Section 320 BNSS: Commission to whom to be issued (Formerly Section 285 CrPC)

Section 320 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023: Commission to whom to be issued

Official Bare Act Text

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

(1) If the witness is within the territories to which this Sanhita extends, the commission shall be directed to the Chief Judicial Magistrate within whose local jurisdiction the witness is to be found.

(2) If the witness is in India, but in a State or an area to which this Sanhita does not extend, the commission shall be directed to such Court or officer as the Central Government may, by notification, specify in this behalf.

(3) If the witness is in a country or place outside India and arrangements have been made by the Central Government with the Government of such country or place for taking the evidence of witnesses in relation to criminal matters, the commission shall be issued in such form, directed to such Court or officer, and sent to such authority for transmission as the Central Government may, by notification, prescribe in this behalf.

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 320

Section 320 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (corresponding to Section 285 of the CrPC, 1973) specifies the authorities and courts to whom commissions for examination of witnesses must be addressed.

Commissions within Territory: If witness is within the local limits of the Court's jurisdiction, to the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate or Chief Judicial Magistrate of the area.
Commissions to Other Districts: Addressed to the CJM or CMM within whose local jurisdiction the witness resides.
Sub-delegation: The CJM/CMM may execute the commission themselves or direct any subordinate Judicial Magistrate to execute it.

Key Landmark Precedents:

Bipin Shantilal Panchal v. State of Gujarat, (2001) 3 SCC 1: The Supreme Court underscored that procedural steps regarding commissions must be executed promptly without stalling the primary trial.
State of U.P. v. Shambhu Nath Singh, (2001) 4 SCC 667: Highlighted the need to streamline magisterial execution of commissions to prevent indefinite adjournments.

Courtroom Practice & Strategic Litigation Guidance:

Follow up directly with the CJM's court where the commission is sent to ensure that execution dates are promptly scheduled and witness summonses are served without delay.