HC examines applicability of BNSS to pre-July 2024 offence

22/08/2026

JAMMU, Aug 21: The High Court of Jam-mu and Kashmir and Ladakh has sought assistance from the Senior Additional Advocate General on an important question concerning the applicability of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, to criminal proceedings arising from an alleged offence committed before the new criminal laws came into force.
Justice Wasim Sadiq Nargal, hearing CRM (M) No. 785/2026 titled Preeti Dubey vs Vinus Sharma, observed on August 3 that an important question of law had been raised in the matter. The court accordingly requested Senior AAG Monika Kohli to render assistance in appreciating the controversy, issued notice and directed that the case be listed on August 20, higher up on the final hearing day.
The petitioner, Preeti Dubey, has been represented by Aseem Sawhney, Senior Advocate, assisted by Anil Kumar and Simran, Advocates. The respondent, Vinus Sharma, has been represented by Chetna Manhas, Advocate, appearing for Monika Kohli, Senior AAG.
The petition challenges the May 18, 2026 order passed by the City Judge, Jammu, in proceedings arising out of a complaint filed by Dubey. The petitioner has sought setting aside of the order and has questioned the continuation of the proceedings under the BNSS instead of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
According to the petition, the dispute relates to alleged defamatory imputations concerning the petitioner, with the alleged offence stated to have occurred in August 2023, when the Indian Penal Code and Code of Criminal Procedure were in force. The Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita and BNSS came into operation from July 1, 2024.
The petitioner has contended that the law applicable to the alleged offence should govern the proceedings and has relied upon the saving provisions contained in the new criminal laws as well as Section 6 of the General Clauses Act, 1897. The petition specifically refers to provisions concerning repeal and saving of existing rights, liabilities, investigations and legal proceedings.
The matter has its background in allegations connected with the purchase of interactive flat panels for Government College for Women, Parade Ground, Jammu. Dubey, an Assistant Professor in the Department of Computer Applications, was stated to have been a member of the college Technical Committee involved in the procurement process.
The petition states that allegations were subsequently made against her in relation to the procurement exercise. It also refers to an earlier complaint before the City Judge, Jammu, pursuant to which the Judicial Magistrate First Class directed the police to conduct an inquiry.
The record placed before the High Court includes the March 30, 2024 order directing the police inquiry and the subsequent police inquiry report dated September 13, 2024.
The petitioner had earlier instituted proceedings alleging offences under Sections 499 and 500 of the Indian Penal Code in relation to the alleged defamatory material. The present proceedings concern the question of which procedural regime should apply after the replacement of the CrPC by the BNSS.
The petition relies, among other provisions, upon Sections 358 and 531 of the BNSS and Section 4 of the Sanhita, besides Section 6 of the General Clauses Act. It also places reliance on earlier judicial decisions concerning the effect of repeal and saving clauses during a transition from one procedural law to another.
The record further refers to the High Court's earlier decision in Sanjay Kumar Rai v. Union Territory of J&K & Anr., which was cited before the court in support of the petitioner's submissions concerning the applicability of the earlier procedural law to proceedings arising from an earlier offence.
The City Judge, Jammu, in the order dated May 18, 2026, had dealt with the petitioner's request to have the complaint tried under the CrPC rather than the BNSS. The record annexed with the petition indicates that the proceedings were directed to continue under the BNSS.
At the present stage, the High Court has not expressed any final opinion on the rival contentions. Justice Nargal's August 3 order records that the matter raises an important question of law and seeks assistance of the Senior AAG before the issue is considered further. The court has issued notice and fixed the matter for hearing.
The proceedings raise a significant transitional legal issue concerning cases in which the alleged offence predates July 1, 2024, but the complaint or subsequent stages of the proceedings arise after the new criminal-law framework came into force. The High Court's consideration may provide further clarity on the operation of the saving provisions governing the transition from the CrPC to the BNSS.

Photo Gallery

BSE Sensex

NSE Nifty