✓ Substantially Identical

Law Transition Comparison: Section 26 IEA vs Section 24 BSA

Side-by-side analysis of statutory changes, penal differences, bailable classification, trial courts, and precedents following India's July 2024 criminal law transition.

AI Legal Analysis & Key Differences

No material statutory changes have been made to the core text of this provision during the transition. The wording, elements, and thresholds remain substantially identical. However, practitioners must adapt to the new section numbering and procedural alignment under the 2023 Sanhitas.

Transition Checklist for Legal Practitioners

✓

Verify Date of Offense (Crucial for Application)

If the alleged offense occurred before July 1, 2024, substantive charges must be filed under the old act (BSA). For offenses on or after July 1, 2024, use the new Sanhita (IEA).

✓

Nomenclature Audit in Pleadings

Ensure all draft petitions, FIRs, charge sheets, and bail applications refer to Section 26 of the IEA instead of the old Section 24 of the BSA.

✓

Confirm Savings Clause Compliance

Apply the savings clause (Section 531 BNSS or Section 358 BNS) to confirm that any trials, appeals, or investigations pending as of July 1, 2024 continue under the old code (BSA) as if the new Sanhitas had not been enacted.

✓

Review Updated Bail and Trial Jurisdiction

Double-check the schedule in BNSS or CrPC to verify if the trial court jurisdiction (e.g. Session Court vs Magistrate) or the bailable status has been altered for Section 26.

Act Source (Active Site)

Section 26

Indian Evidence Act, 1872

Official Statutory Text

No confession made by any person whilst the is in the custody of a police officer, unless it be made in the immediate presence of a Magistrate1, shall be proved as against such person.

Procedural Profile

Offence Category	N/A / Procedural
Bail Eligibility	Procedural
Arrest Classification	Procedural
Trial Court	Procedural
Max Punishment	Procedural

Act Source (Compared)

Section 24

Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam

Official Statutory Text

for same offence.—When more persons than one are being tried jointly for the same offence, and a confession made by one of such persons affecting himself and some other of such persons is proved, the Court may take into consideration such confession as against such other person as well as against the person who makes such confession. Explanation I.—“Offence”, as used in this section, includes the abetment of, or attempt to commit, the offence. Explanation II.—A trial of more persons than one held in the absence of the accused who has absconded or who fails to comply with a proclamation issued under section 84 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 shall be deemed to be a joint trial for the purpose of this section. Illustrations. (a) A and B are jointly tried for the murder of C. It is proved that A said—“B and I murdered C”. The Court may consider the effect of this confession as against B. (b) A is on his trial for the murder of C. There is evidence to show that C was murdered by A and B, and that B said— “A and I murdered C”. This statement may not be taken into consideration by the Court against A, as B is not being jointly tried.

Procedural Profile

Offence Category	N/A / Procedural
Bail Eligibility	Procedural
Arrest Classification	Procedural
Trial Court	Procedural
Max Punishment	Procedural

Explore Section 26 Details Explore Section 24 Details