Index
- Introduction
- Factual Context
- Statutory Framework and Legislative Shift
- Revisiting the Concept of Cognizance
- The Court’s Interpretation of Section 223(1) BNSS
- Convergence with the Karnataka High Court’s Procedural Blueprint
- Final Holding and Directions
- Broader Implications
- Conclusion
Synopsis
The Kerala High Court’s ruling in Suby Antony v. State of Kerala is the first major interpretation of Section 223(1) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, which replaces the earlier Section 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
The case arose when a Magistrate issued notice to accused persons in a private complaint without first examining the complainant on oath—a move the petitioner claimed was premature and contrary to the newly inserted proviso under Section 223(1).
Justice V.G. Arun clarified that the proviso does not grant an unconditional early right of hearing to the accused. Rather, the hearing must occur only after the Magistrate has examined the complainant and witnesses and is prepared to take cognizance.
The judgment draws upon Supreme Court precedents like S.K. Sinha v. Videocon International Ltd. and Nagawwa v. Veeranna, which affirm that cognizance requires judicial application of mind and that the preliminary inquiry must be unilateral and complainant-centric.
The Kerala High Court’s interpretation aligns seamlessly with the Karnataka High Court’s judgment in Basanagouda R. Patil v. Shivananda S. Patil, where Justice M. Nagaprasanna, in Paragraph 9, laid down the precise procedural sequence: the Magistrate must first record sworn statements, and only then issue notice if inclined to take cognizance. Justice Arun expressly adopted this view, ruling that any premature notice violates procedural fairness and the scheme of Section 223(1).
By quashing the Magistrate’s premature notice and ordering compliance with proper procedure, the Court reaffirmed that the BNSS must be read in light of existing procedural values and constitutional safeguards.
The judgment not only preserves the integrity of private complaint proceedings but also provides vital guidance to Magistrates navigating the early implementation of the BNSS. It will likely remain a touchstone precedent for interpreting procedural innovations introduced by the new criminal codes.
I. Introduction
The Kerala High Court judgment in Suby Antony v. State of Kerala, constitutes the first significant judicial interpretation of Section 223(1) of the recently enacted Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita.
This section, in place of Section 200 of the CrPC, brings a procedural advancement by making it a rule that no cognizance of an offence is to be taken by a Magistrate without hearing the accused beforehand.
The issue that was being considered by the Court was when this right to be heard was required to be exercised—prior to or subsequent to the recording of the statement of the complainant on oath.
II. Factual Context
The petitioner, Suby Antony, had made a private complaint to the Judicial First-Class Magistrate, Thrissur and before examining the complainant or witnesses on oath, the Magistrate had issued notice to the accused individuals.
This led the petitioner to move the High Court, contending that such issuance of notice, even prior to the preliminary inquiry required by Section 223(1), violated the proper procedure and prejudiced the complainant's right to preliminary judicial scrutiny.
III. Legislative Framework and legislative change
Section 223(1) of the BNSS is a copy of Section 200 of the CrPC with an important addition: a proviso requiring the Magistrate to grant the accused an opportunity of hearing prior to cognizance. Although this would seem to improve the rights of the accused, its application and timing have never been clarified by the courts until in this case.
The High Court was to decide if this proviso indicated that notice is to be given at the initial stage or only after the Magistrate, after considering the complaint and evidence on oath, was prepared to take cognizance.
IV. Revisiting the Concept of Cognizance
Justice V.G. Arun, writing the judgment, commenced by invoking the long-standing principle in S.K. Sinha v. Videocon International Ltd., that "cognizance" takes place the moment a Magistrate exercises judicial mind on suspected commission of an offence.
It is not an act of machine but of a conscious judicial application. Greater reliance was placed upon Nagawwa v. Veeranna Shivalingappa Konjalgi, wherein the Supreme Court had held that in the initial stage, the accused is not entitled to be heard, and the Magistrate shall only conduct an ex parte examination of the evidence of the complainant to determine whether a prima facie case is made out.
V. The Court's Interpretation of Section 223(1) BNSS
Justice Arun noted that the legislative intent behind the new proviso is to bring in procedural fairness by avoiding arbitrary or ex parte cognizance, but not to reverse the traditional structure of preliminary inquiry.
Consequently, the Court held that the Magistrate should first adhere to the sequential approach: accept the complaint, examine the complainant and witnesses under oath, and thereafter, if so minded to take cognizance, issue notice to the accused to provide them with an opportunity of hearing. Notice prior to this examination would, practically, nullify the very system of judicial screening that bars harassment by way of unverified complaints.
VI. Convergence with the Karnataka High Court's Procedural Blueprint
The Kerala High Court's rationale was considerably strengthened by the judgment of the Karnataka High Court in Basanagouda R. Patil v. Shivananda S. Patil, which had the opportunity to deal with the same procedural puzzle in terms of Section 223(1) BNSS. In such a situation, the complainant who happens to be an MLA in office had alleged defamation by another legislator at an election meeting and made a private complaint.
The accused was issued notice by the Magistrate without questioning the complainant on oath. The accused questioned the order as being procedurally flawed, and the High Court concurred.
Justice M. Nagaprasanna, in his judgment, stressed the importance of preserving the sequence of procedure under the BNSS. At paragraph 9 of the ruling, the Court explained that taking cognizance necessarily comes after recording on oath statements of the complainant as well as any witnesses present. Only then, after the Magistrate is satisfied judicially, may notice be served on the accused under the proviso.
Karnataka High Court outlined the correct sequence of events as below: the complaint is filed; the complainant and witnesses are examined by the Magistrate under oath; the contents of such examination are reduced to writing; and only thereafter, if the Magistrate intends to take cognizance, notice is given to the accused in order to facilitate their right of hearing. The judgment squarely held that notice prior to such examination would be premature and legally not allowable.
Justice Arun specifically approved this "procedural drill" and incorporated it into the rationale of the Kerala High Court's judgment. The lucidity and logical format of the Karnataka judgment, he observed, permitted no opposite interpretation. Instead of interpreting the new provision in a vacuum, both High Courts confirmed that procedural innovation has to be deferential to the rooted procedural values inherent in Indian criminal law.
VII. Final Holding and Directions
The High Court set aside the order of the Magistrate giving premature notice to the accused. It instructed the Magistrate to first interrogate the complainant and witnesses on oath and only then, if convinced that the case is fit for cognizance, issue notice to the accused persons to hear them before actually taking cognizance.
The Court also made it clear that although the accused had already been notified under the challenged order, they have to be given a new opportunity to be heard, but only if the Magistrate chooses to proceed further on the basis of the complainant's affidavit.
VIII. Broader Implications
This decision assumes importance in setting out the proper model of procedure under the BNSS. By validating that initial examination must still be ex parte and that the right to be heard by the accused does not come into play except at the threshold of cognizance, the Court maintains the value of judicial gatekeeping.
At the same time, it guarantees that the newly established right of hearing under Section 223(1) is respected in spirit and not merely a form. The decision also demonstrates the judiciary's function of steering statutory transition, interpreting new provisions not in break but in continuity with established jurisprudence.
IX. Conclusion
The decision in Suby Antony v. State of Kerala offers a roadmap for courts grappling with the implementation of the BNSS. Justice Arun’s interpretation avoids procedural disarray by grounding legislative innovation in judicial precedent and procedural rationality.
It balances the complainant’s right to be heard in a preliminary forum with the accused’s right to procedural fairness. In doing so, the Kerala High Court has ensured that the new law does not disrupt but refines the judicial process. As India’s trial courts adapt to the BNSS, this judgment—together with the Karnataka High Court’s careful articulation in Basanagouda Patil—will serve as a foundational interpretive compass in preserving the integrity of criminal adjudication
Join LAWyersClubIndia's network for daily News Updates, Judgment Summaries, Articles, Forum Threads, Online Law Courses, and MUCH MORE!!"
