Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023
Section 199
Offence triable where act is done or consequence ensues
When an act is an offence by reason of anything which has been done and of a consequence which has ensued, the offence may be inquired into or tried by a Court within whose local jurisdiction such thing has been done or such consequence has ensued.
Why this exists
Many offences are 'result crimes' — the wrongful act and its harmful effect can occur in different places, especially with poisoning, cheating by post, defamation through publications, or online fraud. Older codes of criminal procedure faced confusion over which court had authority when the act and its consequence were geographically split. This provision (carried forward from Section 179 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, into the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023) fixes this by giving jurisdiction to courts in either location, so an accused cannot escape trial merely because the act and its consequence occurred in different districts or states.
How courts read it
Under the predecessor provision (Section 179 CrPC), courts have held that when an offence like cheating is committed through acts in one city but its harmful consequence — such as loss of money or property — is felt in another, the victim can file the case where the consequence occurred, even if the accused acted from elsewhere. Courts have used this reasoning to prevent offenders from insulating themselves by acting from a distant location while the harm lands squarely on victims in another jurisdiction.
Common misconceptions
- Myth: The case can only be tried where the criminal physically committed the act.
Fact: The law allows trial either where the act was done or where its consequence (the harm) occurred, whichever is convenient or applicable. - Myth: This provision creates a new kind of offence.
Fact: It does not define any offence; it only decides which court has the authority to hear cases involving acts and their consequences in different places.