Sanchayita Lahkar

The High Court of Andhra Pradesh Division Bench of Justice K. Suresh Reddy and Justice V. Sujatha has quashed the charges framed against several accused in a pending sessions case, observing that the accused "were prejudiced by non-supply of the statements of the protected witnesses, as required under Section 230 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023." The Court directed that the matter be recommenced from the stage of Section 230 BNS, mandating the Special Judge to supply redacted copies of the protected witnesses' statements to all accused. The directives were issued at the stage of admission of four criminal appeals filed against framing of charges and dismissal of discharge applications.

The criminal appeals arose out of Sessions Case No.11 of 2023 pending before the Special Judge for NIA Cases-cum-III Additional District and Sessions Judge, Visakhapatnam. The case originates from Crime No.47 of 2020, initially registered at Munchungput Police Station and later transferred to the National Investigation Agency (NIA), which re-registered it as Rc-01/2021/NIA/Hyderabad on 07.03.2021.

Also Read: Supreme Court Enhances Compensation for Farmers After 30-Year Legal Battle | Rejects Averaging Method, Affirms Right to Highest Bona Fide Sale Exemplar in Land Acquisition Case

The NIA filed a charge sheet against 84 individuals alleging offences under Sections 10, 13, and 18 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967; Sections 120-B, 121, 120(a), 143, 144, and 124(a) read with 149 IPC; Sections 8(i) and 8(ii) of the Andhra Pradesh Public Security Act, 1992; and Section 25 of the Arms Act, 1959.

The appellants in Criminal Appeals Nos.110, 138, 139, and 169 of 2025 had been arrested post-registration of the FIR on 24.03.2020 and subsequently enlarged on bail. Charges were framed on various dates, including 04.12.2024 and 18.12.2024. The appellants challenged the charges or the dismissal of their discharge applications on grounds including non-supply of essential documents as required under Section 207 CrPC, now codified as Section 230 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.

In Crl.A.No.138 of 2025, Accused No.80 challenged the order dated 06.01.2025, passed in Crl.M.P.No.1119 of 2024. In Crl.A.No.139 of 2025, Accused No.84 challenged the dismissal order dated 31.12.2024 in Crl.M.P.No.301 of 2024. Both petitions were filed under Section 227 CrPC after 01.07.2024, the date when the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita came into force.

The appellants in Crl.A.Nos.110 and 169 of 2025, Accused Nos.60 and 46 respectively, filed direct appeals under Section 21 of the NIA Act challenging the framing of charges without first seeking discharge.

All appellants contended that statements of protected witnesses, considered critical for preparing their defense, were not supplied. In support of this, the appellant in Crl.A.No.138 of 2025 had filed Crl.M.P.No.174 of 2025 before the trial court seeking such documents. The docket entry dated 24.03.2025 recorded that truncated copies were supplied, rendering the petition infructuous. However, the appellants maintained that these were inadequate under the law.

The learned Additional Solicitor General, appearing for the respondents, argued that all relevant documents except protected witness statements had been furnished and cited the proceeding dated 16.03.2022 in support. He also contended that the discharge applications were filed under the CrPC rather than the new statute and were beyond the 60-day period mandated by Section 250 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita.

The Court recorded that "the statements of the protected witnesses were not supplied to the appellants as required under Section 230 Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023." It stated that "once the statements were not supplied to the accused..., the further proceedings would be vitiated."

In addressing the legal transition, the Court noted: "As already pointed out, Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, came into force on 01.07.2024, but the applications under Section 227 Code of Criminal Procedure were filed after [this date] .... As per the provisions of Section 531(2) ... such appeal, application... shall be disposed of... in accordance with the provisions of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973."

The Bench further observed: "No doubt, the accused were seriously prejudiced by non-supply of statements of protected witnesses to them.... The learned Special Judge, while dismissing the discharge applications, referred to the statements of protected witnesses in his order. As such, in the considered view of this Court... the appellants have no opportunity to look into the statements of the protected witnesses."

It relied on precedent from the Hon'ble Supreme Court, including Waheed-ur-Rehman Parra v. Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir [(2022) 12 SCC 240], where it was held that: "The objective was only to protect the witnesses and not to take out the whole statement out of the purview of Section 207 of the Cr.P.C.... the appellant was of the view that in order to plead an appropriate defence there should be full disclosure minus the redacted portion..."

Also Read: Delhi High Court Restrains Individual from Posting Abusive Content Against upGrad | Trademark Use with Derogatory Hashtags Not Fair Comment, Says Court

The Court quashed the charges framed against the appellants and remitted the case back to the Special Judge. It directed: "The charges framed by the learned Special Judge against appellants after dismissing the discharge applications dehors supplying the statements of the protected witnesses as contemplated under Section 230 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, are liable to be set aside..."

Further, the Bench ordered: "The matters are necessarily be remitted back to the learned Special Judge for NIA cases-cum-III Additional District and Sessions Judge, Visakhapatnam for commencement of the case from the stage of Section 230 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023."

The Court mandated: "The learned Special Judge is obliged to start the commencement of the case from the stage of Section 230... The learned Special Judge is further directed to expedite the trial... The appellants are also directed to cooperate with the trial court for speedy disposal of the Sessions Case."

Advocates Representing the Parties:

For the Petitioners: Sri T. Pradyumn Kumar Reddy, Senior Counsel appearing for Ms. Ganga Bhavani Ragi; Sri Sunkara Rajendra Prasad; Sri Srinivasulu P

For the Respondents: Sri Challa Dhanunjay, Deputy Solicitor General of India; Additional Public Prosecutor

Case Title: Manukonda Srinivasa Rao & Ors v. State of Andhra Pradesh & Anr

Case Number: Criminal Appeal Nos.110, 138, 139 and 169 of 2025

Bench: Justice K. Suresh Reddy and Justice V. Sujatha