# CrPC to BNSS section mapping: the working table for criminal practice

**TL;DR:** The Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) replaced the CrPC on 1 July 2024, and most of its sections carry a different number from the CrPC provision they replace. This piece gives a verified, selective mapping table for the procedural provisions criminal lawyers actually use every week, and separates the ones that only got a new number from the ones where the underlying procedure changed. Every section number here is checked against a primary or near-primary source before publication, not carried over from memory or another article.

---

## On this page

- [How to use this mapping](#how-to-use-this-mapping)
- [High-frequency procedural provisions: CrPC to BNSS](#high-frequency-procedural-provisions-crpc-to-bnss)
- [Renumbered only versus procedure changed](#renumbered-only-versus-procedure-changed)
- [Provisions where the procedure actually changed](#provisions-where-the-procedure-actually-changed)
- [BNSS provisions with no CrPC ancestor](#bnss-provisions-with-no-crpc-ancestor)
- [CrPC provisions with no BNSS successor](#crpc-provisions-with-no-bnss-successor)
- [Which code applies to a pending case](#which-code-applies-to-a-pending-case)
- [Frequently asked questions](#frequently-asked-questions)

## How to use this mapping

This table runs in both directions, because you will need it both ways depending on what document is in front of you.

If you are reading an old judgment or a matter that was pending before 1 July 2024, you have a CrPC section number and you need the BNSS equivalent, to check whether a later ruling under the new code changes anything for your argument. Read the table left to right: CrPC section, then BNSS section.

If you are reading a fresh FIR, a chargesheet, or a bail order dated after 1 July 2024, you have a BNSS section number and you may need the CrPC provision it replaced, usually because your research turns up older case law that only cites the old number. Read the same table right to left.

This table is deliberately selective. The BNSS runs to 531 sections against 484 in the CrPC, and a full section-by-section conversion chart is a spreadsheet exercise, not a reading exercise, and it invites the kind of copy-paste error that put a wrong section number into circulation the last time a mapping table did the rounds on this exact pair of codes. What follows covers the provisions a criminal practitioner touches in an ordinary week: registering or resisting an FIR, arrest and remand, bail in its various forms, the chargesheet clock, cognizance and framing of charge, summons and warrants, maintenance, the High Court's inherent jurisdiction, and the routes of revision and appeal. Provisions outside that list are not covered here, and you should not assume a section not listed keeps the same number as its CrPC counterpart.

Every mapping below was checked against the statute text itself where accessible, against reported judgments that state the correspondence explicitly, or against [PRS Legislative Research's analysis of the Bill](https://prsindia.org/billtrack/the-bharatiya-nagarik-suraksha-sanhita-2023). Where a mapping could not be confirmed this way, it has been left out rather than guessed at. A citator that flags whether a provision you are relying on has since been renumbered, and surfaces the current-code equivalent alongside the judgment, removes a recurring source of this exact error in fast-turnaround drafting; that is a live gap this piece exists partly to close, and it is one reason [source-linked research over the BNSS-BNS-BSA transition](https://niyam.ai) has become a distinct workflow rather than a footnote to ordinary case search.

## High-frequency procedural provisions: CrPC to BNSS

| Provision | CrPC section (1973) | BNSS section (2023) |
|---|---|---|
| Registration of FIR for a cognizable offence | Section 154 | Section 173 |
| Arrest without warrant | Section 41 | Section 35 |
| Notice of appearance before arrest | Section 41A | Section 35(3) |
| Remand to police or judicial custody | Section 167 | Section 187 |
| Default bail on failure to file the chargesheet in time | Section 167(2) proviso | Section 187(3) |
| Anticipatory bail | Section 438 | Section 482 |
| Bail in non-bailable offences (courts other than High Court/Sessions) | Section 437 | Section 480 |
| Bail: special powers of the High Court or Court of Session | Section 439 | Section 483 |
| Cognizance of offences by a magistrate | Section 190 | Section 210 |
| Framing of charge in a sessions case | Section 228 | Section 251 |
| Discharge for absence of grounds to proceed | Section 227 | Section 250(2) |
| Statements to the police during investigation | Section 161 | Section 180 |
| Statements or confessions recorded by a magistrate | Section 164 | Section 183 |
| Warrant of arrest, including recall of a non-bailable warrant | Section 70 | Section 72 |
| Maintenance of wives, children, and parents | Section 125 | Section 144 |
| Inherent powers of the High Court (including quashing) | Section 482 | Section 528 |
| Revision | Section 397 | Section 438 |
| Appeal against conviction | Section 374 | Section 415 |
| Search of a place, and search and seizure generally | Section 100 | Section 103 |
| Manner of pronouncing judgment | Section 353 | Section 392 |
| Repeal and savings | Not applicable | Section 531 |

A useful memory check as you use this table: the CrPC's Section 482, the provision every litigator invoked for quashing, has moved to BNSS Section 528, covered in more depth in our piece on [inherent powers of the High Court under BNSS Section 528](/blog/bnss-section-528-inherent-powers). The number 482 has not disappeared from criminal practice, it has simply changed meaning, because BNSS Section 482 is now anticipatory bail, the old Section 438 CrPC, the subject of our separate [guide to anticipatory bail under BNSS Section 482](/blog/anticipatory-bail-bnss-section-482). Confusing these two 482s is the single most common transcription error lawyers are likely to make in the first years of this transition, and it is worth flagging to every junior drafting a petition.

The distinction between cognizable and non-cognizable offences, which decides whether the police can register an FIR under Section 173 BNSS without a magistrate's order in the first place, is covered in our piece on [cognizable versus non-cognizable offences](/blog/cognizable-vs-non-cognizable). Whether an offence is bailable or non-bailable, which decides which of the bail provisions in the table above applies, is covered separately in [bailable versus non-bailable offences](/blog/bailable-vs-non-bailable).

Sources for this table: [Indian Kanoon](https://indiankanoon.org) judgment excerpts explicitly stating the correspondence for each pair listed (cited individually in the report accompanying this piece), [PRS Legislative Research's BNSS bill analysis](https://prsindia.org/billtrack/the-bharatiya-nagarik-suraksha-sanhita-2023), and [Drishti Judiciary's section-wise BNSS and CrPC comparison series](https://www.drishtijudiciary.com/to-the-point/bharatiya-nagarik-suraksha-sanhita-&-code-of-criminal-procedure) for cognizance. For the primary text of any section before you rely on it in a filing, go to [India Code](https://www.indiacode.nic.in), the government's official repository.

If you are working a matter that also touches the penal provisions, our companion piece on [IPC to BNS section mapping](/blog/bns-ipc-section-mapping) covers the substantive offences; this piece stays on procedure.

## Renumbered only versus procedure changed

Most of the table above looks like a pure find-and-replace exercise, and for a large share of it, that is exactly what happened: the drafters kept the substance and moved the number. But a meaningful minority of BNSS provisions changed what the provision actually requires, not just where you find it. Treating every entry in a CrPC-to-BNSS table as a like-for-like swap is the mistake that produces bad advice, because a lawyer who checks only the number and not the text will miss a new timeline, a new mandatory step, or a narrowed discretion sitting inside a section that looks familiar.

| Provision | CrPC section | BNSS section | Renumbered only |
|---|---|---|---|
| FIR registration for a cognizable offence | 154 | 173 | ✗ (adds zero FIR and e-FIR as statutory rights) |
| Arrest without warrant, notice before arrest | 41 / 41A | 35 | ✓ |
| Remand to custody | 167 | 187 | ✗ (custody-in-parts mechanics changed) |
| Anticipatory bail | 438 | 482 | ✓ |
| Search of a place | 100 | 103 | ✗ (mandatory audio-video recording added) |
| Maintenance of wives, children, parents | 125 | 144 | ✓ |
| Inherent powers of the High Court | 482 | 528 | ✓ |
| Manner of pronouncing judgment | 353 | 392 | ✗ (electronic pronouncement and free-copy rules added) |
| Cognizance by a magistrate | 190 | 210 | ✓ |
| Framing of charge (sessions case) | 228 | 251 | ✓ |

## Provisions where the procedure actually changed

This is the part of a CrPC-to-BNSS conversion that most quick-reference tables skip, because it takes more than a lookup to get right. Below are the changes that are not cosmetic: a new number attached to a genuinely different obligation, timeline, or power.

**FIR registration gained two statutory rights it did not have under the CrPC.** Section 173 BNSS states that any police officer who receives information about a cognizable offence must register it regardless of where the offence occurred, giving statutory footing to what practitioners called a zero FIR: an FIR lodged at a station outside its territorial jurisdiction, later transferred to the competent station. The same section allows information to be given electronically, with the informant required to sign the recorded statement in person within three days. Neither the zero FIR concept nor e-FIR registration existed as a codified right under Section 154 CrPC; both were administrative practice in some states before 1 July 2024, applied unevenly.

**Remand and custody-in-parts changed how the 15-day police custody window works.** Under Section 167 CrPC, the 15-day period during which a magistrate could authorise police custody had to be exhausted, if at all, within the first 15 days after arrest. Section 187 BNSS keeps the 15-day outer limit on total police custody but allows it to be authorised in parts, spread across the first 40 or 60 days of the total investigation period depending on the offence, rather than requiring it to be used or lost in the opening fortnight. This is a real expansion of when police custody can be sought, and it changes the calculus for a defence lawyer watching the custody clock, not merely the label on the provision. [PRS Legislative Research's analysis of the Bill](https://prsindia.org/billtrack/the-bharatiya-nagarik-suraksha-sanhita-2023) describes this shift directly.

**The chargesheet clock and default bail sit in Section 187(3) BNSS, not Section 193.** This point is worth stating plainly because a wrong section number is already circulating for it. Section 187(3) BNSS carries forward the CrPC's chargesheet timelines: 60 days from the FIR for offences punishable with less than ten years, and 90 days for offences punishable with ten years, life imprisonment, or death. If the police miss the applicable deadline, the accused acquires the right to apply for default bail. Section 193 BNSS is a different provision entirely, dealing with the police report itself and its contents on completion of investigation. If your matter turns on the sixty-or-ninety-day default bail clock, the section to cite is 187(3), and it belongs alongside the discussion of default bail rather than tucked into the "how the police report is filed" chapter. Our [full walkthrough of default bail under BNSS Section 187](/blog/default-bail-bnss-section-187) covers the calculation in detail, and our [step-by-step guide to drafting a bail application](/blog/drafting-bail-application-guide) covers how to plead the deadline once it has been missed.

**Search and seizure now carries a mandatory audio-video recording requirement.** Section 105 BNSS requires that search and seizure be video-recorded, and courts have already held this requirement mandatory, including for searches conducted under the transitional period straddling the two codes. The CrPC's equivalent provisions on search of a place, Section 100 and its neighbours, had no such recording mandate. For an accused challenging the evidentiary weight of a seizure, whether a video record exists is now a live, checkable fact, not a matter of the investigating officer's practice, and it is exactly the kind of procedural defect our piece on [FIR quashing orders that must state the specific allegations](/blog/fir-quashing-orders-must-state-allegations) treats as grounds worth pleading.

**Trial in absentia for proclaimed offenders is a genuinely new power.** Section 356 BNSS allows a court to proceed with the trial, and pronounce judgment, in the absence of an accused who has been declared a proclaimed offender for absconding, once at least 90 days have passed from the framing of charge. The CrPC allowed evidence to be recorded in an accused's absence in limited circumstances under Section 299, but conducting a full trial through to conviction without the accused physically or virtually present is new procedural ground, adopted specifically to stop proclaimed offenders from indefinitely stalling proceedings by staying missing.

**Mandatory forensic visits attach a new evidentiary step to serious offences.** For any offence punishable with seven years' imprisonment or more, Section 176(3) BNSS requires a forensic expert to visit the crime scene and document it, a structural requirement with no CrPC equivalent. [PRS's Bill analysis](https://prsindia.org/billtrack/the-bharatiya-nagarik-suraksha-sanhita-2023) confirms this as one of the Bill's stated additions. Whether the requirement is met in practice depends heavily on forensic science laboratory capacity, which is uneven across states, and a defence lawyer should treat the absence of a documented forensic visit in a serious case as a fact worth raising, not assuming compliance.

## BNSS provisions with no CrPC ancestor

Two provisions stand out as procedural mechanisms that simply did not exist under the CrPC, rather than an old idea moved to a new number.

The mandatory forensic-visit requirement of Section 176(3) BNSS, described above, has no CrPC counterpart: crime-scene forensic documentation was a matter of investigative practice and state police manuals, never a central statutory command.

Trial in absentia for a proclaimed offender under Section 356 BNSS is likewise new as a complete procedural pathway. The CrPC permitted narrower steps in an accused's absence, such as recording evidence under Section 299, but did not authorise a court to try a proclaimed offender to conviction without them.

This is a short list on purpose. Most of what looks new in the BNSS on first read turns out, on checking the CrPC text, to be an existing power with an added timeline, a new documentation requirement, or a widened window rather than something invented from nothing. Claims of an entirely new BNSS mechanism deserve the same scrutiny as a claimed section-number correspondence: check the CrPC provision it is being compared against before repeating the claim.

## CrPC provisions with no BNSS successor

Genuine deletions, as opposed to consolidations or renumbering, are also rare, and this section is short for the same reason the one above is: most CrPC content survived in some form. The clearest verified example is the CrPC's provision for Metropolitan Magistrates. The CrPC allowed state governments to notify any city or town with a population above one million as a metropolitan area, with a distinct category of Metropolitan Magistrate presiding over it. [PRS Legislative Research's analysis](https://prsindia.org/billtrack/the-bharatiya-nagarik-suraksha-sanhita-2023) states plainly that the Bill omits this provision; the BNSS does not carry forward a separate metropolitan-area magistracy, folding those functions into the ordinary judicial magistrate structure.

Beyond that one confirmed example, independent verification did not surface further CrPC provisions that were dropped outright with nothing standing in their place. Provisions that appear at first glance to have vanished, on checking, usually turn out to have moved: a candidate this piece checked and ruled out is the CrPC's probation-on-release provision, Section 360, which is often assumed superseded by the standalone Probation of Offenders Act and therefore expected to have been dropped; it in fact continues under BNSS Section 401. That check is a useful illustration of why this section stays short: the assumption that a provision has been deleted is exactly the kind of claim that needs verification before it goes into a reference table, and most such assumptions turn out to be wrong.

## Which code applies to a pending case

The governing rule is the date of the offence, not the date of the FIR, the arrest, the chargesheet, or the hearing. An offence committed on or before 30 June 2024 is investigated, prosecuted, and tried under the CrPC, the IPC, and the Evidence Act. An offence committed on or after 1 July 2024 falls under the BNSS, the BNS, and the BSA. Our companion piece on [what changed when the new criminal laws came into force](/blog/new-criminal-laws-bns-bnss-bsa) sets out this transition rule in full; the point worth adding here is what the savings clause does for a proceeding already underway.

Section 531 BNSS is the repeal and savings provision, and it is what keeps the dual-track system from throwing every pending matter into confusion on commencement day. It repeals the CrPC, but expressly saves proceedings that were already pending on 1 July 2024: an FIR registered, an investigation underway, a trial in progress, or an appeal filed before that date continues to be governed by the CrPC procedure that applied when it started, notwithstanding the repeal. This is why a sessions court can be hearing a CrPC-governed trial in one courtroom and a BNSS-governed trial in the next, for years to come, and why a lawyer moving between the two matters in the same week has to actively track which code each one runs under.

A few consequences that follow from the date rule and Section 531 together:

- An FIR lodged before 1 July 2024 stays under the CrPC, IPC, and Evidence Act for the life of that matter, including any appeal or revision arising from it, regardless of how long the case runs.
- An FIR lodged on or after 1 July 2024 falls under the BNSS, BNS, and BSA from registration onward.
- A fresh application filed after 1 July 2024 in an old, CrPC-governed matter, such as a bail application, is still argued and decided under the CrPC provisions that govern that matter, because the savings clause preserves the whole proceeding, not just the parts already completed.
- Appeal and revision procedure follows whichever code governed the original trial, so an appeal from a CrPC trial is itself a CrPC-governed appeal even if it is heard well into the BNSS era.

For research that spans both regimes, checking whether a cited case was decided, and governed, under the old code or the new one is now a standing step in verification, alongside the ordinary [good law check](/blog/good-law-checking) on whether a precedent has since been overruled. A search tool that tags results by applicable code, rather than leaving that inference to the reader, removes one recurring source of drafting error in matters that straddle 1 July 2024; that is the specific problem [Niyam's citator and research workflow](https://niyam.ai) is built to catch on this transition, on top of ordinary good-law checking. It is worth reading alongside our piece on [how to read and brief an Indian judgment](/blog/how-to-read-a-judgment), since identifying the governing code is now a standard first step in that exercise, and our note on [neutral citations for Supreme Court judgments](/blog/e-scr-neutral-citations) is a useful companion, since a neutral citation does not change when the underlying section numbers do.

If the trial court itself delays beyond the timeline expected of it, the remedy usually runs through the High Court's supervisory jurisdiction discussed in our piece on the [three-month rule for pronouncing reserved judgments](/blog/judgments-three-month-pronouncement-rule), and, where the delay or the proceeding itself is being challenged on constitutional grounds, through the writ jurisdiction covered in [Article 226 and the High Courts](/blog/high-courts-article-226).

```mermaid
flowchart TD
    A[Case in front of you] --> B{Date of offence?}
    B -->|On or before 30 June 2024| C[CrPC, IPC, Evidence Act govern]
    B -->|On or after 1 July 2024| D[BNSS, BNS, BSA govern]
    C --> E{Was a proceeding already pending on 1 July 2024?}
    E -->|Yes: FIR, investigation, or trial underway| F[BNSS s.531 savings clause: continue under CrPC]
    E -->|No: matter starts fresh after 1 July 2024| G[Still CrPC, because offence predates 1 July 2024]
    D --> H[Every stage, FIR to appeal, follows BNSS]
    F --> I[Appeal or revision from that trial also stays CrPC]
    G --> I
```

## Frequently asked questions

### Does every CrPC section have a direct BNSS equivalent with the same content?

No. A large share of provisions were renumbered with the substance intact, but a meaningful set changed what the provision actually requires: new timelines, new mandatory documentation such as video-recorded searches, or expanded windows for exercising a power such as police custody. Always check the BNSS text of the section you are citing, not just its number, before relying on it in a filing.

### Which BNSS section holds the 60-day and 90-day chargesheet deadlines?

Section 187(3) BNSS. It carries forward the CrPC's chargesheet timelines: 60 days from the FIR for offences punishable with less than ten years, 90 days for offences punishable with ten years or more, life imprisonment, or death. A different provision, Section 193, deals with the contents of the completed police report and is not the source of these deadlines, despite being cited for them in some circulating material.

### What happened to Section 482 CrPC, the quashing provision?

It moved to Section 528 BNSS, which now carries the inherent powers of the High Court, including quashing of FIRs and proceedings. Confusingly, the number 482 did not retire: BNSS Section 482 is now anticipatory bail, the provision that was Section 438 under the CrPC. Checking both the code and the section before citing "Section 482" is now essential.

### Is BNSS Section 187 the same as CrPC Section 167 in substance?

Mostly, but not entirely. Both govern remand to police or judicial custody and the mechanics of default bail on a missed chargesheet deadline. The change is in how the 15-day police custody window can be used: BNSS allows it to be authorised in parts across a longer investigation window rather than requiring it within the first 15 days, which is a real change to defence strategy on the custody clock, not a renumbering.

### What is a zero FIR and is it a new concept under the BNSS?

A zero FIR is an FIR registered at a police station outside its territorial jurisdiction, later transferred to the competent station. The mechanism existed as administrative practice in parts of India before 1 July 2024. Section 173 BNSS gives it statutory footing for the first time, along with a right to register an FIR electronically, making both a codified entitlement rather than a discretionary practice.

### Does the BNSS require search and seizure to be video-recorded?

Yes, under Section 105 BNSS, and courts have already treated this as a mandatory requirement rather than a best practice. The CrPC's search provisions carried no equivalent recording mandate. For matters straddling the transition date, whether the recording exists is a fact worth checking directly, since its absence can be raised against the evidentiary weight of the seizure.

### What is trial in absentia under the BNSS and does the CrPC have an equivalent?

Section 356 BNSS lets a court try a proclaimed offender, someone declared to have absconded to evade trial, to conviction in their absence, once at least 90 days have passed since charges were framed. The CrPC permitted narrower steps such as recording evidence in an accused's absence, but not a full trial to judgment without the accused present. This is a genuinely new procedural pathway, not a renumbered one.

### Are Metropolitan Magistrates still a thing under the BNSS?

No. The CrPC allowed state governments to notify cities or towns above one million in population as metropolitan areas, presided over by Metropolitan Magistrates. The BNSS does not carry this category forward; those functions now sit with the ordinary judicial magistracy. This is one of the few provisions that was dropped rather than renumbered or modified.

### Which section governs anticipatory bail under the BNSS?

Section 482 BNSS, corresponding to Section 438 CrPC. The substantive test for anticipatory bail carries over from the CrPC-era case law, but always confirm you are citing Section 482 BNSS and not Section 438 CrPC when drafting for a post-1 July 2024 matter, and remember Section 482 in the old CrPC meant something different: quashing.

### What is the difference between BNSS Section 480 and Section 483 on bail?

Section 480 BNSS, corresponding to Section 437 CrPC, governs bail in non-bailable offences before courts other than the High Court or Court of Session. Section 483 BNSS, corresponding to Section 439 CrPC, carries the special, wider bail powers of the High Court and Court of Session. Which section applies depends on which court you are approaching, not on the offence alone.

### Does the maintenance provision under Section 144 BNSS work the same way as Section 125 CrPC?

The core entitlement, maintenance for a wife, children, or parents unable to maintain themselves, carries over from Section 125 CrPC to Section 144 BNSS without a substantive change to who can claim it. Our [detailed piece on maintenance under BNSS Section 144](/blog/maintenance-bnss-section-144) covers the procedure and quantum considerations in full.

### What is the effect of BNSS Section 531, the repeal and savings clause?

Section 531 BNSS repeals the CrPC but expressly saves proceedings pending on 1 July 2024: an FIR, investigation, trial, or appeal already underway continues under the CrPC procedure that governed it when it started. This is why courts run CrPC and BNSS matters side by side, and it is the provision to cite if a party argues that a pending CrPC matter should suddenly switch to BNSS procedure.

### If my client's FIR was registered in June 2024, does a bail application I file in 2026 use the CrPC or the BNSS?

The CrPC. The governing rule is the date of the offence and, through the Section 531 savings clause, the date the proceeding commenced, not the date of any later application within that same proceeding. A bail application filed in 2026 in a matter that began under the CrPC is still argued and decided under CrPC provisions, including Section 438 for anticipatory bail rather than BNSS Section 482.

### Where can I check the exact current text of a BNSS section before citing it?

Start with [India Code](https://www.indiacode.nic.in), the government's official repository of central legislation, for the authoritative text. [Indian Kanoon](https://indiankanoon.org) is useful for seeing how courts have applied and interpreted a specific section since 1 July 2024. Do not rely on a mapping table, including this one, as a substitute for reading the operative section text in the matter you are working on.

### Is BNSS Section 210 the same provision as CrPC Section 190 on cognizance?

Yes, both are titled cognizance of offences by magistrates and are substantially identical: a magistrate may take cognizance on a complaint, a police report, or information from a source other than a police officer, or on the magistrate's own knowledge. This is a renumbering rather than a procedural change.

### How is framing of charge in a sessions case affected by the BNSS?

The core mechanics carry over from Section 228 CrPC to Section 251 BNSS, and the related discharge provision moves from Section 227 CrPC to Section 250(2) BNSS. Practitioners should still confirm the current text of both sections for any procedural detail specific to their matter, since this piece covers only the section correspondence, not every subsection.

### Do I need to relearn revision and appeal procedure because of the BNSS?

The core routes carry over: revision moves from Section 397 CrPC to Section 438 BNSS, and appeal against conviction moves from Section 374 CrPC to Section 415 BNSS, both substantially preserving the earlier procedure. The numbers change, the underlying mechanics for filing and hearing do not, based on the verified mappings in this piece.