The Orissa High Court’s bench of Justice Aditya Kumar Mohapatra, clarified an important issue about how the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) works with the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act. The Court ruled that a person accused under the POCSO Act can file a discharge application under Section 250(1) of the BNSS within 60 days from the date the police supply all case papers under Section 231 of the BNSS.

Justice Mohapatra noted that criminal trials should move quickly, but this speed cannot come at the cost of the accused’s fundamental right to a fair trial under Article 21 of the Constitution.

Background:

The case arose from an FIR registered at Nuagaon Police Station on 14 February 2025 against the petitioner, Narottam Prusty, under Section 65(2) BNSS read with Section 6 of the POCSO Act.

On 21 April 2025, the petitioner was produced before the Special Court (POCSO), Jagatsinghpur, where his vakalatnama was accepted and police papers were supplied. Later the same day, the Court proceeded to frame charges against him. Aggrieved by this procedure, the petitioner approached the High Court under Section 528 BNSS, seeking quashing of the order on the ground that he had been denied the statutory right to file a discharge application under Section 250 BNSS.

The petitioner’s counsel argued that framing charges on the same day as the supply of police papers violated procedural safeguards and deprived the accused of the opportunity to contest the charges. It was submitted that Section 250 BNSS grants an accused 60 days from the date of commitment to file a discharge application, and denial of this right undermined the fairness of the trial.

In response, the State contended that no illegality had been committed by the trial court, as charges were framed in the presence of the accused and after hearing both sides on the point of charge. It was further argued that the Special Court had considered the final form and other relevant documents before framing charges, rendering the order legally sustainable.

Court’s Observations:

The Court called attention to facts that charges had been framed against the accused on the same day that his new counsel was appointed and police papers were supplied. It noted that two separate orders were passed on 21st April 2025, one supplying the police papers and remanding the accused, and another framing charges without providing the accused a fair opportunity to file a discharge application under Section 250 BNSS.

The judge examined Sections 250 and 251 BNSS, which correspond to Sections 227 and 228 of the CrPC, and highlighted that the 60-day period for seeking discharge is a new safeguard introduced under BNSS. However, the Court noted a legislative gap in POCSO cases, as they do not involve committal proceedings. Taking note of this, the Court stated:

“Taking aid of Section 262(1) BNSS, this Court is persuaded to take the considerate view that in cases before Special Courts instituted under special statutes like the POCSO Act, as in the present matter, where there is no contemplation for committal of the case to the Sessions Court, the time period of 60 days for preferring a discharge application under Section 250(1) BNSS may be so interpreted as commencing from the date of supply of documents and police papers to the accused.”

Relying on Supreme Court precedents, including Bashira v. State of U.P., Zahira Habibulla H. Sheikh v. State of Gujarat, and Anokhilal v. State of M.P., the Court emphasized that the right to a speedy trial cannot override the right to a fair trial under Article 21, particularly in cases involving grave punishments under the POCSO Act. Since the accused was not afforded a meaningful opportunity to seek discharge, the Court set aside the impugned order framing charges and directed the trial court to reconsider the matter de novo from the stage of discharge.

To prevent similar issues in the future, the Court laid down a structured procedure for Special Courts under the POCSO Act:

“Keeping in view the analysis of the legal position made in the preceding paragraphs and further to clarify the confusion which has arisen after the POCSO Act was enacted and with the introduction of the Bharatiya Nagarika Surakshya Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), this Court observes that the Special Courts trying cases under the POCSO Act should follow the following procedure while framing charge against the accused;

(i) Since no commitment procedure has been prescribed in the POCSO Act for the cases triable by the Special Court, the date of appearance before the Special Court or the date on which accused was brought before such court for the first time after cognizance of the offence is taken under Section 33(1) of the POCSO Act, 2012 such date shall be treated as the date of commitment for the purpose of Section 250(1) of the BNSS.

(ii) From the date of appearance of the accused/ the date when the accused was brought before the Special Court for the first time;

(a) the accused shall forthwith be provided with the police papers as provided in Section 231 of BNSS, if not already provided.

(b) the accused may prefer an application for discharge within 60 days thereafter under Section 250(1) of the BNSS.

(iii) If the accused does not want to file an application for discharge, such intention shall be given in writing by the accused in the shape of a memorandum.

(iv) On filing of the memorandum as per clause-(iii), the Special Court shall proceed further to frame charges against the accused.

(v) In the event the accused files an application for discharge as per clause-(ii)(b) hereinabove, such application shall be considered under Section 250(2) BNSS after providing a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the accused and the prosecution and the same shall be disposed of forthwith i.e. not later than 60 days from the first date of hearing on charge.

(vi) Unless the accused is discharged under Section 250(2) of BNSS due to lack of sufficient ground to proceed against the accused, the Special Court shall proceed to frame charge against the accused within 60 days from the first date of hearing on charge under Section 251(1)(b) of the BNSS.”

Accordingly, the High Court dismissed the case, setting aside the flawed framing of charges and providing clear procedural guidance for Special Courts under the POCSO Act.

Case Details: Narottam Prusty v. State of Odisha & Anr., CRLMC No. 1731 of 2025

Advocate for the Petitioner: Adv. Mr. Smruti Ranjan Rout.

Advocate for the Respondent: A.G.A. Ms. Babita Kumari Sahu.