In a significant ruling, the Rajasthan High Court addressed the legal implications of transitioning from the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) to the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS). The case in question, Krishna Joshi v. State of Rajasthan & Ors. (S.B. Criminal Misc(Pet.) No. 4285/2024), revolved around an FIR registered on February 2, 2024, before the BNSS came into force on July 1, 2024. The petitioner, Krishna Joshi, represented by Ms. Swati Shekhar, sought a fair and impartial investigation under the new BNSS provisions. However, the court had to determine whether the investigation should proceed under the old CrPC or the new BNSS.
Important Legal Issues
The primary legal issue was whether FIRs lodged before the enforcement of BNSS should be governed by the CrPC or the new BNSS. This question hinged on the interpretation of Section 531(2)(a) of the BNSS, which contains a savings clause to address ongoing legal proceedings during the transition period.
Court’s Decision
Justice Arun Monga presided over the case and delivered the judgment on July 9, 2024. The court ruled that FIRs registered before July 1, 2024, would continue to be governed by the CrPC, not the BNSS. This decision was based on the savings clause in Section 531(2)(a) of the BNSS, which stipulates that any pending appeal, application, trial, inquiry, or investigation before the BNSS’s commencement should be disposed of under the CrPC.
Key Observations and Quotes
Justice Monga emphasized the importance of the savings clause in ensuring legal continuity and stability during the transition from the CrPC to the BNSS. He noted:
> “The savings clause in Section 531(2)(a) is critical for ensuring legal continuity and stability. It stipulates that notwithstanding the repeal, any appeal, application, trial, inquiry, or investigation pending before the new Sanhita comes into force will continue to be governed by the old Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.”
The court further explained the rationale behind this provision:
> “The repeal of an old law without a savings clause would lead to legal uncertainties and adversely affect ongoing legal proceedings. The savings clause ensures that justice is neither delayed nor denied due to procedural changes.”
Also Read
Parties Involved
– Petitioner: Krishna Joshi, represented by Ms. Swati Shekhar
– Respondents:
– State of Rajasthan, through Director General of Police
– Inspector General of Police, Bikaner Range
– Superintendent of Police, Bikaner
– Station House Officer, Police Station Nokha, District Bikaner
