S.531 BNSS | Stage Of Proceedings Is Pivotal In Determining Applicability Of BNSS Or CRPC: J&K High Court Explains

Overturning a Special Judge's order in a money laundering case a bench of Justice Sanjay Dhar explained,

".. If the stage of the case at the relevant date is investigation, then the investigation has to be conducted and concluded under CrPC, 1973. If the case is at the stage of inquiry or trial, it has to be concluded under the Cr.PC. Similarly, if the stage is that of an appeal, application for bail, or complaint, the same has to be governed by the provisions of CrPC, 1973"

It added, 

"However, once the investigation is completed and the challan or complaint is laid before the Court after 01.07.2024, then the procedure provided under BNSS would govern the subsequent proceedings. Likewise, if a bail application is filed after 01.07.12024 in a case where the offence had been committed prior to the said date, such an application has to be dealt with in accordance with the procedure prescribed under BNSS and not under the CrPC"

Observing that any fresh proceedings initiated after BNSS's enactment (01.07.2024) must follow the new Sanhita, even if the alleged crime predates it, Justice Dhar underscored, 

“.. the date of commission of the offence or the registration of the FIR is not material for determining the applicability of BNSS. Even if the offence has been committed or the FIR has been registered before 01.07.2024, the stage of the proceedings as it existed immediately prior to that date will have to be completed under the Cr.PC. However, once the case progresses to the next stage after coming into the force of BNSS, then the subsequent stage has to be governed by the provisions contained in BNSS and not by the provisions contained in CrPC, 1973”

The petitioner Anil Kumar Yadav had challenged an order passed by the Special Judge (Anti-Corruption, CBI), Jammu, which took cognizance of a complaint under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA), 2002. The complaint, filed on 22.08.2024, accused Yadav and others of offences under Sections 3 and 4 of PMLA, linked to predicate offences registered under Section 420 (cheating) and 120-B (criminal conspiracy) IPC.

The crux of the dispute was whether the CrPC or BNSS governed the complaint, as the alleged crimes occurred before BNSS's implementation (01.07.2024), but the complaint was filed afterward. The Special Judge applied CrPC, citing the pre-BNSS investigation. Yadav's counsel argued this was erroneous, as BNSS's procedural mandates (e.g., hearing the accused before cognizance under Section 223) were ignored.

Holding the stage of proceedings as decisive Justice Dhar held that Section 531(2)(a) of BNSS saves only pending proceedings (investigation, trial, appeal, etc.) as of 01.07.2024, which continue under CrPC. Post-01.07.2024 filings (complaints, bail applications, etc.) fall under BNSS, irrespective of when the offence occurred, the court underscored. It thus respectfully declined the Rajasthan High Court's contrary view (Krishna Joshi v. State) that tied applicability to the FIR date.

The Court thus rejected the respondent's argument that since the offence and investigation occurred before BNSS, the CrPC should apply throughout. It, in alternative, accepted the petitioner's contention that the filing of the complaint after 01.07.2024 meant BNSS must govern further procedure.

Highlighting a procedural error, the Court observed that Section 223 of the BNSS unlike Section 200 CrPC mandates giving an opportunity of hearing to the accused before cognizance is taken. The Special Judge, applying CrPC standards, failed to comply with this requirement and straightaway issued the process without hearing the petitioner, the court pointed.

Consequently, the impugned order was quashed, and the matter remanded to the Special Judge to proceed afresh strictly under Chapter XVII of the BNSS.

In a move to ensure uniformity across courts, Justice Dhar directed,

“The Registrar General shall circulate copies of this judgment to all the criminal courts within the jurisdiction of the High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh for their guidance.”

Case Title: Anil Kumar Yadav Vs Directorate of Enforcement

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 158

Click Here To Read/Download Judgment