Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023
Section 201
Place of trial in case of certain offences
(1) Any offence of dacoity, or of dacoity with murder, of belonging to a gang of dacoits, or of escaping from custody, may be inquired into or tried by a Court within whose local jurisdiction the offence was committed or the accused person is found.
(2) Any offence of kidnapping or abduction of a person may be inquired into or tried by a Court within whose local jurisdiction the person was kidnapped or abducted or was conveyed or concealed or detained.
(3) Any offence of theft, extortion or robbery may be inquired into or tried by a Court within whose local jurisdiction the offence was committed or the stolen property which isthe subject of the offence was possessed by any person committing it or by any person who received or retained such property knowing or having reason to believe it to be stolen property.
(4) Any offence of criminal misappropriation or of criminal breach of trust may be inquired into or tried by a Court within whose local jurisdiction the offence was committed or any part of the property which is the subject of the offence was received or retained, or was required to be returned or accounted for, by the accused person.
(5) Any offence which includes the possession of stolen property may be inquired into or tried by a Court within whose local jurisdiction the offence was committed or the stolen property was possessed by any person who received or retained it knowing or having reason to believe it to be stolen property.
Why this exists
Crimes like dacoity, kidnapping, and theft often span multiple locations — the offence happens in one place, but the accused, victim, or stolen goods may end up somewhere else entirely. Earlier criminal procedure law (Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973) recognized this practical problem and created special jurisdiction rules so that police and courts closest to where evidence, victims, or property actually are can handle the case, instead of forcing everything back to the original crime scene. This section carries forward that same logic into the new Sanhita, ensuring flexibility and avoiding jurisdictional loopholes that offenders could otherwise exploit by fleeing or moving stolen property.
How courts read it
Courts under the earlier, similarly worded provision (Section 182 dealing with kidnapping, and related sections in the CrPC, 1973) consistently held that jurisdiction under such provisions is not exclusive — it merely adds extra courts where trial can validly occur, alongside the general rule that a court where the offence was committed has jurisdiction. Judges have emphasized that these are enabling, not restrictive, provisions meant to prevent offenders from escaping justice through geography.
Common misconceptions
- Myth: A crime can only be tried in the exact place where it happened.
Fact: This section shows that for crimes like theft, kidnapping, or breach of trust, courts in other linked locations (like where stolen property or the accused is found) can also have jurisdiction. - Myth: If police catch someone with stolen goods in a new city, that city has no legal connection to the crime.
Fact: The law specifically allows trial in the city where the stolen property is found, even if the original crime happened elsewhere.