CRIMINAL JURISDICTION – TOP 5 MAINS QUESTIONS (BNSS, 2023)
Q1. What is the general rule of territorial jurisdiction under BNSS? Explain with exceptions.
Model Answer
Introduction:
Territorial jurisdiction determines the court competent to inquire into and try a criminal offence. Under the BNSS, 2023, jurisdiction is primarily governed by the place where the offence is committed.
Statutory Provision:
Section 199 BNSS lays down the general rule that every offence shall ordinarily be inquired into and tried by a court within whose local jurisdiction the offence was committed.
Exceptions / Modifications:
The general rule is subject to statutory exceptions:
Section 200 BNSS: Where an offence is committed partly in one area and partly in another, or is a continuing offence, it may be tried by any court having jurisdiction over any such areas.
Section 201 BNSS: Where an act is done in one place and its consequence ensues in another, courts at either place have jurisdiction.
Conclusion:
Thus, while Section 199 BNSS establishes the basic rule, Sections 200 and 201 expand jurisdiction to ensure effective administration of criminal justice.
Q2. Explain jurisdiction in cases of continuing offences under BNSS.
Model Answer
Introduction:
A continuing offence is one which is susceptible of continuance and is committed over a span of time in more than one locality.
Statutory Provision:
Section 200 BNSS expressly recognizes continuing offences and provides that such offences may be inquired into and tried by any court having jurisdiction over any of the local areas where the offence continues.
Explanation:
Examples include criminal breach of trust, kidnapping with continued confinement, or illegal detention. Since the offence persists, jurisdiction is not confined to a single place.
Rationale:
This provision prevents jurisdictional vacuum and ensures that offenders do not escape liability by exploiting territorial technicalities.
Conclusion:
In cases of continuing offences, BNSS adopts a flexible and pragmatic approach by conferring concurrent jurisdiction on multiple courts.
Q3. Discuss the concept of consequence-based jurisdiction under BNSS.
Model Answer
Introduction:
Modern crimes, especially cyber offences, often involve acts committed in one place and consequences felt elsewhere.
Statutory Provision:
Section 201 BNSS provides that when an act is done in one place and its consequence ensues in another, the offence may be inquired into or tried by a court having jurisdiction over either place.
Explanation:
For example, a defamatory message sent from one city causing harm to reputation in another city gives jurisdiction to courts of both places.
Significance:
This provision strengthens victim access to justice and addresses complexities of trans-border and digital crimes.
Conclusion:
Section 201 BNSS embodies the principle that jurisdiction follows not only the act but also its harmful effect.
Q4. Is residence of the accused relevant for determining criminal jurisdiction under BNSS? Explain.
Model Answer
Introduction:
Unlike civil law, criminal jurisdiction is not primarily based on personal factors such as residence of parties.
Legal Position under BNSS:
BNSS does not treat residence of the accused as a determining factor for territorial jurisdiction. Jurisdiction depends on:
Place of commission of offence (S.199)
Multiple or continuing offences (S.200)
Place where consequence ensued (S.201)
Reasoning:
Criminal law focuses on public wrongs. Allowing residence-based jurisdiction would enable accused persons to evade prosecution.
Conclusion:
Residence of the accused is generally irrelevant for determining territorial jurisdiction under BNSS.
Q5. When does lack of territorial jurisdiction vitiate criminal proceedings under BNSS?
Model Answer
Introduction:
Not every error in territorial jurisdiction renders a criminal trial void.
Legal Principle:
Under BNSS, an objection to territorial jurisdiction must be raised at the earliest opportunity. Proceedings are vitiated only if such irregularity results in failure of justice.
Explanation:
If a trial is conducted by a court lacking territorial jurisdiction but no prejudice is caused to the accused, the proceedings remain valid.
Judicial Approach:
Courts prioritize substantive justice over technical objections.
Conclusion:
Lack of territorial jurisdiction vitiates proceedings only when it causes prejudice or failure of justice; otherwise, it is a curable irregularity.
🧠 EXAM TIP (WRITE THIS LINE IF SPACE PERMITS)
“BNSS reflects a shift from rigid territoriality to a flexible, victim-centric approach in determining criminal jurisdiction.”