Section 477 BNSS: State Government to act after concurrence with Central Government in certain cases (Formerly Section 435 CrPC)

Section 477 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023: State Government to act after concurrence with Central Government in certain cases

Official Bare Act Text

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

(1) The powers conferred by sections 473 and 474 upon the State Government to remit or commute a sentence, in any case where the sentence is for an offence—

(a) which was investigated by any agency empowered to make investigation into an offence under any Central Act other than this Sanhita; or

(b) which involved the misappropriation or destruction of, or damage to, any property belonging to the Central Government; or

(c) which was committed by a person in the service of the Central Government while acting or purporting to act in the discharge of his official duty, shall not be exercised by the State Government except after concurrence with the Central Government.

(2) No order of suspension, remission or commutation of sentences passed by the State Government in relation to a person, who has been convicted of offences, some of which relate to matters to which the executive power of the Union extends, and who has been sentenced to separate terms of imprisonment which are to run concurrently, shall have effect unless an order for the suspension, remission or commutation, as the case may be, of such sentences has also been made by the Central Government in relation to the offences committed by such person with regard to matters to which the executive power of the Union extends.

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 477

Section 477 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (corresponding to Section 435 of the CrPC, 1973) mandates that the State Government shall act only after consultation or concurrence with the Central Government before remitting or commuting sentences in cases investigated by central agencies (CBI, NIA) or involving Union property.

Central Jurisdiction Triggers: Applies where the offence: (a) was investigated by the Delhi Special Police Establishment (CBI) or NIA; (b) involved misappropriation or damage to Union Government property; or (c) was committed by a person in Union service while acting in discharge of official duty.
Mandatory Central Concurrence: The powers of the State Government to remit or commute a sentence shall not be exercised except after consultation with or concurrence of the Central Government.
Constitutional Supremacy of Union Interest: Prevents state governments from unilaterally releasing convicts in high-profile central agency or national security prosecutions.

Key Landmark Precedents:

Union of India v. V. Sriharan @ Murugan, (2016) 7 SCC 1: The Constitution Bench held that 'consultation' in Section 435 CrPC (Section 477 BNSS) means 'concurrence'; the State Government cannot grant remission in CBI-investigated cases without the explicit approval of the Central Government.
Bilkis Yakub Rasool v. Union of India, (2024) 5 SCC 480: The Supreme Court quashed premature remissions, reiterating that compliance with Section 435 CrPC consultation and concurrence requirements is a mandatory jurisdictional prerequisite.

Courtroom Practice & Strategic Litigation Guidance:

If seeking premature release of a convict in a CBI, ED, or NIA investigated case, remember that the State Government cannot act alone; central concurrence under Section 477 is an indispensable statutory condition.