Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023
Section 200
Place of trial where act is an offence by reason of relation to other offence
When an act is an offence by reason of its relation to any other act which is also an offence or which would be an offence if the doer were capable of committing an offence, the first-mentioned offence may be inquired into or tried by a Court within whose local jurisdiction either act was done.
Why this exists
This rule addresses situations like abetment, where one person's conduct (e.g., instigating or helping) is only criminal because of its connection to another person's act. The two acts — the instigation and the actual crime — may happen in different places. Without this provision, it could be unclear which court has authority to try the case, especially when the main act was committed by someone who cannot be held criminally liable (like a child). The provision, carried forward from Section 180 of the older Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, ensures such linked offences don't escape trial due to jurisdictional gaps.
How courts read it
Indian courts have historically read this provision (and its CrPC predecessor, Section 180) as closely tied to the law of abetment under the Penal Code, where the abetted act need not itself result in conviction of the principal offender for the abettor to be tried. Courts have generally treated it as a practical, venue-flexibility rule rather than one creating new offences — it only decides where a case can be heard, not whether an act is criminal.
Common misconceptions
- Myth: This section means both people can be tried together in one case automatically.
Fact: It only decides which court has the power to try the first act (like abetment); it doesn't merge or require joint trials. - Myth: If the person who did the main act can't be punished (e.g., a child), then no one can be tried for it.
Fact: The person who caused or influenced that act can still be tried, precisely because the section allows for this connection to be recognised.