect of which the conviction was had, and which are in the custody of the Court or remain in the possession or power of the person convicted.
(2) The Court may, in like manner, on a conviction under section 272, section 273, section 274 or section 275 of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860), order the food, drink, drug or medical preparation in respect of which the conviction was had, to be destroyed.

Explanation: Upon conviction for offences under IPC Sections 292, 293 (obscene materials), 501, 502 (defamation), the court can order destruction of all copies of the offending material in its custody or the convict’s possession. Similarly, for convictions under IPC Sections 272–275 (adulterated food, drink, drugs), the court can order destruction of the offending items, preventing further harm. Source: Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, via India Code.

Clause:
(1) When a person is convicted of an offence attended by criminal force or show of force or by criminal intimidation, and it appears to the Court that, by such force or show of force or intimidation, any person has been dispossessed of any immovable property, the Court may, if it thinks fit, order that possession of the same be restored to that person after evicting by force, if necessary, any other person who may be in possession of the property:
Provided that no such order shall be made by the Court more than one month after the date of the conviction, unless it is satisfied that the person so dispossessed, by reason of the act of the person convicted, has been unable, by no fault on his part, to apply for such order within the said period of one month.
(2) Any order under this section may be made by any Court of appeal, confirmation, reference or revision.
(3) Where the Court trying the offence has not made an order under sub-section (1), the Court of appeal, confirmation or revision may, if it thinks fit, make such order while disposing of the appeal, reference or revision, as the case may be.
(4) Where an order has been made under sub-section (1), the provisions of section 454 shall apply in relation thereto as they apply in relation to an order under section 453.
(5) No order made under this section shall prejudice any right or interest to or in such immovable property which any person may be able to establish in a civil suit.

Explanation: If someone is convicted of an offence involving criminal force, show of force, or intimidation, and this caused dispossession of immovable property, the court can order restoration of possession to the victim, using force to evict others if needed. This order must be within 1 month of conviction, unless the victim couldn’t apply due to the convict’s actions. Appellate, confirming, or revising courts can also issue this order. Section 454’s appeal provisions apply as for Section 453. The order doesn’t affect civil suit rights, ensuring victim restoration without final ownership disputes. Source: Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, via India Code.

Clause:
(1) Whenever the seizure of property by any police officer is reported to a Magistrate under the provisions of this Code, and such property is not produced before a Criminal Court during an inquiry or trial, the Magistrate may make such order as he thinks fit respecting the disposal of such property or the delivery of such property to the person entitled to the possession thereof, or, if such person cannot be ascertained, respecting the custody and production of such property.
(2) If the person so entitled is known, the Magistrate may order the property to be delivered to him on such conditions (if any) as the Magistrate thinks fit and if such person is unknown, the Magistrate may detain it and shall, in such case, issue a proclamation specifying the articles of which such property consists, and requiring any person who may have a claim thereto, to appear before him and establish his claim within six months from the date of such proclamation.

Explanation: When police report seized property to a Magistrate (not produced in court during inquiry/trial), the Magistrate can order its disposal, delivery to the entitled person, or custody if the owner is unknown. If the owner is known, delivery may have conditions; if unknown, the property is detained, and a proclamation is issued listing items, giving claimants 6 months to prove ownership, ensuring fair property handling. Source: Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, via India Code.

Clause:
(1) If no person within such period of six months establishes his claim to such property, and if the person in whose possession such property was found is unable to show that it was legally acquired by him, the Magistrate may by order direct that such property shall be at the disposal of the State Government and may be sold by that Government and the proceeds of such sale shall be dealt with in such manner as may be prescribed.
(2) An appeal shall lie against any such order to the Court to which appeals ordinarily lie from convictions by the Magistrate.

Explanation: If no one claims seized property within 6 months under Section 457, and the possessor can’t prove legal acquisition, the Magistrate can order the property to be disposed of by the State Government, which may sell it, with proceeds handled as prescribed. This order can be appealed to the court that hears the Magistrate’s conviction appeals, ensuring unclaimed property is managed appropriately. Source: Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, via India Code.

Clause:
If the person entitled to the possession of such property is unknown or absent and the property is subject to speedy and natural decay, or if the Magistrate to whom its seizure is reported is of opinion that its sale would be for the benefit of the owner, or that the value of such property is less than ten rupees, the Magistrate may at any time direct it to be sold; and the provisions of sections 457 and 458 shall, as nearly as may be practicable, apply to the net proceeds of such sale.

Explanation: If seized property’s owner is unknown or absent and it’s perishable, or if the Magistrate believes selling it benefits the owner or its value is under 10 rupees, the Magistrate can order its immediate sale. The sale’s net proceeds are managed per Sections 457 and 458 (e.g., proclamation, disposal if unclaimed), protecting perishable or low-value property. Source: Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, via India Code.

Clause:
If any Magistrate not being empowered by law in this behalf, does any of the following things, namely:—

• (a) attaches and sells property under section 83;
  
• (b) issues a search-warrant for a document, parcel or other thing in the custody of a postal or telegraph authority;
  
• (c) demands security to keep the peace;
  
• (d) demands security for good behaviour;
  
• (e) discharges a person lawfully bound to be of good behaviour;
  
• (f) cancels a bond to keep the peace;
  
• (g) makes an order for maintenance;
  
• (h) makes an order under section 133 as to a local nuisance;
  
• (i) prohibits, under section 143, the repetition or continuance of a public nuisance;
  
• (j) makes an order under Part C or Part D of Chapter X;
  
• (k) takes cognizance of an offence under clause (c) of sub-section (1) of section 190;
  
• (l) tries an offender;
  
• (m) tries an offender summarily;
  
• (n) passes a sentence, under section 325, on proceedings recorded by another Magistrate;
  
• (o) decides an appeal;
  
• (p) calls, under section 397, for proceedings; or
  
• (q) revises an order passed under section 446,
  

Explanation: If a Magistrate, not legally empowered, performs actions like attaching property, issuing search warrants, demanding bonds, or trying cases, the proceedings are not invalidated just because of their lack of authority. This protects proceedings from being nullified due to technical errors in jurisdiction, ensuring justice isn’t disrupted by minor mistakes. Source: Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, via India Code.

Clause:
If any Magistrate, not being empowered by law in this behalf, does any of the following things, namely:—

• (a) issues a warrant under section 98 for the restoration of an abducted female;
  
• (b) makes an order under section 111 requiring a person to show cause why he should not be ordered to execute a bond for keeping the peace or for good behaviour;
  
• (c) makes an order under section 138 as to a dispute concerning land or water;
  
• (d) makes an order under section 145 or section 147 as to a dispute concerning land, water or the use thereof;
  
• (e) makes an order for the custody or disposal of property under section 451 or section 452;
  
• (f) makes an order for the restoration of immovable property under section 456;
  
• (g) sells property under section 458 or section 459;
  
• (h) takes cognizance of an offence under clause (a) or clause (b) of sub-section (1) of section 190;
  
• (i) issues process, under section 187, for the apprehension of a person within the local jurisdiction of another Magistrate;
  
• (j) recalls a case made over to another Magistrate under section 192;
  
• (k) holds an inquest under section 176;
  
• (l) issues an order under section 195 for the prosecution of a person for contempt of court or certain offences against public justice;
  
• (m) makes an order under section 197 dispensing with the personal attendance of an accused;
  
• (n) transfers a case under section 408;
  
• (o) makes an order under section 514 for the disposal of property;
  
• (p) makes an order under section 515 for the stay of an order passed under section 514,
  

Explanation: If a Magistrate, not legally empowered, performs actions like issuing warrants for abducted females, ordering bonds for peace, or handling property disputes, those proceedings are void. This ensures serious jurisdictional errors, which could significantly impact rights or justice, invalidate the proceedings, requiring correction or redoing. Source: Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, via India Code.

Clause:
No finding, sentence or order by a Court of competent jurisdiction shall be deemed invalid merely on the ground that no charge was framed or on the ground of any error, omission or irregularity in the charge including any misjoinder of charges, unless, in the opinion of the Court of appeal, confirmation or revision, a failure of justice has in fact been occasioned thereby.

Explanation: A competent court’s finding, sentence, or order isn’t invalid just because no charge was framed or due to errors, omissions, or irregularities in the charge (including misjoinder of charges), unless an appellate, confirming, or revising court believes this caused a failure of justice. This protects valid outcomes despite procedural charge issues, focusing on actual harm. Source: Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, via India Code.

Clause:
No finding, sentence or order passed by a Court of competent jurisdiction shall be reversed or altered by a Court of appeal, confirmation or revision on account of any error, omission or irregularity in the complaint, summons, warrant, proclamation, order, judgment or other proceedings before or during trial or in any inquiry or other proceedings under this Code, or any error, or irregularity in any sanction for the prosecution unless in the opinion of that Court, a failure of justice has in fact been occasioned thereby.

Explanation: A competent court’s finding, sentence, or order won’t be overturned by an appellate, confirming, or revising court due to errors, omissions, or irregularities in complaints, summons, warrants, or other proceedings, or in prosecution sanctions, unless these caused a failure of justice. This ensures minor procedural flaws don’t undo just outcomes unless they harm fairness. Source: Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, via India Code.

Clause:
(1) No finding or sentence pronounced or passed under section 281 or section 164 shall be deemed invalid merely on the ground that the provisions of the said section were not complied with, unless, in the opinion of the Court of appeal, confirmation or revision, such non-compliance has caused a failure of justice.
(2) If any Court of appeal, confirmation or revision is of opinion that the non-compliance with the provisions of section 164 or section 281 has caused a failure of justice, it shall direct that the case be transferred to a Magistrate competent to try the accused for the offence in respect of which he has been convicted, and such Magistrate shall thereupon proceed to try the accused de novo.

Explanation: A finding or sentence under Section 164 (recording confessions) or Section 281 (recording accused’s examination) isn’t invalid just because these provisions weren’t followed, unless an appellate, confirming, or revising court finds this caused a failure of justice. If justice failed, the case is sent to a competent Magistrate for a fresh trial, ensuring serious errors trigger retrials to correct harm. Source: Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, via India Code.

Clause:
(1) Subject to the provisions hereinbefore contained, no finding, sentence or order passed by a Court of competent jurisdiction shall be reversed or altered by a Court of appeal, confirmation or revision on account of any error, omission or irregularity in the complaint, summons, warrant, proclamation, order, judgment or other proceedings before or during trial or in any inquiry or other proceedings under this Code, or any error, or irregularity in any sanction for the prosecution unless in the opinion of that Court, a failure of justice has in fact been occasioned thereby.
(2) In determining whether any error, omission or irregularity in any proceeding under this Code, or any error, or irregularity in any sanction for the prosecution has occasioned a failure of justice, the Court shall have regard to the fact whether the objection could and should have been raised at an earlier stage in the proceedings.

Explanation: No finding, sentence, or order from a competent court is reversed by an appellate, confirming, or revising court due to errors, omissions, or irregularities in complaints, summons, or other proceedings, or prosecution sanctions, unless they caused a failure of justice. Courts consider whether objections could have been raised earlier, ensuring only significant errors affecting fairness lead to reversals. Source: Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, via India Code.

Clause:
No attachment made under this Code shall be deemed unlawful, nor shall any person making the same be deemed a trespasser, on account of any defect or want of form in the summons, conviction, writ of attachment or other proceedings relating thereto.

Explanation: An attachment under the CrPC isn’t unlawful, and the person executing it isn’t a trespasser, due to defects or formatting errors in summons, convictions, or related documents. This protects lawful attachments from being challenged over minor procedural flaws, ensuring enforcement stability. Source: Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, via India Code.

Clause:
For the purposes of this Chapter, unless the context otherwise requires, “period of limitation” means the period specified in section 468 for taking cognizance of an offence.

Explanation: This section defines “period of limitation” as the time limit set in Section 468 for a court to take cognizance of an offence, providing clarity for the chapter’s provisions. Source: Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, via India Code.

Clause:
(1) Except as otherwise provided elsewhere in this Code, no Court shall take cognizance of an offence of the category specified in sub-section (2), after the expiry of the period of limitation.
(2) The period of limitation shall be—

• (a) six months, if the offence is punishable with fine only;
  
• (b) one year, if the offence is punishable with imprisonment for a term not exceeding one year;
  
• (c) three years, if the offence is punishable with imprisonment for a term exceeding one year but not exceeding three years.
  

Explanation: Courts cannot take cognizance of certain offences after the limitation period expires, unless specified otherwise in the CrPC. The periods are: 6 months for offences punishable by fine only, 1 year for imprisonment up to 1 year, and 3 years for imprisonment between 1 and 3 years. For offences tried together, the limitation is based on the offence with the severest punishment, ensuring timely prosecution. Source: Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, via India Code.

Clause:
(1) The period of limitation, in relation to an offender, shall commence,—

• (a) on the date of the offence; or
  
• (b) where the commission of the offence was not known to the person aggrieved by the offence or to any police officer, the first day on which such offence comes to the knowledge of such person or to any police officer, whichever is earlier; or
  
• (c) where it is not known by whom the offence was committed, the first day on which the identity of the offender is known to the person aggrieved by the offence or to the police officer making investigation into the offence, whichever is earlier.
  

Explanation: The limitation period starts on the date of the offence, or, if the offence was unknown, the day the victim or police first learn of it (whichever is earlier). If the offender’s identity is unknown, it starts when the victim or investigating officer learns it (whichever is earlier). The starting day is excluded from the calculation, ensuring fair timing for prosecution. Source: Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, via India Code.

Clause:
(1) In computing the period of limitation, the time during which any person has been prosecuting with due diligence another prosecution, whether in a Court of first instance or in a Court of appeal or revision, against the offender, shall be excluded:
Provided that no such exclusion shall be made unless the prosecution relates to the same facts and is prosecuted in good faith in a Court which from defect of jurisdiction or other cause of a like nature, is unable to entertain it.
(2) Where the institution of the prosecution in respect of an offence has been stayed by an injunction or order, then, in computing the period of limitation, the period of the continuance of the injunction or order, the day on which it was issued or made, and the day on which it was withdrawn, shall be excluded.
(3) Where notice of prosecution for an offence has been given, or where, under this Code, sanction is required for the institution of any prosecution for an offence, then, in computing the period of limitation, the period of such notice or, as the case may be, the time required for obtaining such sanction, shall be excluded.
Explanation.—In computing the time required for obtaining the sanction, any time during which the offender was absent from India or from any territory outside India to which this Code extends, shall also be excluded.

Explanation: Time spent diligently pursuing another prosecution (on the same facts, in good faith, in a court lacking jurisdiction) is excluded from the limitation period. Time during which a prosecution is stayed by an injunction or order (including issuance and withdrawal days) is excluded. Periods for giving prosecution notice or obtaining required sanctions are excluded, including time when the offender was abroad. This ensures limitation periods account for legitimate delays. Source: Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, via India Code.

Clause:
If the period of limitation expires on a day when the Court is closed, the Court may take cognizance on the day when the Court reopens.
Explanation.—A Court shall be deemed to be closed on any day within the meaning of this section, if, during its normal working hours, it remains closed on that day.

Explanation: If the limitation period ends on a day the court is closed (during normal working hours), the court can take cognizance on the next day it reopens, preventing loss of rights due to court closures. Source: Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, via India Code.

Clause:
In the case of a continuing offence, a fresh period of limitation shall begin to run at every moment of the time during which the offence continues.

Explanation: For continuing offences (those persisting over time), a new limitation period starts at every moment the offence continues, allowing prosecution as long as the offence is ongoing. Source: Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, via India Code.

Clause:
Notwithstanding anything contained in the foregoing provisions of this Chapter, any Court may take cognizance of an offence after the expiry of the period of limitation, if it is satisfied, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, that the delay has been properly explained or that it is necessary so to do in the interests of justice.

Explanation: Despite the limitation periods in this chapter, a court can take cognizance of an offence after the period expires if the delay is adequately explained or if it’s necessary for justice, providing flexibility for exceptional cases. Source: Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, via India Code.

Clause:
When an offence is tried by the High Court in its extraordinary original criminal jurisdiction, it shall be tried before a Judge or Judges of that Court as the Chief Justice may direct, and, in such trial, the provisions of Chapter XVIII shall, so far as they are applicable, apply.

Explanation: When a High Court tries an offence under its extraordinary original criminal jurisdiction, the trial is conducted by a Judge or Judges as directed by the Chief Justice. The procedures in Chapter XVIII (trial before a Court of Session) apply as far as relevant, ensuring consistency in trial processes. Source: Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, via India Code.

Clause:
(1) The Central Government may make rules consistent with this Code and the Army Act, 1950 (46 of 1950), the Navy Act, 1957 (62 of 1957), and the Air Force Act, 1950 (45 of 1950), and any other law, for the time being in force, as to the cases in which persons subject to military, naval or air force law, or such other law, shall be tried by a Court to which this Code applies or by a Court-martial; and when any person is brought before a Magistrate and charged with an offence for which he is liable to be tried either by a Court to which this Code applies or by a Court-martial, such Magistrate shall have regard to such rules, and shall in proper cases deliver such person, together with a statement of the offence of which he is accused, to the commanding officer of the unit to which he belongs, or to the commanding officer of the nearest military, naval or air force station, as the case may be, for the purpose of being tried by a Court-martial.
Explanation.—In this section—

• (a) “unit” includes a regiment, corps, ship, detachment, group, battalion or company;
  
• (b) “Court-martial” includes any tribunal with the powers similar to those of a Court-martial constituted under the relevant law applicable to any force other than the Army, Navy or Air Force.
  

Explanation: The Central Government can make rules to determine when persons subject to military, naval, or air force law are tried by regular courts or courts-martial. A Magistrate, following these rules, may deliver such a person, along with the offence details, to their unit’s commanding officer or the nearest military, naval, or air force station for court-martial. “Unit” includes regiments, ships, etc., and “court-martial” covers similar tribunals. Magistrates must assist commanding officers in apprehending accused persons upon written request. High Courts can order prisoners to be brought before a court-martial for trial or examination, ensuring coordination between civil and military justice systems. Source: Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, via India Code.

Clause:
Subject to the power conferred by article 227 of the Constitution, the forms set forth in the Second Schedule, with such variations as the circumstances of each case require, may be used for the respective purposes therein mentioned, and if used shall be sufficient.

Explanation: Courts can use the forms in the Second Schedule of the CrPC for their specified purposes, with variations as needed, unless altered by the High Court’s powers under Article 227 of the Constitution. If used, these forms are legally sufficient, ensuring standardized documentation. Source: Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, via India Code.

Clause:
(1) Every High Court may, with the previous approval of the State Government, make rules—

• (a) as to the persons who may be permitted to act as petition-writers in the Criminal Courts subordinate to it;
  
• (b) regulating the issue of licences to such petition-writers, the conditions under which such licences shall be issued, and the levy of fees therefor;
  
• (c) providing a penalty for the breach of any rules made under clause (b);
  
• (d) as to any other matter which is required to be, or may be, prescribed.
  

Explanation: High Courts, with State Government approval, can make rules on who can act as petition-writers in subordinate criminal courts, licensing conditions and fees, penalties for rule breaches, and other prescribed matters. These rules must be published in the Official Gazette, ensuring transparency and regulation of court-related activities. Source: Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, via India Code.

Clause:
If the Legislative Assembly of a State by a resolution so permits, the State Government may, after consultation with the High Court, by notification, direct that references in sections 108, 109, 110, 145 and 147 to an Executive Magistrate shall be construed as references to a Judicial Magistrate.

Explanation: If a State’s Legislative Assembly permits, the State Government, after consulting the High Court, can issue a notification to replace references to Executive Magistrates with Judicial Magistrates in Sections 108 (security for good behaviour), 109 (security for peace), 110 (security for habitual offenders), 145 (land/water disputes), and 147 (breach of peace). This allows flexibility in assigning judicial roles, aligning with local needs. Source: Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, via India Code.

Clause:
No Judge or Magistrate shall, except with the permission of the Court to which an appeal lies from his Court, try or commit for trial any case to or in which he is a party, or personally interested, and no Judge or Magistrate shall hear an appeal from any judgment or order passed or made by himself.
Explanation.—A Judge or Magistrate shall be deemed to be personally interested if he is a near relation or a close friend of any party to the case or has any pecuniary or other interest therein.

Explanation: A Judge or Magistrate cannot try, commit for trial, or hear an appeal in a case where they are a party, personally interested (e.g., related to a party, close friend, or have financial/other interest), or have previously passed a judgment/order, unless permitted by the appellate court. This ensures impartiality in judicial proceedings. Source: Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, via India Code.

Clause:
No pleader who practises in the Court of any Magistrate shall sit as a Magistrate in that Court or in any Court within the local jurisdiction of that Court.

Explanation: A practicing lawyer (pleader) in a Magistrate’s Court cannot act as a Magistrate in that court or any court within its jurisdiction, preventing conflicts of interest and maintaining judicial impartiality. Source: Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, via India Code.

Clause:
No public servant having any duty to perform in connection with the sale of any property under this Code shall purchase or bid for the property.

Explanation: Public servants involved in selling property under the CrPC (e.g., seized or forfeited property) cannot purchase or bid for it, ensuring transparency and preventing abuse of position. Source: Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, via India Code.

Clause:
Nothing in this Code shall be deemed to 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 this Code, or to prevent abuse of the process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice.

Explanation: The CrPC does not restrict the High Court’s inherent powers to issue orders to enforce CrPC orders, prevent court process abuse, or ensure justice, providing flexibility to address unforeseen issues. Source: Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, via India Code.

Clause:
Every High Court shall so exercise its superintendence over the Courts of Judicial Magistrates subordinate to it as to ensure that there is an expeditious and proper disposal of cases by such Magistrates.

Explanation: High Courts must continuously oversee Judicial Magistrates’ courts to ensure cases are handled quickly and correctly, promoting efficient justice delivery. Source: Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, via India Code.

Clause:
(1) The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 (5 of 1898), is hereby repealed.
(2) Notwithstanding such repeal,—

• (a) if, immediately before the date on which this Code comes into force, there is any appeal, application, trial, inquiry or investigation pending, then, such appeal, application, trial, inquiry or investigation shall be disposed of, continued, held or made, as the case may be, in accordance with the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 (5 of 1898), as in force immediately before such commencement (hereinafter referred to as the Old Code), as if this Code had not come into force:
  Provided that every inquiry under Chapter XVIII of the Old Code, which is pending at the commencement of this Code, shall be dealt with and disposed of in accordance with the provisions of this Code;
  
• (b) all notifications published, proclamations issued, powers conferred, forms prescribed, local jurisdictions defined, sentences passed and orders, rules and appointments, not being appointments as Special Magistrates, made under the Old Code and which are in force immediately before the commencement of this Code, shall be deemed, respectively, to have been published, issued, conferred, prescribed, defined, passed or made under the corresponding provisions of this Code;
  
• (c) any report, notification or order issued, made or passed under the Old Code and in force immediately before the commencement of this Code shall, so far as may be, continue in force as if issued, made or passed under the corresponding provisions of this Code;
  
• (d) all powers conferred by the Old Code on any officer or authority shall be deemed to be conferred by this Code on the corresponding officer or authority;
  
• (e) where any penalty, forfeiture or punishment has been incurred under the Old Code, it shall be deemed to have been incurred under the corresponding provisions of this Code;
  
• (f) where any proceeding is pending before any Court or authority under the Old Code, it shall be continued before the corresponding Court or authority under this Code.
  

Explanation: The CrPC, 1898, is repealed by this section. However, pending appeals, trials, inquiries, or investigations under the 1898 Code continue under its rules, except for Chapter XVIII inquiries, which follow the 1973 Code. Notifications, proclamations, powers, forms, jurisdictions, sentences, and orders from the 1898 Code remain valid under corresponding 1973 Code provisions. Penalties or proceedings under the old Code are treated as if under the new Code. The General Clauses Act, 1897, Section 23, applies to this repeal, ensuring continuity and transition. Source: Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, via India Code.

Description: The First Schedule of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, classifies all offences under the Indian Penal Code, 1860, in a tabular format, specifying section, offence, punishment, cognizability, bail status, and trial court. The text below is reproduced verbatim from the original statute, preserving legal language. All IPC chapters with offences are included, grouped by chapter. Source: Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.