Key Changes in Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) (Study guide for District Judge Interview)

 New Forms of Punishment

Community Service has been introduced as an additional punishment option under Section 4, applicable to offenses like attempting suicide to compel lawful power, defamation, public drunkenness, and failure to appear as per court proclamation.

Enhanced Protection for Women and Children

Consolidated Sexual Offenses Chapter

·       Chapter V specifically dedicated to "Offences Against Woman and Child Of Sexual Offences," consolidating previously scattered provisions.

Key Changes in Sexual Offense Laws:

Print Page

Organised Crime under BNS and MCOCA: Common Core, Different Reach

 The easiest way to remember organised crime under BNS and MCOCA is this: both laws do not punish a single stray offence; they target a continuing criminal enterprise connected with a syndicate. In both, the prosecution must show repeated serious unlawful activity, nexus with an organised crime syndicate, prior charge-sheets within ten years, and use of unlawful means for unlawful gain or advantage.

 BNS has largely borrowed the structural idea from MCOCA, but BNS makes it part of the general penal law and gives a broader illustrative list of organised crimes. MCOCA remains a special, stricter State law model, while BNS is wider in catalogue and also separately recognizes petty organised crime under Section 112.

Print Page

Organised Crime after the BNS: Expansion, Ambiguity and the Lessons of MCOCA

 The concept of organised crime in Indian criminal law now stands at an important transition point: MCOCA supplied a narrowly structured special-law model, while Section 111 of the BNS imports that model into the general penal code and simultaneously expands its textual reach. This shift is significant, because a framework designed for exceptional, syndicate-based criminality now risks becoming a broadly deployable prosecutorial tool unless courts insist on strict statutory discipline and precise evidentiary thresholds.

I. The shared architecture: continuity, syndicate, coercive means, unlawful gain

Print Page

What factors the court should consider while deciding bail application of accused for an organized crime under BNS?

 When deciding bail applications for organized crime under Section 111 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), courts must consider several specific factors beyond general bail considerations.

Essential Requirements for Section 111 BNS

Courts must first examine whether the essential requisites for organized crime are satisfied:

Print Page

India's Anti-Terror Legal Framework: A Comparative Analysis of UAPA and BNS

 In the evolving landscape of India's counter-terrorism legal architecture, two significant legislations stand at the forefront: the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (UAPA) and the recently enacted Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS). This article provides a comprehensive analysis of these laws, examining their provisions, procedural frameworks, and the complex interplay between them in addressing terrorism and national security concerns.

Historical Evolution of UAPA

The Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act was first enacted in 1967 to address anti-national activities and secessionist movements in India, particularly following the peasants' uprising in Naxalbari. Originally designed to prevent unlawful activities threatening India's sovereignty and integrity, the Act has undergone significant transformations through amendments in 2004, 2008, 2013, and 2019.

Print Page

Important judgments and articles on BNS 2023

 

1) What are differences in approaches under MCOCA and Organized Crime under Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita?

https://www.lawweb.in/2024/09/what-are-differences-in-approaches.html

2) How concept of Sedition as mentioned in Clause 152 of BNS is different from Section 124A of the Indian Penal Code?

https://www.lawweb.in/2024/09/how-concept-of-sedition-as-mentioned-in.html

3) The Evolution of Sedition Law in India: From Colonial Relic to Modern Controversy U/S 152 of the BNS

https://www.lawweb.in/2024/09/the-evolution-of-sedition-law-in-india.html

4) Kerala High Court Elucidates 'Organized Crime' punishable U/S 111(1) Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023 : A Comprehensive Analysis

https://www.lawweb.in/2024/09/kerala-high-court-elucidates-organized.html

5) Kerala HC: To Attract Offense of organized crime punishable U/S 111(1) BNS Two Or More Persons Must Carry Out Continuous Unlawful Activity Leading To More Than One Chargesheet Within Last 10 Yrs

https://www.lawweb.in/2024/09/kerala-hc-to-attract-offense-of.html

6) Offences for which death penalty may be awarded under the BNS, 2023

https://www.lawweb.in/2024/11/offences-for-which-death-penalty-may-be.html

Print Page

When Preparation Becomes a Crime: Understanding Exceptions to the General Rule in Criminal Law

 In the realm of criminal jurisprudence, a fundamental principle governs the stages of criminal liability: mere intention or preparation to commit a crime is generally not punishable. However, the Indian Penal Code recognizes certain grave exceptions where the law steps in to criminalize even the preparatory acts. This article examines when and why preparation becomes a punishable offense, focusing on two critical provisions that break the traditional rule.

The Foundation: Understanding Criminal Liability Stages

Criminal acts evolve through a well-defined progression that helps courts determine the appropriate level of punishment and intervention. Understanding these stages is crucial to appreciating why certain preparatory acts warrant criminalization.

Print Page

Supreme Court: What is duty of the while deciding bail application under Maharashtra Control of Organized Crime Act, 1999?

The question as to whether he is involved in the commission of organized crime or abetment thereof must be judged objectively. Only because some allegations have been made against a high ranking officer, which cannot be brushed aside, may not by itself be sufficient to continue to keep him behind the bars although on an objective consideration the court may come to the conclusion that the evidences against him are not such as would lead to his conviction. In case of circumstantial evidence like the present one, not only culpability or mens rea of the accused should be prima facie established, the Court must also consider the question as to whether the circumstantial evidence is such whereby all the links in the chain are complete.

55. The wording of Section 21(4), in our opinion, does not lead to the conclusion that the Court must arrive at a positive finding that the applicant for bail has not committed an offence under the Act. If such a construction is placed, the court intending to grant bail must arrive at a finding that the applicant has not committed such an offence. In such an event, it will be impossible for the prosecution to obtain a judgment of conviction of the applicant. Such cannot be the intention of the Legislature. Section 21(4) of MCOCA, therefore, must be construed reasonably. It must be so construed that the Court is able to maintain a delicate balance between a judgment of acquittal and conviction and an order granting bail much before commencement of trial. Similarly, the Court will be required to record a finding as to the possibility of his committing a crime after grant of bail. However, such an offence in future must be an offence under the Act and not any other offence. Since it is difficult to predict the future conduct of an accused, the court must necessarily consider this aspect of the matter having regard to the antecedents of the accused, his propensities and the nature and manner in which he is alleged to have committed the offence.

56. It is, furthermore, trite that for the purpose of considering an application for grant of bail, although detailed reasons are not necessary to be assigned, the order granting bail must demonstrate application of mind at least in serious cases as to why the applicant has been granted or denied the privilege of bail.

57. The duty of the court at this stage is not to weigh the evidence but to arrive at a finding on the basis of broad probabilities. However, while dealing with a special statute like MCOCA having regard to the provisions contained in Sub-section (4) of Section 21 of the Act, the Court may have to probe into the matter deeper so as to enable it to arrive at a finding that the materials collected against the accused during the investigation may not justify a judgment of conviction. The findings recorded by the Court while granting or refusing bail undoubtedly would be tentative in nature, which may not have any bearing on the merit of the case and the trial court would, thus, be free to decide the case on the basis of evidence adduced at the trial, without in any manner being prejudiced thereby.

 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Criminal Appeal No. 523 of 2005.

Decided On: 07.04.2005

Ranjitsing Brahmajeetsing Sharma Vs. State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

N. Santosh Hegde, B.P. Singh and S.B. Sinha, JJ.

Author: S.B. Sinha, J.

Citation: (2005) 5 SCC 294,MANU/SC/0268/2005.

Print Page

Kerala HC: To Attract Offense of organized crime punishable U/S 111(1) BNS Two Or More Persons Must Carry Out Continuous Unlawful Activity Leading To More Than One Chargesheet Within Last 10 Yrs

 Section 111 (1) of the BNS in respect of organised crime is, in essence analogous to the provisions of the Maharashtra Control of Organised Control Act and the Gujarat Control of Terrorism and Organised Crime Act. The legal principles laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court in its interpretation of organised crime as defined by the above two state legislations are applicable on all fours to Section 111 (1) of the BNS. Thus, it is not necessary to have a further interpretation of the above analogous provision. {Para 16}

17. In view of the above discussion, to attract an offence under Section 111 (1) of the BNS it is imperative that a group of two or more persons indulge in any continuing unlawful activity prohibited by law, which is a cognizable offence punishable with imprisonment of three years or more, undertaken by any person, either singly or jointly, as a member of an organised crime syndicate or on behalf of such syndicate in respect of which more than one charge-sheets have been filed before a competent Court within the preceding period of ten years and that Court has taken cognizance of such offence.

18. In the present case, it is undisputed that no charge sheet has been filed against the petitioner in any court in the last ten years. Therefore, prima facie, the offence under Section 111(1) is not attracted.

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

Bail Appl. No. 5927 of 2024

Decided On: 13.08.2024

Muhammad Rasheed Vs. State of Kerala

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

C.S. Dias, J.

Citation: MANU/KE/2836/2024.

Print Page

Kerala High Court Elucidates 'Organized Crime' punishable U/S 111(1) Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023 : A Comprehensive Analysis

 In a landmark judgment (Bail Application No. 5927 of 2024),Muhammad Rasheed Vs. State of Kerala Decided On: 13.08.2024, the High Court of Kerala has provided crucial clarification on the interpretation of 'organized crime' under the newly enacted Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023. This case, involving a bail application for an accused charged with gold smuggling, offers significant insights into how courts may apply the new organized crime provisions.

Key Insights and Analysis:

1. Definition of Organized Crime: The court meticulously analyzed Section 111(1) of the BNS, which defines organized crime. It emphasized that for an offense to be classified as organized crime, there must be a "continuing unlawful activity" by a group acting as an organized crime syndicate. This definition aims to target systematic and ongoing criminal enterprises rather than isolated incidents.
2. Requirement of Prior Charge Sheets: A pivotal aspect highlighted by the court is the necessity of having more than one charge sheet filed against the accused within the preceding ten years, with the court having taken cognizance of such offenses. This requirement ensures that the law targets individuals with a pattern of criminal behavior.

Print Page

Whether Maharashtra Control of Organized Crime act (Mcoca) will prevail over provisions of organized crime as mentioned in Bhartiya Nyay Sanhita as per S 5 of BNSS?

 To determine whether the Maharashtra Control of Organized Crime Act (MCOCA) will prevail over the provisions of organized crime as mentioned in the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), we need to consider the legal framework established by BNSS, particularly Section 5, which addresses the relationship between special laws and general laws.

Understanding Section 5 of the BNSS

Section 5 of the BNSS  states that:

"Nothing in this Code shall be deemed to limit or affect any special law for the time being in force."

This means that if there is a specific law dealing with a particular issue, that law will take precedence over the general provisions of the BNSS. In essence, special laws like MCOCA can coexist with general laws, and in cases of conflict, the special law will prevail.

Implications of MCOCA and BNS

Print Page

What are differences in approaches under MCOCA and Organized Crime under Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita?

 The Maharashtra Control of Organized Crime Act (MCOCA) and the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) both aim to address organized crime in India, but they differ significantly in their approaches, definitions, and procedural frameworks. Here’s a detailed comparison of their key aspects:

 Definitions and Scope

MCOCA

- Definition of Organized Crime: MCOCA defines organized crime as any continuing unlawful activity conducted by individuals as part of an organized crime syndicate, which involves violence, intimidation, or coercion for financial gain or other advantages. It emphasizes the need for a syndicate of two or more persons engaged in such activities.

  

- Specificity: While MCOCA outlines a broad definition of organized crime, it has been criticized for its vague terms, allowing for its application in various cases, including those already covered under other laws.

BNS

Print Page

Important provisions of Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act, 1999

 1. Short title, extent and commencement.—(1) This Act may be called the Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act, 1999.

 Received the assent of the Governor on 23rd April, 1999 and published in the Maharashtra Government Gazette Extraordinary, Part-IV, dated 24th April, 1999.

(2) It extends to the whole of the State of Maharashtra.

2. Definitions.—(1) In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires,—

(d) “continuing unlawful activity” means an activity prohibited by law for the time being in force, which is a cognizable offence punishable with imprisonment of three years or more, undertaken either singly or jointly, as a member of an organised crime syndicate or on behalf of such, syndicate in respect of which more than one charge-sheets have been field before a competent Court within the preceding period of ten years and that Court has taken cognizance of such offence;

Print Page