Section 333 BNSS: Authorities before whom affidavits may be sworn (Formerly Section 297 CrPC)

Section 333 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023: Authorities before whom affidavits may be sworn

Official Bare Act Text

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

(1) Affidavits to be used before any Court under this Sanhita may be sworn or affirmed before—

(a) any Judge or Judicial or Executive Magistrate; or

(b) any Commissioner of Oaths appointed by a High Court or Court of Session; or

(c) any notary appointed under the Notaries Act, 1952.

(2) Affidavits shall be confined to, and shall state separately, such facts as the deponent is able to prove from his own knowledge and such facts as he has reasonable ground to believe to be true, and in the latter case, the deponent shall clearly state the grounds of such belief.

(3) The Court may order any scandalous and irrelevant matter in the affidavit to be struck out or amended.

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 333

Section 333 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (corresponding to Section 297 of the CrPC, 1973) specifies the authorities before whom affidavits to be used in criminal proceedings may be sworn or affirmed.

Authorized Judicial Officers: Includes any Judge, Judicial Magistrate, or Executive Magistrate.
Notaries & Commissioners: Any Commissioner of Oaths appointed by a High Court or Court of Session, or any Notary appointed under the Notaries Act, 1952.
Form and Verification: Affidavits must be confined to such facts as the deponent is able of their own knowledge to prove, except on interlocutory applications where belief based on grounds may be stated.

Key Landmark Precedents:

Purushottam Lal v. Prem Narain, AIR 1978 SC 476: The Supreme Court stressed that affidavits must clearly distinguish between facts stated on personal knowledge and those based on information and belief.
Kamla Devi v. State, 1989 Cri LJ 1866: Held that an affidavit attested by an unauthorized person is non-est in the eyes of law and cannot be read in criminal proceedings.

Courtroom Practice & Strategic Litigation Guidance:

Ensure verification clauses in criminal affidavits scrupulously separate paragraphs sworn on personal knowledge from those based on legal advice, and get attestation done only by duly appointed Notaries or Oath Commissioners.