Section 345 BNSS: Trial of person not complying with conditions of pardon (Formerly Section 308 CrPC)

Section 345 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023: Trial of person not complying with conditions of pardon

Official Bare Act Text

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

(1) Where, in regard to a person who has accepted a tender of pardon made under section 343 or section 344, the Public Prosecutor certifies that in his opinion such person has, either by wilfully concealing anything essential or by giving false evidence, not complied with the condition on which the tender was made, such person may be tried for the offence in respect of which the pardon was so tendered or for any other offence of which he appears to have been guilty in connection with the same matter, and also for the offence of giving false evidence:

Provided that such person shall not be tried jointly with any of the other accused:

Provided further that such person shall not be tried for the offence of giving false evidence except with the sanction of the High Court, and nothing contained in section 215 or section 379 shall apply to that offence.

(2) Any statement made by such person accepting the tender of pardon and recorded by a Magistrate under section 183 or by a Court under sub-section (4) of section 343 may be given in evidence against him at such trial.

(3) At such trial, the accused shall be entitled to plead that he has complied with the condition upon which such tender was made; in which case it shall be for the prosecution to prove that the condition has not been complied with.

(4) At such trial, the Court shall—

(a) if it is a Court of Session, before the charge is read out and explained to the accused;

(b) if it is the Court of a Magistrate, before the evidence of the witnesses for the prosecution is taken, ask the accused whether he pleads that he has complied with the conditions on which the tender of pardon was made.

(5) If the accused does so plead, the Court shall record the plea and proceed with the trial and it shall, before passing judgment in the case, find whether or not the accused has complied with the conditions of the pardon, and, if it finds that he has so complied, it shall, notwithstanding anything contained in this Sanhita, pass judgment of acquittal.

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 345

Section 345 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (corresponding to Section 308 of the CrPC, 1973) prescribes the procedure for the trial of an approver who fails to comply with the conditions of pardon by willfully concealing essential facts or giving false evidence.

Public Prosecutor's Certificate: Triggered where the Public Prosecutor certifies that the person who accepted the tender of pardon has willfully concealed anything essential or given false evidence.
Separate Trial: The approver may then be tried for the offence for which the pardon was tendered or for giving false evidence, but must not be tried jointly with any other co-accused.
Plea in Bar: At the trial, the accused may plead that they complied with the condition of pardon; the prosecution must then prove that the condition was breached.

Key Landmark Precedents:

Bipin Behari Sarkar v. State of W.B., AIR 1959 SC 13: The Supreme Court held that the Public Prosecutor's certificate is the jurisdictional foundation for prosecuting an approver; without such certificate, the trial is non-est.
State of Maharashtra v. Abu Salem Abdul Qayyum Ansari, (2010) 10 SCC 179: Affirmed that an approver who turns hostile or commits perjury forfeits statutory immunity and can be tried separately for the substantive offence.

Courtroom Practice & Strategic Litigation Guidance:

If representing an approver facing forfeiture under Section 345, raise the plea under sub-section (4) asserting full compliance with the pardon terms, thereby putting the burden on the prosecution to prove deliberate concealment.