Trial of Warrant Cases by Magistrates — Police Report and Otherwise

Sections 261 to 273 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) — previously Sections 238 to 250 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) — describe the trial of warrant cases by Magistrates. A warrant case is one relating to an offence punishable with death, imprisonment for life, or imprisonment for a term exceeding two years (Section 2(x) BNSS, previously Section 2(x) CrPC). The chapter is the workhorse of the Indian Magistrate’s court — most criminal trials, except the most serious sessions cases and the lightest summons cases, are conducted under it.

The chapter has two parallel tracks. Cases instituted on a police report follow Sections 261 to 266 BNSS; cases instituted otherwise than on a police report (private complaints) follow Sections 267 to 271 BNSS. The two tracks share the post-charge trial procedure but differ in the pre-charge framework: police-report cases proceed straight to discharge / charge-framing; complaint cases require a pre-charge evidence stage before discharge or charge.

Statutory anchor and scheme

The thirteen-section sweep is best read as two columns.

Police-report track (Sections 261 to 266 BNSS).

1. Section 261 BNSS (previously Section 238 CrPC) — compliance with Section 230 BNSS on supply of documents.
2. Section 262 BNSS (previously Section 239 CrPC) — discharge; new sixty-day application window; audio-video examination.
3. Section 263 BNSS (previously Section 240 CrPC) — framing of charge; new sixty-day timeline.
4. Section 264 BNSS (previously Section 241 CrPC) — conviction on plea of guilty.
5. Section 265 BNSS (previously Section 242 CrPC) — evidence for prosecution; audio-video proviso.
6. Section 266 BNSS (previously Section 243 CrPC) — evidence for defence; audio-video proviso.

Complaint track (Sections 267 to 271 BNSS).

1. Section 267 BNSS (previously Section 244 CrPC) — pre-charge evidence for prosecution.
2. Section 268 BNSS (previously Section 245 CrPC) — discharge after pre-charge evidence.
3. Section 269 BNSS (previously Section 246 CrPC) — charge framing and procedure where accused not discharged; new sub-section (7) on cross-examination unavailability.
4. Section 270 BNSS (previously Section 247 CrPC) — evidence for defence.
5. Section 271 BNSS (previously Section 248 CrPC) — acquittal or conviction.

Common provisions (Sections 272 to 273 BNSS).

1. Section 272 BNSS (previously Section 249 CrPC) — absence of complainant; thirty-day grace period now added.
2. Section 273 BNSS (previously Section 250 CrPC) — compensation for accusation without reasonable cause; amount raised to two thousand rupees.

The warrant trial procedure is the Magistrate counterpart of the sessions trial. The structural arc is identical — opening, discharge, charge, plea, prosecution evidence, examination of accused, defence evidence, judgment — but the forum, the type of offence, and the pre-charge architecture differ. The chapter sits between the trial before Sessions Court chapter and the summons trial by Magistrate chapter in the present Code of Criminal Procedure notes.

Section 261 BNSS — supply of documents

Section 261 BNSS (previously Section 238 CrPC) is the gateway. When the accused appears or is brought before the Magistrate at the commencement of a police-report warrant case, the Magistrate must satisfy himself that he has complied with the requirements of Section 230 BNSS — that is, that copies of the police report, the FIR, the statements recorded under Section 180 BNSS, the confessions and statements under Section 183 BNSS, and any other documents forwarded to the Magistrate, have been supplied to the accused free of cost. The accused’s right to a free copy of the chargesheet and supporting materials is anchored here. The link to the upstream police process — the FIR, the chargesheet, the supplementary report — runs through the police investigation powers chapter.

The Supreme Court in State of West Bengal v. Mohd. Khalid, (1995) 1 SCC 684 underlined that the Magistrate must apply judicial mind at this stage — the supply of documents is not a clerical step but a structural prerequisite. A trial that commences without compliance with Section 261 / Section 230 is open to challenge for breach of natural justice; the omission is curable in most cases by remedial supply, but it cannot be ignored.

Section 262 BNSS — discharge in police-report cases

Section 262 BNSS (previously Section 239 CrPC) is the discharge gate in police-report warrant cases. After considering the police report and the documents sent with it under Section 193 BNSS, and after making such examination of the accused as the Magistrate thinks necessary, and after giving the prosecution and the accused an opportunity of being heard, the Magistrate considers whether the charge against the accused is groundless. If so, he discharges the accused and records his reasons.

The BNSS adds two important changes:

1. A new sub-section (1): the accused may apply for discharge within sixty days from the date of supply of copies of documents under Section 230.
2. A new sub-section (2): the examination of the accused may be done through audio-video electronic means.

The doctrinal framework parallels the Section 250 BNSS sessions discharge framework. The standard is whether the charge is ‘groundless’; the test is the same as the discharge test in sessions cases — sufficient ground for proceeding, sifted from the materials, with strong suspicion warranting charge and mere suspicion warranting discharge. The sixty-day window matches the Section 250 BNSS window for sessions cases; the BNSS architecture is now uniform across both forums. The full doctrinal treatment of discharge applies equally; the principal authority is Onkar Nath Mishra v. State (NCT Delhi), (2008) 2 SCC 561.

Section 263 BNSS — framing of charge

Section 263 BNSS (previously Section 240 CrPC) is the affirmative side. Where the Magistrate is of the opinion that there is ground for presuming that the accused has committed an offence triable as a warrant case, and the offence is one that the Magistrate is competent to try, he frames a charge in writing. The charge is read and explained to the accused, who is asked to plead.

The BNSS adds a sixty-day time limit: the framing of charge must be done within sixty days from the date of first hearing on charge. The form of the charge is governed by Sections 234 to 247 BNSS, treated in the framing of charge chapter. The substantive content remains identical; the BNSS reform is on speed.

Section 264 BNSS — plea of guilty

Section 264 BNSS (previously Section 241 CrPC) lets the Magistrate, where the accused pleads guilty after the framing of the charge, record the plea and convict him at his discretion. The standard cautions apply: the plea must be unequivocal, voluntary, and informed. The Magistrate is not bound to convict on the plea; he may proceed to trial if he considers it appropriate. In serious warrant cases, conviction on plea alone is uncommon; the practice is to record the plea, explore voluntariness, and then decide.

Sections 265 and 266 BNSS — prosecution and defence evidence

Section 265 BNSS (previously Section 242 CrPC) governs the prosecution evidence. After the plea is recorded (or the trial proceeds despite a guilty plea), the Magistrate fixes a date for the examination of witnesses, takes all such evidence as may be produced, and the witnesses are examined in chief, cross-examined, and re-examined in the usual sequence. The BNSS adds a proviso to sub-section (3): the evidence of a witness may be recorded by audio-video electronic means at a designated place to be notified by the State Government. The audio-video reform parallels the Section 254 BNSS sessions provision and reflects the BNSS’s broader digital agenda — treated in the audio-video recording of search and seizure chapter.

Section 266 BNSS (previously Section 243 CrPC) governs the defence evidence. The accused is called upon to enter on his defence and produce his evidence. The accused may apply, in writing, for the issue of process to compel the attendance of any witness or for the production of any document. The BNSS adds a second proviso to sub-section (2): the examination of witnesses may be done by audio-video electronic means at a designated place. The Section 351 BNSS (previously Section 313 CrPC) examination of the accused stands between prosecution and defence stages, as in sessions trials.

Sections 267 to 271 BNSS — the complaint track

The complaint track is the warrant trial of cases instituted otherwise than on a police report — that is, on a private complaint under Section 223 BNSS (previously Section 200 CrPC). The architecture is governed by the complaint procedure chapter; the trial procedure under the warrant chapter has its own peculiarities.

Section 267 BNSS (previously Section 244 CrPC) — pre-charge evidence for prosecution. Unlike the police-report track, the complaint track requires the prosecution to lead evidence before the charge is framed. The complainant produces witnesses and documents in a pre-charge inquiry; the Magistrate examines them on oath. The pre-charge evidence stage has no parallel in the police-report track because, in police-report cases, the chargesheet and Section 180 BNSS statements function as a substitute for pre-charge evidence.

Section 268 BNSS (previously Section 245 CrPC) — discharge after pre-charge evidence. After the pre-charge evidence is taken, and after such examination of the accused as the Magistrate thinks necessary, the Magistrate considers whether there is any case made out which, if unrebutted, would warrant the conviction of the accused. If not, he discharges the accused. Sub-section (2) lets the Magistrate discharge the accused at any earlier stage if he considers, for reasons recorded, that the charge is groundless.

Section 269 BNSS (previously Section 246 CrPC) — charge framing and procedure where accused not discharged. The Magistrate frames a charge against the accused, reads and explains it, and asks for the plea. After the plea is recorded, the accused is given the opportunity to recall and cross-examine the prosecution witnesses already examined under Section 267, and the Magistrate may then take any further evidence. The BNSS adds a new sub-section (7): if the attendance of the prosecution witnesses for cross-examination cannot be secured, it shall be deemed that such witness has not been examined, and the Magistrate may proceed further. The provision plugs a long-standing procedural gap.

Section 270 BNSS (previously Section 247 CrPC) — evidence for defence. The accused leads his defence evidence; the procedure mirrors Section 266 BNSS in police-report cases.

Section 271 BNSS (previously Section 248 CrPC) — acquittal or conviction. After the defence evidence and arguments, the Magistrate either acquits or convicts the accused. The provision applies equally to police-report and complaint warrant cases.

The crucial difference — police-report vs complaint track

The two tracks share the post-charge architecture but diverge before charge.

Police-report cases reach the Magistrate with a chargesheet under Section 193 BNSS plus the Section 180 BNSS witness statements, the Section 183 BNSS Magistrate-recorded statements, and the seized documents. The pre-charge inquiry is unnecessary because the police investigation has already produced a record. The Magistrate satisfies himself on the chargesheet whether the charge is groundless (Section 262 BNSS).

Complaint cases reach the Magistrate without the benefit of police investigation. The complainant must produce his witnesses and documents at a pre-charge stage (Section 267 BNSS) so the Magistrate can decide whether to discharge or to charge. The procedure is more elaborate; the complainant has the burden of putting forward enough material at the pre-charge stage to justify a charge.

The difference reflects the underlying philosophy: police-report cases come pre-screened by the investigating officer; complaint cases come unscreened and require the Magistrate to do the screening himself. The complaint track is correspondingly more demanding on the complainant.

Section 272 BNSS — absence of complainant

Section 272 BNSS (previously Section 249 CrPC) handles the case where the complaint has been made by a private complainant who fails to appear at any subsequent hearing. The Magistrate may, in his discretion, discharge the accused at any stage before the charge has been framed. The BNSS adds the words: the Magistrate may, after giving thirty days’ time to the complainant to be present, proceed further. The thirty-day grace period gives the complainant a structural opportunity to remedy non-attendance before the case is dismissed.

The provision applies only to summons cases that are warrant-trial cases by virtue of the offences involved — it does not apply to police-report cases where the State is the prosecutor. The discretion is wide; the Magistrate may, in appropriate cases, adjourn the hearing rather than discharge the accused, especially where the absence is shown to be unavoidable.

Section 273 BNSS — compensation for groundless accusation

Section 273 BNSS (previously Section 250 CrPC) lets the Magistrate, on acquittal of the accused, direct the complainant or the informant to pay compensation to the accused if the Magistrate considers that the accusation was made without reasonable cause. The amount is in the Magistrate’s discretion subject to a statutory ceiling: the BNSS raises the ceiling under sub-section (6) from one hundred rupees to two thousand rupees. The BNS sections replace the IPC sections in the cross-references, but the substantive scheme is preserved.

The provision is rarely invoked but theoretically important. It signals the Code’s discomfort with mala fide private complaints; the financial sanction, though small, is a procedural deterrent.

The Section 351 BNSS examination — bridge between prosecution and defence

The Section 351 BNSS examination of the accused (previously Section 313 CrPC) is the structural bridge between the prosecution evidence and the defence evidence in both tracks. The Magistrate puts to the accused, in his own words and without oath, every material circumstance appearing in the evidence against him, and gives him an opportunity to explain. The accused’s answers are part of the record and may be used at the appropriate stage. The full architecture is treated in the judgment form and contents chapter; the warrant trial uses the same procedure as the sessions trial.

Bail and custody during warrant trials

Bail decisions during a warrant trial follow the regular bail architecture under Sections 478 to 496 BNSS (previously Sections 436 to 450 CrPC). The Magistrate trying the warrant case ordinarily has the power to grant or refuse bail in respect of bailable and non-bailable offences within his trying competence; the more serious cases (offences exclusively triable by the Sessions Court) require the bail application to go to the Sessions Court. The doctrinal architecture is set out in the bail and bonds chapter.

Common reversible defects in warrant trials

Three patterns recur and reward attention.

Failure to supply documents under Section 261 / 230 BNSS. The chargesheet and supporting materials must be supplied to the accused free of cost before the trial commences. Failure is a structural defect; it can be cured by remedial supply but cannot be ignored. The Supreme Court has consistently reversed convictions where the supply of documents was perfunctory and the accused was prejudiced (Mohd. Khalid).

Discharge order without recorded reasons. Section 262 BNSS in police-report cases and Section 268 BNSS in complaint cases both require reasons. A discharge order that says no more than ‘groundless’ without engagement with the materials is reversible in criminal revision under Section 442 BNSS or under the High Court’s Section 528 BNSS inherent power.

Cross-examination not afforded after charge in complaint cases. Section 269 BNSS gives the accused the right to recall and cross-examine prosecution witnesses already examined at the pre-charge stage. Failure to afford this opportunity is a substantive defect, not a curable irregularity. The new sub-section (7) on unavailability of witnesses for cross-examination provides a structured response: the witness is deemed not to have been examined, and the Magistrate proceeds without that evidence rather than convicting on it without cross-examination.

BNSS comparison — what changed

The BNSS makes calibrated reforms while preserving the architecture.

1. Section 262 BNSS — new sixty-day discharge application window; audio-video examination.
2. Section 263 BNSS — new sixty-day timeline for framing of charge.
3. Section 265 BNSS — audio-video means for prosecution evidence.
4. Section 266 BNSS — audio-video means for defence witnesses.
5. Section 269(7) BNSS — new sub-section on cross-examination unavailability.
6. Section 272 BNSS — thirty-day grace period for absent complainant.
7. Section 273 BNSS — compensation ceiling raised to two thousand rupees.

The case law on Sections 238 to 250 CrPC carries forward without amendment to Sections 261 to 273 BNSS — Mohd. Khalid, Onkar Nath Mishra, Vinubhai Haribhai Malaviya v. State of Gujarat, (2019) 17 SCC 1, Madhu Limaye v. State of Maharashtra, (1977) 4 SCC 551, Asim Shariff v. NIA, (2019) 7 SCC 148 — all good law under the new sections. Vinubhai Haribhai Malaviya is particularly important: it confirmed that the Magistrate, even after taking cognizance, retains the power to direct further investigation under Section 173(8) CrPC (now Section 193(8) BNSS) up to the framing of charge.

Practical takeaways — trial-court drill

Three moves, learnt at the warrant-trial threshold, save many appellate complaints.

Document the supply of documents. Section 261 / 230 BNSS compliance must be on the record. The order sheet should reflect the date of supply, the materials supplied, and the accused’s acknowledgment. The proof is the order sheet, not memory.

Run the pre-charge inquiry strictly in complaint cases. Section 267 BNSS requires the complainant to produce evidence before the charge is framed. The Magistrate cannot frame a charge without taking this evidence; nor can he assume that the complainant’s on-oath statement under Section 223 BNSS substitutes for the pre-charge evidence. The two are distinct procedural steps.

Build the discharge order with engagement. Whether under Section 262 BNSS in police-report cases or Section 268 BNSS in complaint cases, the discharge order must engage with the materials. A reasoned order survives revision; a perfunctory one rarely does.

Exam-angle takeaways

Five points exam-setters use without fail.

1. Two tracks — police-report and complaint. The police-report track has no pre-charge evidence stage; the complaint track does.
2. Discharge in police-report cases is on the chargesheet alone. The accused has no right to produce defence material at the discharge stage.
3. Section 269 BNSS gives the accused a right to recall prosecution witnesses for cross-examination after charge in complaint cases. The new sub-section (7) handles witness unavailability.
4. BNSS innovations — sixty-day discharge window, sixty-day charge timeline, audio-video evidence, thirty-day grace for absent complainant. Each is a calibrated reform.
5. Section 273 BNSS compensation for groundless accusation. Ceiling raised to two thousand rupees.

The warrant trial chapter is the densely-procedural backbone of Magistrate-court practice. The two tracks must be kept distinct; the supply of documents is the structural prerequisite; the cross-examination right under Section 269 BNSS is the core safeguard in complaint cases. A long-form mains answer should set out the two tracks, walk through the section-by-section progression in each, finish with the BNSS reforms, and tie threads with the appellate review architecture in the appeals in criminal cases chapter. A prelims MCQ will pivot on the police-report-vs-complaint distinction, the supply-of-documents requirement, the discharge standard, or the BNSS sixty-day timeline.

Frequently asked questions

What is a ‘warrant case’ under the BNSS?

Section 2(x) BNSS (previously Section 2(x) CrPC) defines a warrant case as a case relating to an offence punishable with death, imprisonment for life, or imprisonment for a term exceeding two years. Cases not so punishable are summons cases under Section 2(w) BNSS. The classification drives the procedural track: warrant cases are tried under Sections 261 to 273 BNSS; summons cases under Sections 274 to 281 BNSS. Where the offence is exclusively triable by the Court of Session (typically those punishable with imprisonment of more than seven years), the warrant trial procedure under this chapter does not apply — the case is committed to the Sessions Court and follows the sessions trial chapter.

How does the police-report track differ from the complaint track in warrant trials?

The police-report track (Sections 261 to 266 BNSS) has no pre-charge evidence stage — the chargesheet under Section 193 BNSS, the Section 180 statements, and the Section 183 statements function as the materials on which the Magistrate decides discharge or charge. The complaint track (Sections 267 to 271 BNSS) requires a pre-charge evidence stage under Section 267 BNSS — the complainant must produce his witnesses and documents on oath before the charge is framed. The police-report track is shorter; the complaint track is more demanding on the complainant. Post-charge, the trial procedure is identical in both tracks.

Can the accused produce defence material at the discharge stage in a police-report warrant case?

No. The Supreme Court in State of Orissa v. Debendra Nath Padhi, (2005) 1 SCC 568 held that the accused has no right to produce his own documents to argue for discharge under Section 239 CrPC (now Section 262 BNSS). The discharge inquiry is on the prosecution materials — the police report, the documents annexed, and the witness statements. The accused may point out the inadequacy of the prosecution case but cannot mount a parallel defence at the threshold. The same rule applies to discharge under Section 250 BNSS in sessions trials and to discharge under Section 268 BNSS in complaint warrant cases.

What is the right to cross-examine prosecution witnesses after framing of charge in complaint cases?

Section 269 BNSS (previously Section 246 CrPC) gives the accused, after the charge is framed, the right to recall and cross-examine the prosecution witnesses already examined at the pre-charge stage under Section 267 BNSS. The right is statutory and substantive; failure to afford it is a reversible defect. The BNSS adds a new sub-section (7): if the attendance of any such witness for cross-examination cannot be secured, the witness is deemed not to have been examined, and the Magistrate proceeds without that evidence. The provision plugs the long-standing procedural gap where unavailable pre-charge witnesses left the accused without a remedy.

What are the BNSS timelines for discharge and charge framing in warrant trials?

Section 262(1) BNSS — new in 2023 — permits the accused to apply for discharge within sixty days from the date of supply of copies of documents under Section 230 BNSS. Section 263 BNSS — also new — requires the Magistrate to frame the charge within sixty days from the date of first hearing on charge. The two sixty-day periods compress the pre-trial timeline and parallel the equivalent provisions in Section 250 BNSS (sessions discharge) and Section 251 BNSS (sessions charge). Audio-video electronic means is now permissible for the examination of the accused under Section 262(2) BNSS and for the recording of evidence under Sections 265 and 266 BNSS.

When can the Magistrate award compensation for groundless accusation under Section 273 BNSS?

On acquittal in a warrant trial instituted on a private complaint, the Magistrate may direct the complainant or informant to pay compensation to the accused if he is of the opinion that the accusation was made without reasonable cause. The compensation must be reasoned; the amount is in the Magistrate’s discretion, subject to the statutory ceiling. The BNSS has raised the ceiling under sub-section (6) from one hundred rupees to two thousand rupees. The provision is rarely invoked but theoretically important — it is the Code’s structural deterrent against mala fide private complaints, parallel to but distinct from the contempt and false-evidence offences under the BNS.