Full Bench Ruling Reinforces Opportunity for Accused to be Heard Before Decision in Criminal Revision
In a significant ruling, the Allahabad High Court has underscored the necessity of issuing a notice to the proposed accused before deciding on applications challenging the validity of orders under specific sections of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS). The judgment was delivered by Justice Subhash Vidyarthi, emphasizing adherence to principles laid down in previous legal precedents.
The case in question involved an application filed by S. Vignesh Shishir, challenging an order under Section 528 BNSS, which rejected an application under Sections 173(4) and 175(3) BNSS. The primary legal contention revolved around whether a notice should be issued to the proposed accused, in this case, Sri Rahul Gandhi and others, before the application is decided.
During the proceedings, both the petitioner and the counsel for the opposite parties initially agreed that there was no requirement for issuing a notice to the proposed accused under the current sections of BNSS. However, upon reviewing a Full Bench decision in the case of Jagannath Verma v. State of U.P., the court recognized that such orders are not interlocutory and necessitate the accused's opportunity to be heard.
The Full Bench ruling had previously established that orders rejecting applications under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C.—analogous to Sections 173(4) and 175(3) BNSS—are not interlocutory and require a criminal revision under Section 397, thereby mandating the prospective accused's right to be heard.
This legal position prompted Justice Vidyarthi to defer the judgment, instructing that notice must be issued to the opposite party, Sri Rahul Gandhi, and others before the application under Section 528 BNSS is decided. The court has scheduled further hearings for April 20, 2026, to address this procedural necessity.
The case highlights the judiciary's commitment to ensuring fair hearing processes and upholding established legal principles, reinforcing the importance of procedural fairness in criminal revisions. As the legal fraternity anticipates further developments, this ruling serves as a reminder of the meticulous nature of judicial processes and the rights of individuals within them.
Bottom Line:
Application under Section 528 BNSS challenging the validity of an order rejecting an application under Section 173(4) read with Section 175(3) BNSS cannot be decided without issuing notice to the proposed accused, in light of the Full Bench ruling that such orders are not interlocutory and require the prospective accused to be given an opportunity of being heard.
Statutory provision(s): Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 Sections 528, 173(4), 175(3)
S. Vignesh Shishir v. Sri Rahul Gandhi, (Allahabad)(Lucknow) : Law Finder Doc id # 2885186
