If a judge or magistrate changes, the whole case must start over from the beginning.

The law allows the successor officer to continue the same case using the existing record, so proceedings don't need to restart from scratch.

Any officer who happens to be posted afterward can automatically claim to be the 'successor.'

If there's genuine doubt about who the successor is, only the Sessions Judge (for judges) or the Chief Judicial Magistrate/District Magistrate (for magistrates) can officially decide this by a written order.

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023

Section 29

Powers of Judges and Magistrates exercisable by their successors-in office

(1) Subject to the other provisions of this Sanhita, the powers and duties of a Judge or Magistrate may be exercised or performed by his successor-in-office.§

(2) When there is any doubt as to who is the successor-in-office, the Sessions Judge shall determine by order in writing the Judge who shall, for the purposes of this Sanhita or of any proceedings or order thereunder, be deemed to be the successor-in-office.§

(3) When there is any doubt as to who is the successor-in-office of any Magistrate, the Chief Judicial Magistrate, or the District Magistrate, as the case may be, shall determine by order in writing the Magistrate who shall, for the purpose of this Sanhita or of any proceedings or order thereunder, be deemed to be the successor-in-office of such Magistrate.§

Why this exists

Judicial officers in India are frequently transferred, promoted, or they retire while cases are still pending. Without a rule like this, every change of officer could force a case to restart from scratch, wasting years of work and causing delay and hardship to litigants. This provision (continuing the scheme of the earlier Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973) ensures continuity of judicial proceedings by letting the successor officer step into the shoes of the predecessor, while providing a mechanism to resolve disputes about who exactly counts as the 'successor' in unclear situations.

How courts read it

Courts under the predecessor provision (Section 10 of the CrPC, 1973) consistently held that a successor magistrate or judge can continue proceedings, including recording further evidence or passing final orders, without needing to restart the trial, so long as procedural safeguards (like re-summoning witnesses if genuinely necessary) are respected. Courts have treated this as a rule of administrative and judicial continuity rather than one that revives already-concluded matters.

Common misconceptions

Myth: If a judge or magistrate changes, the whole case must start over from the beginning.
Fact: The law allows the successor officer to continue the same case using the existing record, so proceedings don't need to restart from scratch.
Myth: Any officer who happens to be posted afterward can automatically claim to be the 'successor.'
Fact: If there's genuine doubt about who the successor is, only the Sessions Judge (for judges) or the Chief Judicial Magistrate/District Magistrate (for magistrates) can officially decide this by a written order.