This Article has been written by Shobhna V, a budding future lawyer who has completed her LLM and has thoroughly explained the Concept of Non-Cognizable offences in the easiest way possible.
Introduction
The Bharathiya Nyaya Sanhitha (BNS)is a new criminal law regime in India that repeals the
Indian Penal Code (IPC). The primary purpose of the BNS is to modernize and enhance the
nation’s legal regime by embracing new legal doctrines and bridging the loopholes of the IPC
in dealing with a variety of legal issues holistically.
One of the salient features of the BNS is the distinction between the cognizable and noncognizable offences.
Cognizable offences vest police authorities with the power to act immediately without a prior
magistrate’s permission, whereas the non-cognizable offences involve a prior permission
from magistrates before taking any legal action against such offences.
The present article undertakes a comprehensive study of non- cognizable offences as
stipulated under BNS examining their legal implication and punishments prescribed for such
offences.
So before getting into the punishments, it is important to know what non-cognizable offence
are, where it is defined and understand it with simple examples.
Definition
The non-cognizable offence is defined under section 2(o) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha
Sanhitha(BNSS) [1] earlier it was defined under 2(n) of the Code of Criminal Procedure,
whereas punishments for non-cognizable offences comes under Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita
2023 formerly known as IPC
Non cognizable -offence’
It means an offence for which, and non-cognizable case means a case in which a police officer has no authority to arrest without warrant.
Let us understand the non-cognizable offence with simple example.
Mihir and Pawan are two shopkeepers in a market. One day Pawan started telling the
customers that Mihir is selling low quality goods, due to this his business got disrupted and
he faced losses. Annoyed by this act Mihir went to police station and insisted them to arrest
Pawan for spreading false information.
The police officer responded that it’s a defamation case, a non-cognizable offence under BNS we can’t arrest Pawan directly and it needed magistrate permission before proceeding. Mihir couldn’t understand and asked the police officer to do something. The police officer replied the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) classifies criminal offences into two main categories: cognizable and non-cognizable offences.
Cognizable offences are those crimes which are serious in nature such as theft or assault where the police have the authority to file an FIR and arrest without prior approval from magistrate whereas in the case of non- cognizable offence such as defamation, public nuisance or criminal trespass- permission from a magistrate must be taken before investigation or arrest can be conducted.
Punishments for non-cognizable offence under BNS are mentioned below:-
| Sections | Offences | Punishments |
| 133 | Assault or criminal force with intent to outrage the modesty of a person, otherwise than on sudden and grave provocation | imprisonment for 2 years, or fine, or both bailable |
| 136 | Assault or criminal force on grave provocation | Simple imprisonment for one month, or fine of 1,000 rupees, or both. |
| 165 | Deserter concealed on board merchant vessel through negligence of master | Fine of 3000 rupees |
| 173 | Punishment for bribery | Imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to one year or with fine or both |
| 182 (1) | Making or using documents resembling currency notes or bank notes | Fine up to 300Rs |
| 193(1) | Liability of owner, occupier, etc of land on which an unlawful assembly or riot take place | Fine of 1000 rupees |
| 193(2) | anyone who benefits from or represents someone in a riot without using any legal means to stop it. | fine |
| 193(3) | A riot is perpetrated for the profit of an agent of the owner or occupier who fails to use all legal means to stop it. | fine |
| 195(2) | Threatening to assault or trying to obstruct a public servant when supressing riot etc | Imprisonment for one year or fine or both. |
| 198 | Public servant disobeying law, with intent to cause injury to any person | Simple imprisonment for one year, or fine or, both |
| 200 | Non-treatment of the victim by any hospital | Imprisonment for a term which may extend to one year, or with fine, or both |
| 202 | Public servant unlawfully engaging in trade | Simple imprisonment for a term which may extend up to one year, or with fine , or both |
| 206(a) | Absconding to avoid a public servants summons or other proceedings | Simple imprisonment for 1 month, or fine of 5000 rupees, or with both |
| 206(b) | When someone receives a summons, notice, or order to appear in person or through an agent, or to provide a document or electronic record in court. | with simple imprisonment for up to six months, a fine of up to ten thousand rupees, or both |
| 224 | Threat of injury to public servant | Imprisonment for 2 years or fine or both |
| 226 | Attempt to commit suicide to compel or restrain exercise of lawful power | Imprisonment for one year or fine or both or community service. |
| 274 | Adulteration of food or beverages which are meant for sale | Imprisonment up to 6 months or fine of Rs 5000 or both |
| 275 | Selling of food or beverages which are noxious | Imprisonment up to 6 months or fine of Rs 5000 or both |
| 277 | Selling of adulterer drugs | Imprisonment up to 6 months or fine of Rs 5000 or both |
| 278 | Selling a medication under a new name or formulation | 6 months imprisonment, fine up to 5000 rupees or both |
| 280 | Making the atmosphere pernicious to health | 1000 rupees fine |
| 292 | Public nuisance in situations not covered by other law | 1000 rupees fine |
| 346 | Intentionally causing harm by removing damaging or defacing a property mark | Imprisonment for one year or fine or both |
| 351(2) | Criminal intimidation | 2 years of imprisonment or fine or both. |
| 351(3) | Criminal intimidation by threatening to cause death or grievous hurt | 7 yrs imprisonment or fine or both |
| 351(4) | Criminal intimidation by anonymous communication or concealing the threat. | 2 years of imprisonment and additionally punishment under section 351(1) |
Case laws on non-cognizable offences
1.Subramanian Swamy vs. Union of India
Facts
Prominent political defendants in this case were AAP leader Arvind Kejriwal, BJP leader Subramanian Swamy and Congress leader Rahul Gandhi. They had been charged with criminal defamation. Once in a tweet Swamy claimed that late and former chief minister of Tamil Nadu Jayalalitha had met LTTE, and Gandhi claimed that RSS was involved in the assassination of the Mahatma Gandhi and accusation of Nitin Gadkari by Kejriwal in corruption case.
The petition under article 32 of the Constitution seek to challenge the constitutional validity of section 499 and 500 of the IPC now section 356 of the Bharathiya Naya Sanhitha and sections 199(1)-199(4) of CrPC, 1973 now section 222 of BNSS. They said these clauses violated Article 219(1)(a9 which gives them the fundamental right to freedom of speech and expression.
Issues
- Whether sections 499 of IPC and 199 of CrPC now 356 of BNS of 2023 and s.222 of BNSS of 2023 respectively and
- Whether the right to life under Art 21 includes the right to reputation?
Judgment
The court held that the criminal defamation provisions were reasonable and that a good reputation is part of an individual’s identity under Article 21. The court noted that criminal defamation law is clear and held that this case is distinguishable from previous cases such as Shreya Singhal vs. Union of India. It dismissed the petitions holding that the law promotes peace in society and results in additional trial sessions
2. Dr. Kamal Kishore Kalra vs. State (NCT of Delhi) 2008
Facts
A complaint was filed regarding both cognizable and non -cognizable offences. Police investigated and a charge sheet was presented. The accused argued that the offenses under section 323 of IPC now 115(2) of BNS (voluntarily causing hurt was a non- cognizable offence and investigation without magistrate permission was illegal.
Issues
Whether the investigation of a non-cognizable offence was valid if it was part of a compound case of cognizable offences.
Judgment
The Delhi HC held that the investigation of non-cognizable offence was indeed illegal in the absence of a magistrate’s order. This case reminds us that in a case comprising multiple offences, the procedure for non-cognizable offences must be strictly followed.
3. Public Prosecutor vs. Ratnavel Chetty
A very important and foundational case. This case served as a pivotal decision to define non-cognizable offences throughout India.
Facts
Through section 211 of the IPC now section 248 of BNS Ratnavel Chetty was charged for a prohibited offense. A police officer submitted this legal matter to the court. The offense contained within section 211 of IPC now section 248 of BNS belonged category of non-cognizable crimes.
The court needed to determine whether police could begin examination of non-cognizable cases by relying on police reports.
Issues
The fundamental question revolved around whether police made reports in cases where no arrest is lawful could meet the requirements of section 190 of CrPC now 170 of BNSS to allow Magistrates to take notice of criminal matters.
The legal interpretations of reports within non-cognizable offences require consideration since police investigators normally need magistrate orders to work on such cases.
Judgment
The Madras HC established that reports from police officers regarding non-cognizable offences fail to meet the requirements of section 170 of BNSS.
The court stressed the difference between cognizable and non-cognizable offences, and it explained the restricted capabilities that police posses in handling the latter type of cases.
Non-cognizable offences require the authorities to direct informants to the Magistrate who would base their cognizance in complaints.
This legal precedent confirmed that police departments cannot avoid non-cognizable crime investigation limits through paperwork filing to begin court proceedings.
This judgement emphasized that an official magistrate order creates a necessary protection to prevent unjustified police involvement with minor infractions.
This case emerged as an essential reference point in criminal procedures which directed later judicial decisions about non-cognizable offences.
CONCLUSION
Cognizable and non-cognizable offences distinguish the fundamentals of Indian criminal justice operations. The distinction protects Indian citizens from improper police investigations of minor offences by providing necessary protections to individual privacy.
Consistent with Ratnavel Chetty and multiple post judgment cases the police require magistrate approval to investigate non- cognizable offences which continues to be essential today. The protection of individual liberties depends on this system while due process needs to be implemented. Since Bharathiya Nyaya Sanhita implementation the basic legal structure for non-cognizable offences experienced development yet these core principles still apply in law.
