Section 392 BNSS: Judgment (Formerly Section 353 CrPC)

Section 392 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023: Judgment

Official Bare Act Text

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

(1) The judgment in every trial in any Criminal Court of original jurisdiction shall be pronounced in open Court by the presiding officer immediately after the termination of the trial or at some subsequent time not later than forty-five days of which notice shall be given to the parties or their advocates,—

(a) by delivering the whole of the judgment; or

(b) by reading out the whole of the judgment; or

(c) by reading out the operative part of the judgment and explaining the substance of the judgment in a language which is understood by the accused or his advocate.

(2) Where the judgment is delivered under clause (a) of sub-section (1), the presiding officer shall cause it to be taken down in short-hand, sign the transcript and every page thereof as soon as it is made ready, and write on it the date of the delivery of the judgment in open Court.

(3) Where the judgment or the operative part thereof is read out under clause (b) or clause (c) of sub-section (1), as the case may be, it shall be dated and signed by the presiding officer in open Court, and if it is not written with his own hand, every page of the judgment shall be signed by him.

(4) Where the judgment is pronounced in the manner specified in clause (c) of sub-section (1), the whole judgment or a copy thereof shall be immediately made available for the perusal of the parties or their advocates free of cost:

Provided that the Court shall, as far as practicable, upload the copy of the judgment on its portal within a period of seven days from the date of judgment.

(5) If the accused is in custody, he shall be brought up to hear the judgment pronounced either in person or through audio-video electronic means.

(6) If the accused is not in custody, he shall be required by the Court to attend to hear the judgment pronounced, except where his personal attendance during the trial has been dispensed with and the sentence is one of fine only or he is acquitted:

Provided that where there are more accused persons than one, and one or more of them do not attend the Court on the date on which the judgment is to be pronounced, the presiding officer may, in order to avoid undue delay in the disposal of the case, pronounce the judgment notwithstanding their absence.

(7) No judgment delivered by any Criminal Court shall be deemed to be invalid by reason only of the absence of any party or his advocate on the day or from the place notified for the delivery thereof, or of any omission to serve, or defect in serving, on the parties or their advocates, or any of them, the notice of such day and place.

(8) Nothing in this section shall be construed to limit in any way the extent of the provisions of section 511.

Legal Commentary & Landmark Judgments: Section 392

Section 392 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 regulates the delivery, contents, and formal pronouncement of judgments in criminal courts.

Inquiry & Trial Mechanism: Section 392 mandates that the judgment in every trial in any Criminal Court of original jurisdiction shall be pronounced in open court immediately after the termination of the trial or at some subsequent time not exceeding thirty days, extendable up to forty-five days for recorded reasons.
Core Legal Standard: Pronouncement may be made by delivering the whole judgment, reading out the whole judgment, or reading out the operative part.

Sub-section (4) provides that if the accused is in custody, they shall be brought up, or produced through audio-video electronic means, to hear the judgment delivered.

Key Landmark Precedents:

Kailash Gour v. State of Assam (2012) 2 SCC 34: The Supreme Court held that judgment must be delivered in open court with reasons recorded contemporaneously; pronouncing operative orders without preparing reasons until months later impairs judicial credibility.
Anil Rai v. State of Bihar (2001) 7 SCC 318: Laid down mandatory guidelines that criminal judgments must ordinarily be pronounced within two months of reserving, directing that parties may seek listing before another bench if delay exceeds six months.

Legal Commentary:

Section 392 introduces strict statutory timelines (30 to 45 days) for pronouncing judgments after concluding trial arguments. Inordinate delay between concluding arguments and pronouncing judgment is a strong ground in appeal to contend that the trial judge lost grasp of witness demeanor.