Section 322 BNSS: Parties may examine witnesses (Formerly Section 287 CrPC)

Section 322 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023: Parties may examine witnesses

Official Bare Act Text

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

(1) The parties to any proceeding under this Sanhita in which a commission is issued may respectively forward any interrogatories in writing which the Court or Magistrate directing the commission may think relevant to the issue, and it shall be lawful for the Magistrate, Court or officer to whom the commission, is directed, or to whom the duty of executing it is delegated, to examine the witness upon such interrogatories.

(2) Any such party may appear before such Magistrate, Court or Officer by an advocate, or if not in custody, in person, and may examine, cross-examine and re-examine the said witness.

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 322

Section 322 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (corresponding to Section 287 of the CrPC, 1973) outlines the rights of parties to examine witnesses on commission, including through written interrogatories or legal representation.

Examination via Interrogatories: Parties may forward written interrogatories, which the executing Magistrate shall administer to the witness.
Personal or Advocate Representation: Alternatively, any party may appear in person or by advocate to examine, cross-examine, and re-examine the witness.
Accused's Right in Custody: If the accused is in custody, the Court may direct that they be produced or represented at the commission at State expense.

Key Landmark Precedents:

Om Prakash v. State of Rajasthan, 1982 Cri LJ 1515: The High Court noted that written interrogatories are an inferior substitute for live oral cross-examination and should be used only when oral examination is impossible.
State of Maharashtra v. Dr. Praful B. Desai, (2003) 4 SCC 601: Held that video conferencing permits real-time oral cross-examination, eliminating the limitations of rigid written interrogatories.

Courtroom Practice & Strategic Litigation Guidance:

Prefer live virtual appearance or advocate representation over written interrogatories under Section 322, as written questions allow evasive witnesses time to concoct tutored answers.