In a recent ruling, the Delhi High Court has interpreted Section 531(2)(a) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) 2023. They indicated that only appeals pending before the enforcement of the new law will continue. This is under the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.). Justice Anup Jairam Bhambhani noted that an appeal is generally seen as a continuation of the trial. The specific wording of Section 531(2)(a) suggests that ongoing appeals before BNSS enforcement will follow the Cr.P.C. Whereas, new appeals will be governed by BNSS provisions, regardless of the trial’s timeline.
The court did not make a definitive ruling on the matter, leaving the issue open for future consideration. This interpretation emerged during the hearing of an appeal by S. Rabban Alam, filed under Section 415 of BNSS. Alam challenged his conviction and sentencing from June 5 and July 5, respectively. The trial and investigation were conducted under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, and the Cr.P.C., yet the appeal was filed under BNSS.
Justice Bhambhani highlighted that a straightforward reading of Section 531(2)(a) BNSS indicates that any appeal, application, trial, inquiry, or investigation pending before BNSS’s implementation should proceed under the Cr.P.C. Consequently, the court admitted the appeal and issued a notice.
Background
Alam had received a three-year simple imprisonment sentence. It was for an offence under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. He was sentenced to four-year simple imprisonment. This was too for an offence under Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the same Act. Considering Alam’s age, health, and the maximum punishment was four years.a Justice Bhambhani suspended the sentence during the appeal’s pendency.
Meanwhile, the Kerala High Court has ruled that appeals filed on or after July 1, 2024, will be governed by BNSS, regardless of when the conviction occurred. This directive reinforces the application of BNSS to new appeals post-July 1, 2024.
The legal representatives for the appellant included Mr. Shishir Mathur, Mr. Mohd. Ghulam, and Ms. Muskan Tyagi, while the respondents were represented by Mr. Rajesh Kumar and Ms. Mishika Pandita.
