With an eye on speedy investigation and trial, the Centre on Friday proposed to set a 90-day deadline for filing a charge sheet, a 60-day time limit on framing of charges, and 30 days for delivery of judgment after the conclusion of the hearing.

The changes have been proposed in the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 bill, which seeks to replace the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), 1973.

The bill seeks to cut down on the pendency currently burdening the district judiciary by allowing summary trials to be conducted for offences punishable up to three years and allowing the entire trial, including recording of evidence and cross-examination, in a virtual mode.

The proposed law also places a cap on the pronouncement of judgment. “After hearing arguments and points of law (if any), the judge shall give a judgment in the case, as soon as possible, within a period of thirty days from the date of completion of arguments, which may for specific reasons extend to a period of sixty days,” clause 258 of the bill said.

To aid early decision, the judge shall proceed to take all such evidence as may be produced in support of the prosecution, including deposition of any police officer or public servant through audio-video electronic means, it added.

Also Read: Sedition gets new name in bill; ambit wider, penalty harsher

On trials where offenders or fugitives fail to join the trial, clause 356 said: “Notwithstanding anything contained in this Sanhita or in any other law for the time being in force, when a person declared as a proclaimed offender, whether or not charged jointly, has absconded to evade trial and there is no immediate prospect of arresting him, it shall be deemed to operate as a waiver of the right of such person to be present and tried in person, and the court shall, after recording reasons in writing, in the interest of justice, proceed with the trial in the like manner and with like effect as if he was present, under this Sanhita and pronounce the judgment.”

The new bill is also notable as it introduces the concept of deemed sanction where a public servant or judicial officer/magistrate can be proceeded against for an alleged offence if the authority to grant sanction (Centre in case of central government employee and state government in case of state government employee) fails to decide on sanction within 120 days.

This section insulates any prosecution to proceed against a person who is or was a judge or magistrate or a public servant accused of any offence alleged to have been committed while acting or purporting to act in the discharge of their official duty, without sanction being granted by the appropriate government. The bill replacing CrPC introduces a proviso which states, “Provided that such government shall decide within 120 days from the date of the receipt of the request for sanction and in case it fails to do so, the sanction shall be deemed to have been accorded by such government.”

The bill formally provides for registration of a zero first information report (FIR) that can be filed in any part of the country and the same will be transferred to the concerned jurisdictional police station within 15 days of the zero FIR being registered. The new bill also provides for a witness protection system, a much-needed measure to protect witnesses in high-profile crimes.

Introducing a new section 398, the bill states, “Every state government shall prepare and notify a witness protection scheme for the state to ensure protection of the witnesses.” Presently, vulnerable witnesses in criminal cases enjoyed the protection of a Supreme Court order of December 2018 which gave its imprimatur to a witness protection scheme drawn up by the Centre after taking inputs from majority states. The Court had used its extraordinary power under Article 142 to direct all states and union territories to adopt the scheme and set up vulnerable witness deposition complexes near trial courts to enable such witnesses to depose without facing the accused in court.

Under the new proposed criminal code, an investigating officer of a crime shall have to mandatorily file the final report (charge sheet) before the Magistrate within 90 days of the filing of the case. The bill further provides the police to seek a further period of 90 days under Section 193 for undertaking further investigation in the case.

With a total of 533 provisions, the new Samhita repeals nine provisions of the old Code, introduces nine new sections and makes changes to 107 provisions.

A major addition to the new criminal code is section 107 which allows a police officer making an investigation to attach any property, that he has reason to believe, is derived or obtained directly or indirectly as a result of criminal activity or from the commission of any offence as “proceeds of crime”. So far, proceeds of crime could be found only under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA), 2002. However, under the new Samhita, proceeds of crime make a maiden entry and gets defined in Section 111 as “any property derived or obtained directly or indirectly, by any person as a result of criminal activity (including crime involving currency transfers) or the value of any such property.”

The new code inserts another new section 105, which provides videography of the process of conducting a search of a place or seizure of any property, article or thing and forwarding the recording to the district magistrate, sub-divisional magistrate or judicial magistrate of first class.

“If the Court or the Judicial Magistrate has reasons to believe, whether before or after taking evidence, that all or any of such properties are proceeds of crime, the Court or the Magistrate may issue a notice upon such person calling upon him to show cause within 14 days as to why an order of attachment shall not be made,” the bill states.

Further, if the Court finds the attached or seized properties to be the proceeds of crime, it shall pass an order directing the District Magistrate to “rateably distribute” such proceeds of crime to the persons who are affected by such crime. In the event, there are no claimants, such proceeds of crime shall stand forfeited to the Government.

Former Delhi high court judge RS Sodhi said that if a judge has heard the case and made up his mind, then he must deliver the judgment in time.

“90% of my judgments were oral ones where the lawyer was sitting in front of me while I delivered the verdict. The judge must know after hearing the arguments whether he agrees with one party or the other and deliver his judgment. Where is the problem? So therefore as far as I am concerned, I don’t know whether the amendment is good or bad, but this is a normal expected procedure from a judge,” said the retired judge.