Section 259 BNSS: Previous conviction (Formerly Section 236 CrPC)

Section 259 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023: Previous conviction

Official Bare Act Text

Override / Mandate Mens Rea (Intent) Actus Reus (Conduct) Punishment Limitation Monetary

In a case where a previous conviction is charged under the provisions of sub-section (7) of section 234, and the accused does not admit that he has been previously convicted as alleged in the charge, the Judge may, after he has convicted the said accused under section 252 or section 258, take evidence in respect of the alleged previous conviction, and shall record a finding thereon:

Provided that no such charge shall be read out by the Judge nor shall the accused be asked to plead thereto nor shall the previous conviction be referred to by the prosecution or in any evidence adduced by it, unless and until the accused has been convicted under section 252 or section 258.

Statutory Defined Terms in this Section: (Click any term for official legal definition)

Inquiry Sec 2(1)(g) Investigation Sec 2(1)(h) Victim Sec 2(1)(w)

Legal Commentary & Landmark Judgments: Section 259

Section 259 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 prescribes the procedure regarding previous convictions for the purpose of enhanced punishment in Sessions trials.

Framing & Alteration of Charges: Section 259 provides that in a case where a previous conviction is charged under the provisions of Section 234(7), and the accused does not admit that they have been previously convicted as alleged in the charge, the Judge may, after they have convicted the said accused under Section 252 or Section 258, take evidence in respect of the alleged previous conviction, and shall record a finding thereon.
Core Legal Standard: No such charge shall be read out by the Judge, nor shall the accused be asked to plead thereto, nor shall the previous conviction be referred to by the prosecution, until the accused has been convicted of the subsequent offence.

Key Landmark Precedents:

State of Maharashtra v. Sukhdeo Singh (1992) 3 SCC 700: The Supreme Court affirmed that evidence of previous conviction is strictly excluded during the trial on the merits to prevent character prejudice against the accused, and can be adduced only post-conviction for sentence enhancement.
City Board, Saharanpur v. Abdul Wahid (1979) 2 SCC 344: Held that previous convictions must be strictly proved through certified copies of judgments and finger-print identification; hearsay or casual police statements are inadmissible.

Legal Commentary:

Section 259 shields the accused from prejudice. A prosecutor who mentions prior convictions during the trial on the merits commits a grave procedural violation, entitling the defense to object and seek trial vitiation.