Section 34 of the BNSS, 2023 (Village Officers’ Duty to Report)

Section 34 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023 outlines the specific reporting duties of village-level officers and residents. This section corresponds to Section 40 of the old CrPC.

The BNSS has modernized the language of this section, notably removing the archaic and stigmatizing term “thug” and significantly expanding the definition of a “proclaimed offender.” By shifting from a restrictive list of sections to a broader, punishment-based criterion (offences carrying 10+ years), the BNSS has created a high-performing and best visible intelligence network at the grassroots level.

1. Statutory Obligations: Who Must Report?

The duty under Section 34 is top-tier because it creates a legal bridge between rural governance and the police.

• Subject Parties: Every officer employed in village affairs (Panchayat members, Headmen, administrative staff) and every person residing in a village.
• The “Forthwith” Mandate: Information must be communicated immediately to the nearest Magistrate or the Officer-in-Charge (SHO) of the nearest police station.

2. Categories of Information to be Communicated

The section lists specific scenarios that demand mandatory reporting to ensure local safety and optimized crime prevention:

3. The Prime Amendment: “Proclaimed Offender” Redefined

The most visible and proven reform in this section is the change in how “proclaimed offenders” are identified across territorial lines (Sub-section 2-ii).

• The Old Way (CrPC): A person was a proclaimed offender only if they committed one of a few specific IPC sections (e.g., murder, robbery, dacoity).
• The New Way (BNSS): The explicit list is gone. Now, any act committed in a territory where the BNSS doesn’t extend (like foreign jurisdictions) is treated as a proclaimed offence if it would be punishable in India with imprisonment for 10 years or more, life imprisonment, or death.
• Impact: This makes the law top-tier in handling organized crime and cross-border fugitives, as it covers a much wider range of modern crimes (like drug trafficking or major financial frauds) that weren’t in the original 1973 list.

Relevant Case Laws & Interpretations (2025–2026)

1. Nitesh Rastogi v. State of U.P. (Feb 2026)

This ruling continues to provide the prime framework for administrative duties under the BNSS.

• The Ruling: The Court held that the duty of a Village Officer under Section 34 is an “active duty of citizenship.” Failure to report a notorious receiver of stolen property (Section 34-1-a) cannot be excused by claiming a lack of formal police training. The court emphasized that the BNSS relies on the best visible local intelligence to function.

2. State of Punjab v. [Panchayat Member] (2025)

• The Issue: A Panchayat member was prosecuted for failing to report the movement of a known drug trafficker through the village lands.
• The Ruling: The court applied the new punishment-based definition of “proclaimed offender.” Since drug trafficking carries a sentence of 10+ years, the officer was legally bound to report the movement under Section 34. This case has proven that the shift from “specific sections” to “punishment criteria” significantly closes legal loopholes.

3. Public Safety & The DM’s Order (2026 Context)

• Observation: Under Section 34(1)(f), several District Magistrates in border states have issued orders requiring village officers to report the use of unidentified drones. Courts have upheld these orders as a high-priority exercise of the DM’s power to maintain order through the village network.

Summary Table: BNSS vs. CrPC Evolution