Miscellaneous Provisions — Public Servants, Compensation to Victims, Witnesses

Sections 520 to 531 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) — re-enacting Sections 474 to 484 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) — sit at the close of the Code and gather the working rules that did not fit elsewhere. They handle the High Court's trial procedure, the line between civil courts and Court-martial, the prescribed forms, the High Court's rule-making and superintendence powers, the disqualifications of the Bench, and the repeal-and-savings clause that keeps the new Code in working order. Read alongside Sections 395 to 398 BNSS — the victim compensation, treatment-of-victims and witness protection provisions in the chapter on judgment — and the freshly inserted Section 530 BNSS on electronic trials, this is the chapter that the Code uses to tie up everything else.

The architecture is a shifting one. Many of the provisions retain their CrPC text exactly. A handful of others are carefully redrafted to align with current institutional names: 'pleader' becomes 'advocate', 'military' becomes 'army', 'prescribed' becomes 'provided by rules made by the State Government'. Two clauses are entirely new — Section 398 BNSS codifies the Witness Protection Scheme that the Supreme Court directed every State to operate, and Section 530 BNSS authorises trial proceedings to be held in electronic mode. Together these provisions mark the BNSS's most quiet reform: a procedural housekeeping that brings the Code into the digital and post-Witness-Protection-Scheme era of Indian criminal procedure.

Section 520 BNSS — Trials before High Courts

Section 520 BNSS (previously Section 474 CrPC) is short. When an offence is tried by a High Court otherwise than under Section 447 BNSS (the BNSS counterpart of Section 407 CrPC, on the High Court's power to call cases for itself), the High Court must, in the trial, observe the same procedure as a Court of Session would observe if it were trying the case. The provision settles a question that the original High Court trial jurisdiction would otherwise leave open. It applies primarily to High Courts that retain a residue of original criminal jurisdiction — once expansive, now compressed — and ensures that the process is not bespoke. The pairing with the trial procedure before a Court of Session is the textbook reference point.

Section 521 BNSS — Court-martial and the civil court

Section 521 BNSS (previously Section 475 CrPC) addresses concurrent jurisdiction between the ordinary Criminal Court and a Court-martial. The Central Government is empowered to make rules consistent with the Code and the Army Act, 1950, the Navy Act, 1957, the Air Force Act, 1950, and any other law relating to the Armed Forces, regulating the cases in which a person subject to those laws is to be tried by a Court-martial rather than by a civil court. When such a person is brought before a Magistrate charged with an offence triable both ways, the Magistrate must have regard to those rules and, in proper cases, deliver him with a statement of the offence to his Commanding Officer for trial by Court-martial.

The substantive shape of the section is supplied by the Criminal Courts and Court-martial (Adjustment of Jurisdiction) Rules, 1978. The Supreme Court in Union of India v. Major S.K. Sharma, AIR 1987 SC 1878, treated the Rules as mandatory. Delhi Special Police Establishment v. Loraiya, (1972) 2 SCC 692, set the working rule: where the Magistrate has issued process under Section 204 against a person belonging to the Armed Forces who is also triable by Court-martial, he must issue notice to the Commanding Officer; if the Commanding Officer claims trial by Court-martial, the Magistrate delivers the accused to him with a statement of the offence. The BNSS replaces 'military' with 'army', tracking institutional usage. The substantive scheme is unchanged.

Two important refinements deserve notice. First, where the offence is created for the first time by the Army Act, it is triable exclusively by Court-martial — Sections 34 to 37 of the Army Act being the standard examples. Second, where an offence is punishable both under the Army Act and under a general statute (rape under Section 64 BNS, bribery under the Prevention of Corruption Act, conspiracy under Section 61 BNS), both forums have jurisdiction; final decision on which forum tries the case rests with the Central Government. Section 127 of the Army Act preserves an exception to Article 20(2) of the Constitution — a military person may, with sanction, be tried again by a civil court for the same offence. The constitutional cover comes from Article 33.

Sections 522 and 523 BNSS — Forms and rule-making

Section 522 BNSS (previously Section 476 CrPC) preserves the Forms set out in the Second Schedule to the Code, subject to the High Court's power under Article 227 of the Constitution. The Forms may be used with such variations as the circumstances of each case require, and if used are sufficient. Section 523 BNSS (previously Section 477 CrPC) authorises every High Court, with the previous approval of the State Government, to make rules on the persons who may act as petition-writers in subordinate Criminal Courts, the issue of licences, the conduct of business, the scale of fees, penalties for contravention, and any other matter required to be provided. The BNSS replaces 'prescribed' with 'provided by rules made by the State Government', removing a long-standing drafting ambiguity. The Forms regime continues to operate alongside the Forms and Schedule chapter.

One residual point matters. The fact that the Code does not contain a specific Form for a particular order — for example, a remand under Section 309 CrPC (now Section 346 BNSS) — does not mean that the order cannot be made. As the Allahabad High Court held in Sayeed v. State, (1978) CrLJ 541, the absence of a specific Form is no bar to the exercise of power, but a formal warrant addressed to the Jailor is required if custody is to be lawful — an absence of the warrant makes the custody illegal.

Section 524 BNSS — Functions of Executive and Judicial Magistrates

Section 524 BNSS (previously Section 478 CrPC) empowers the State Government, after consultation with the High Court and where the State Legislative Assembly so permits by resolution, to direct that references to an Executive Magistrate in Sections 126, 127, 128, 164 and 166 BNSS (formerly Sections 108, 109, 110, 145 and 147 CrPC) shall be read as references to a Judicial Magistrate of the first class. The provision is the transfer-switch between the two streams of the magistracy that the constitution of criminal courts establishes. State amendments — such as the Maharashtra rule confining the transfer to areas outside Greater Bombay — operate within Section 524 BNSS, not against it.

Section 525 BNSS — Where the Judge or Magistrate is personally interested

Section 525 BNSS (previously Section 479 CrPC) embodies the natural-justice rule that no one may be a judge in their own cause. No Judge or Magistrate, except with the permission of the court to which appeal lies from his court, may try or commit for trial a case to which he is a party or in which he is personally interested; nor may he hear an appeal from a judgment or order passed by himself. The Explanation provides the working exceptions: a Judge is not personally interested merely because he is concerned with the case in a public capacity, or because he has viewed the place of offence and made an inquiry in connection with the case.

The Supreme Court in Rameshwar v. State of Assam, AIR 1953 SC 173, drew the boundaries. Pecuniary interest, however small, is an absolute disqualification. Where the Judge has personal knowledge of the facts, has examined himself as a witness, or has given a 'direction' to prosecute, he is disqualified. The grant of a statutory sanction is, however, distinct from a direction — sanction is permission requiring satisfaction of a prima facie case, direction is a command requiring satisfaction that the accused must be tried. The Court in Manaklal v. Premchand Singhvi, AIR 1957 SC 425, applied the further test of real likelihood of operative bias — what matters is whether the litigant could reasonably apprehend that bias might have operated against him, not whether bias actually did. The disqualification covers trial, commitment for trial, appeal, revision and orders for further inquiry; it does not cover mere taking of cognizance under Section 210 BNSS if the case is then transferred for trial.

Section 526 BNSS — Advocates not to sit as Magistrates in their own court

Section 526 BNSS (previously Section 480 CrPC) keeps a clean line between the Bench and the Bar. No advocate who practises in the court of any Magistrate shall sit as a Magistrate in that court or in any court within its local jurisdiction. The BNSS replaces 'pleader' with 'advocate', tracking the Advocates Act, 1961. The provision is rarely invoked but operates as an absolute disqualification — its reach is to the local jurisdiction of the court in which the advocate practises, not merely to the cases the advocate has appeared in.

Section 527 BNSS — Public servant must not bid at sale of property

Section 527 BNSS (previously Section 481 CrPC) is short and absolute. A public servant having any duty to perform in connection with the sale of any property under the Code shall not purchase or bid for the property. The provision works alongside the disposal regime in Section 497 BNSS — the chapter on the disposal of property seized — and the auction-led sale of perishables under Section 505 BNSS. It is not a procedural irregularity; a sale to a disqualified public servant is voidable.

Section 529 BNSS — High Court's continuous superintendence

Section 529 BNSS (previously Section 483 CrPC) imposes on every High Court the duty to exercise continuous superintendence over the courts subordinate to it. The BNSS adds the Courts of Session and the Judges, and the heading replaces 'Court of Judicial Magistrates' with 'Courts'. The provision is institutional rather than adjudicatory — it directs the High Court to monitor the discipline of the subordinate courts as part of its administrative function. It runs in parallel with Article 227 of the Constitution, but is independently grounded in the Code, and the High Court can act on it suo motu. The duty is reinforced by the High Court's appellate and revisional jurisdictions in appeals and reference and revision.

Section 395 BNSS — Order to pay compensation

Section 395 BNSS (previously Section 357 CrPC) gives the trial court the power to direct, when imposing a sentence of fine or a sentence of which fine forms part, that part of the fine recovered be applied to compensate the victim of the offence for the loss or injury caused. Sub-section (3) goes further — even where fine is not part of the sentence, the court may, in passing judgment, order the offender to pay compensation to the victim. The Supreme Court in Hari Singh v. Sukhbir Singh, AIR 1988 SC 2127, called Section 357 CrPC a constructive provision and urged liberal use, particularly in cases where the offender has the means and the victim is in need. The order forms part of the judgment itself and is subject to appeal under Section 374 CrPC (now Section 415 BNSS).

Section 396 BNSS — Victim compensation scheme

Section 396 BNSS reproduces Sections 357A and 357B CrPC and adds the cross-references to the BNS. It requires every State Government, in coordination with the Central Government, to prepare a scheme for providing funds to compensate victims or their dependants who have suffered loss or injury by reason of an offence and who require rehabilitation. The District Legal Services Authority or the State Legal Services Authority decides the quantum of compensation. The scheme operates whenever the trial court makes a recommendation for compensation under Section 395 BNSS, or where the trial concludes in acquittal or discharge but the victim has been identified as needing rehabilitation. Section 396(7) BNSS expressly states that compensation under this section is in addition to fine paid under Section 65, Section 70 or Section 124(1) BNS — formerly Section 326A or Section 376D IPC — for acid attack victims and gang-rape victims. Laxmi v. Union of India, (2014) 4 SCC 427, and Nipun Saxena v. Union of India, (2018) 16 SCC 350, set the working framework that the BNSS now imports.

Section 397 BNSS — Treatment of victims

Section 397 BNSS (previously Section 357C CrPC) imposes a statutory duty on all hospitals — public or private — to provide first-aid or medical treatment, free of cost, to the victims of any offence covered under Sections 64 to 73 BNS (sexual offences, formerly Sections 326A, 376, 376A to 376E IPC) and offences under Sections 4, 6, 8 or Section 10 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, and to immediately inform the police of such incident. The BNSS adds the POCSO reference, which the CrPC text did not carry. The duty is absolute — refusal exposes the hospital and its officers to penal consequences under the Indian Medical Council Regulations as well as an offence of abetment of the principal crime where the refusal contributes to the victim's harm.

Section 398 BNSS — Witness Protection Scheme

Section 398 BNSS is the most consequential addition in this part of the Code. It mandates that every State Government shall prepare and notify a Witness Protection Scheme for the State to ensure protection of witnesses. The provision codifies what the Supreme Court directed in Mahender Chawla v. Union of India, (2019) 14 SCC 615, where the Court approved the Witness Protection Scheme, 2018, and held it the law of the land until Parliament legislated. The BNSS now legislates. The Scheme grades witnesses by threat perception — Category A (life threat to witness or family), Category B (safety, reputation, property), Category C (moderate harassment) — and provides identity protection, in-camera trial, change of address, surveillance and, in extreme cases, relocation. The provision sits alongside the new audio-video discipline of audio-video recording of search and seizure under the BNSS and the forensic-investigation mandate in forensic investigation in serious offences. Together they mark the BNSS's most visible reform: a procedural floor that takes the witness's safety and the evidence's integrity seriously.

Section 530 BNSS — Trial in electronic mode

Section 530 BNSS, with no CrPC counterpart, authorises that all trials, inquiries and proceedings under the Code, including the issue, service and execution of summons and warrants, the examination of complainants and witnesses, the recording of evidence in inquiries and trials, and all appellate proceedings or any other proceeding, may be held in electronic mode by use of electronic communication or audio-video means. The provision is platform-neutral — courts may use videoconferencing, e-filing portals, or such other electronic platforms as the High Court may notify. It builds on the Supreme Court's working order in In Re: Cognizance for Extension of Limitation (2020) and the High Court video-conferencing rules adopted during the pandemic. The provision also dovetails with the BNSS's emphasis on time-bound procedure and codifies the post-2020 norm that an in-person hearing is the default but not the exclusive mode.

Section 531 BNSS — Repeal and savings

Section 531 BNSS (previously Section 484 CrPC) repeals the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, with effect from 1 July 2024, the date of commencement of the BNSS, but saves pending appeals, applications, trials, inquiries and investigations. The proviso to sub-section (2)(a) of Section 484 CrPC is excluded. The BNSS replaces 'prescribed' with 'provided by rules' or 'specified' at various places, and the word 'old' is replaced with 'said'. The repeal-and-savings clause is the working hinge — it ensures that proceedings already pending on 1 July 2024 continue to be governed by the CrPC, while fresh proceedings instituted after that date proceed under the BNSS. Rattiram v. State of M.P., (2012) 4 SCC 516, on the analogous transition under the 1973 Code, supplies the working principle that procedural changes apply prospectively unless the new law expressly provides otherwise.

BNSS innovations — what changed

Six concrete changes in this chapter merit attention.

1. Section 521 BNSS — 'army' replaces 'military'. The Court-martial provisions track the institutional name. The substantive scheme of the Adjustment of Jurisdiction Rules continues to govern.
2. Section 523 BNSS — 'prescribed' becomes 'provided by rules'. The drafting clean-up removes a long-standing question about which authority makes the rules.
3. Section 526 BNSS — 'pleader' becomes 'advocate'. The provision now tracks the Advocates Act, 1961, instead of the older Letters Patent vocabulary.
4. Section 529 BNSS — superintendence widened. The continuous superintendence duty now expressly covers the Courts of Session and the Judges, not merely the Courts of Judicial Magistrates.
5. Section 397 BNSS — POCSO added. The hospital duty under Section 357C CrPC was confined to BNS-covered offences; the BNSS now explicitly extends it to offences under Sections 4, 6, 8 and 10 of the POCSO Act, 2012.
6. Sections 398 and 530 BNSS — entirely new. The Witness Protection Scheme is statutorily mandated. Trial and proceedings in electronic mode are statutorily authorised. Both reforms convert standing Supreme Court directions into operative provisions of the Code.

Comparative table — CrPC ↔ BNSS

Subject	CrPC, 1973	BNSS, 2023	Change
Compensation order in judgment	Section 357	Section 395	No change
Victim compensation scheme	Sections 357A & 357B	Section 396	BNS cross-references added
Treatment of victims	Section 357C	Section 397	POCSO sections added
Witness Protection Scheme	—	Section 398	New — every State Government to notify a scheme
Trials before High Courts	Section 474	Section 520	No change
Court-martial coordination	Section 475	Section 521	'Military' replaced with 'army'
Forms	Section 476	Section 522	No change
HC rule-making	Section 477	Section 523	'Prescribed' replaced with 'provided by rules'
Alteration of EM/JM functions	Section 478	Section 524	No change
Personal interest of Judge	Section 479	Section 525	No change
Practising advocate not to sit	Section 480	Section 526	'Pleader' replaced with 'advocate'
Public servant not to bid	Section 481	Section 527	No change
Inherent powers of High Court	Section 482	Section 528	No change — see chapter on inherent powers
HC continuous superintendence	Section 483	Section 529	Courts of Session and Judges added
Trial in electronic mode	—	Section 530	New — videoconferencing, e-filing, audio-video means
Repeal and savings	Section 484	Section 531	Drafting changes; substance preserved

Exam-pointer pitfalls

Five distinctions are worth holding ready for the exam. Every one of them has driven a specific MCQ in the last three judiciary cycles.

1. Sanction vs. direction. A Magistrate who has granted statutory sanction for prosecution is not disqualified to try the case under Section 525 BNSS. A Magistrate who has given a direction to prosecute is. Rameshwar v. State of Assam is the locus classicus.
2. Concurrent forums for army personnel. Where an offence is created for the first time by the Army Act, only the Court-martial has jurisdiction. Where the offence exists under both general and military law, both forums are competent and the Central Government decides. Loraiya and Major S.K. Sharma are the working authorities.
3. Section 395 vs. Section 396 BNSS. Section 395 BNSS (compensation in judgment) requires conviction; Section 396 BNSS (victim compensation scheme) does not — it operates even where the trial ends in acquittal or where the offender is not traced.
4. Witness Protection Scheme — statutory now, not merely judicial. Section 398 BNSS converts Mahender Chawla into operative law. The Scheme is no longer only a judicial directive — it is the State's statutory duty.
5. Electronic mode is permissible, not mandatory. Section 530 BNSS authorises trials and proceedings to be held in electronic mode but does not displace the in-person default. The discretion lies with the court, subject to the High Court's notified rules. The provision applies across investigation, summons-service and trial — but a witness's right to in-person examination on a contested fact-issue continues to be protected.

The chapter is the procedural housekeeping of the Code. None of its provisions decides a guilt question, but every one of them shapes the quality of the trial. The disqualification rules secure impartiality; the Court-martial rules avoid forum conflict; the victim compensation and witness protection schemes shift the criminal trial from a State-vs-accused contest into a process that recognises a third stakeholder; the electronic-mode authorisation aligns the Code with the present reality of court process. The exam asks the student to know each rule, the case law that anchors it, and the specific BNSS change that came with it. The court asks the Magistrate to apply them in working order, day after day.

Frequently asked questions

When does a Magistrate have to deliver an army person to the Commanding Officer under Section 521 BNSS?

Section 521 BNSS (previously Section 475 CrPC), read with the Criminal Courts and Court-martial (Adjustment of Jurisdiction) Rules, 1978, requires the Magistrate to issue notice to the Commanding Officer where (a) the accused is a person subject to the Army Act, the Navy Act or the Air Force Act, and (b) the offence is also triable by Court-martial. If the Commanding Officer claims trial by Court-martial, the Magistrate must deliver the accused with a statement of the offence. The Supreme Court in Union of India v. Major S.K. Sharma, AIR 1987 SC 1878, treated these Rules as mandatory. Failure to comply renders the cognizance liable to be quashed.

Is a Magistrate who granted sanction for prosecution disqualified from trying the case under Section 525 BNSS?

No. The Supreme Court in Rameshwar v. State of Assam, AIR 1953 SC 173, drew a careful line between sanction and direction. Sanction is permission — it requires the sanctioning authority to be satisfied that there is a prima facie case. Direction is a command — it requires the authority to be satisfied that the accused must be tried. A Magistrate who has merely granted statutory sanction is not 'personally interested' in the case; a Magistrate who has given a direction to prosecute is. Pecuniary interest, however small, is an absolute disqualification, regardless of which side of this distinction the act falls on.

What is the difference between Section 395 BNSS and Section 396 BNSS on victim compensation?

Section 395 BNSS (previously Section 357 CrPC) gives the trial court the power, when imposing a sentence with fine or in passing judgment, to direct compensation to the victim out of the fine. It requires a conviction. Section 396 BNSS (previously Sections 357A and 357B) operates differently — it requires every State Government to prepare a victim compensation scheme funded by the Government, administered by the Legal Services Authorities, and operative whenever the victim or her dependants have suffered loss or injury. Section 396 applies even where the offender is not traced or the trial ends in acquittal. Section 395 needs a conviction; Section 396 does not.

Is Section 398 BNSS — the Witness Protection Scheme — a new provision?

Yes, in statutory form. The CrPC had no Witness Protection Scheme. Section 398 BNSS now mandates that every State Government shall prepare and notify a scheme to ensure protection of witnesses. The substantive content of the scheme is supplied by the Witness Protection Scheme, 2018, which the Supreme Court in Mahender Chawla v. Union of India, (2019) 14 SCC 615, approved as the law of the land until Parliament legislated. The Scheme grades witnesses by threat perception into Category A (life threat to witness or family), Category B (threats to safety, reputation or property) and Category C (moderate harassment), and prescribes the corresponding protective measures.

Does Section 530 BNSS make electronic trials mandatory?

No. Section 530 BNSS authorises trials, inquiries and proceedings under the Code — including issue and service of summons and warrants, examination of complainants and witnesses, recording of evidence, and appellate proceedings — to be held in electronic mode through audio-video means. The provision is permissive, not mandatory. The default remains the in-person hearing. The court has discretion, subject to the rules notified by the High Court, to take any stage of the proceeding online when that is consistent with the interests of justice and the rights of the parties — particularly the right of an accused to confront witnesses on contested facts.

What does Section 397 BNSS require of a private hospital when a sexual-offence victim arrives?

Section 397 BNSS (previously Section 357C CrPC) imposes a statutory duty on every hospital — public or private — to provide first-aid or medical treatment, free of cost, to victims of offences covered under Sections 64 to 73 BNS (sexual offences) and offences under Sections 4, 6, 8 or 10 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012. The hospital must immediately inform the police. The duty is absolute. The BNSS extends the original Section 357C CrPC duty by adding the POCSO references explicitly. Refusal to render treatment exposes the hospital and its officers to penal consequences and to professional disciplinary proceedings.