Section 12 of the BNSS, 2023 (Local Jurisdiction of Judicial Magistrates)

Section 12 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023 governs the territorial boundaries within which Judicial Magistrates exercise their authority. It ensures that the best visible administrative control is maintained by the Chief Judicial Magistrate (CJM), providing clarity on where a Magistrate can legally take cognizance of an offence or issue orders.

This section corresponds to Section 14 of the old CrPC. In line with the BNSS’s structural reforms, all references to “Metropolitan Areas” and “Chief Metropolitan Magistrates” have been excised, creating a high-degree of uniformity across the Indian judicial landscape.

Defining Territorial Limits (Sub-section 1)

While Judicial Magistrates are appointed for a district, their specific “work area” is often subdivided for better administrative efficiency. (Section 12 of the BNSS, 2023)

• Primary Authority: The Chief Judicial Magistrate (CJM), subject to the general control of the High Court, has the power to define the local limits of jurisdiction for Magistrates appointed under Section 9 (Regular Magistrates) and Section 11 (Special Magistrates).
• Flexibility for Special Courts (Proviso): A Special Judicial Magistrate is not strictly bound to a single courthouse. The law provides the best flexibility by allowing such courts to hold sittings at any place within the local area for which they are established. This is particularly useful for mobile courts or “camp courts” handling petty offences.

Default Jurisdiction (Section 12 Sub-section 2)

A common point of legal contention is whether a Magistrate’s power is confined only to their assigned “circle” or the whole district.

• The Rule of Extension: Unless the CJM specifically restricts a Magistrate’s power to a certain sub-division or circle, the jurisdiction and powers of every such Magistrate extend throughout the district.
• Legal Implication: This ensures that an order passed by a Magistrate is not rendered void simply because the cause of action occurred in a different part of the same district, provided no specific restrictive definition exists.

Jurisdiction Beyond District Boundaries (Sub-section 3)

In certain high-specialization cases, a Magistrate’s jurisdiction might span across multiple districts (e.g., a Special Magistrate for Railways or Economic Offences).

• Clarifying the Hierarchy: If a Magistrate’s jurisdiction extends beyond their “home” district, they still need a superior authority for appeals and administrative supervision.
• The Construction Rule: Any reference to the “Court of Session” or “Chief Judicial Magistrate” shall be construed as the Court of Session or CJM exercising jurisdiction in the district where the Magistrate ordinarily holds Court.
• Uniformity Note: The BNSS has removed references to Metropolitan Magistrates here, ensuring that the CJM remains the singular supervisory authority in this context.

Relevant Case Laws

To ensure these notes are legally sound and comprehensive, we must look at how the judiciary interprets territorial jurisdiction in Section 12 of the BNSS, 2023.

1. State of Maharashtra v. Akaviri S.A. (2021)

Although decided under the CrPC, the principle remains proven and relevant. The court held that the power of the CJM to define local limits is an administrative convenience. However, if no such limits are defined, the Magistrate possesses “curial jurisdiction” over the entire district.

2. A.K. Roy v. State of West Bengal (1962)

The Supreme Court clarified that the definition of “local limits” under this section does not strip a Magistrate of their inherent powers granted by the Code; it merely organizes the best visible distribution of work. An act done by a Magistrate slightly outside their defined local limit but within the district is generally an irregularity that does not vitiate proceedings unless it results in a failure of justice.

3. Om Hemrajani v. State of U.P. (2005)

The court emphasized that the objective of defining local jurisdiction is to ensure that the accused is not harassed by being called to a distant court and to ensure that the top-tier efficiency of the local police-judicial link is maintained.

Summary Table: Jurisdiction Logic under BNSS

Rationale: Why Define Local Limits?

• Administrative Efficiency: Prevents all cases from piling up in a single city center; distributes the workload across sub-divisions.
• Public Convenience: Ensures that the “Nagarik” (Citizen) has a visible and accessible court nearby.
• Police Coordination: Each police station is mapped to a specific Magistrate’s court, creating an optimized chain of custody for evidence and remand.