Section 100 CrPC Violation Does Not Vitiate Seizure

Source: Supreme Court

Why in News? 

A bench of Justice Ujjal Bhuyan and Justice Atul S. Chandurkar of the Supreme Court decided Ramkrushna Prahllad Dongardive v. State of Maharashtra (2026). The Court held that non-compliance with Section 100 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC), now Section 103 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), does not by itself vitiate a seizure, but may affect its evidentiary value when read with other infirmities. The Court set aside the Bombay High Court’s (Aurangabad Bench) judgment reversing the acquittal and restored the trial court’s order of acquittal. 

What was the Background of Ramkrushna Prahllad Dongardive v. State of Maharashtra (2026) Case? 

• The appellant was tried for criminal breach of trust under Section 409 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC), now Section 316(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS). 
• During investigation, documents were allegedly seized from the appellant’s house. 
• The trial court found that the procedure prescribed under Section 100(7) CrPC had not been followed during the search and seizure, and acquitted the appellant. 
• The State appealed against the acquittal before the Bombay High Court, Aurangabad Bench. 
• The High Court reversed the acquittal and convicted the appellant. It:  
  • Relied solely on the testimony of the Investigating Officer (IO), without further corroboration, to treat the seizure as valid. 
  • Held that the absence of the appellant’s signature on the seizure panchnama was not significant. 
  • Reasoned that there was no reason for the police officer to depose falsely about the seizure. 
  • Treated the seized documents as an incriminating circumstance which the appellant had failed to explain. 
• The High Court did so despite the list of seized items not being supplied to the appellant and both panch witnesses turning hostile. 
• Aggrieved, the appellant approached the Supreme Court. 

What were the Court’s Observations? 

On non-compliance with Section 100 CrPC: 

• There was an infraction of Sections 100(4) and 100(7) CrPC due to non-compliance with their requirements. 
• In such circumstances, the seizure could not be held proved merely on the IO’s deposition without further corroboration. 
• The IO offered no explanation for why a list of the articles seized from the appellant’s house was not furnished to him. 

On the burden of proof: 

• The burden of proving a valid seizure lies on the prosecution, which failed to discharge it in accordance with law. 
• The High Court erred in relying on the seizure and treating it as an incriminating circumstance against the appellant. 
• The High Court also erred in drawing an adverse inference from the appellant’s failure to explain the seized documents. 

On the effect of procedural violation: 

• Non-compliance with Section 100 CrPC, by itself, does not vitiate a seizure; it is only an irregularity in the investigation. 
• However, when this factor is considered cumulatively with other factors casting doubt on the prosecution case, it weighs in favour of the accused, especially in an appeal against acquittal. 
• In the present case:  
  • Both seizure witnesses did not support the prosecution. 
  • The IO himself admitted several shortcomings in the investigation. 
  • The prosecution’s documentary case suffered from other serious deficiencies. 

On the ingredients of Section 409 IPC: 

• The prosecution failed to establish both entrustment of property and dishonest intention, which are essential ingredients of the offence under Section 409 IPC. 

Conclusion: 

• The Court allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court’s judgment and restored the trial court’s order of acquittal.

What is Section 103 of the BNSS? 

About: 

• Section 103 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 deals with the duty of persons in charge of a closed place to allow search, and lays down the procedure for conducting a search. 
• It corresponds to Section 100 of the CrPC. 

Provisions: 

• Section 103(1): Whenever a place liable to search is closed, the person residing in or in charge of it shall, on demand and on production of the warrant, allow free ingress and afford all reasonable facilities for the search. 
• Section 103(2): If ingress cannot be obtained, the officer may proceed in the manner provided under Section 44(2) BNSS (break open the door or window). 
• Section 103(3): Any person in or about such place who is reasonably suspected of concealing an article for which search should be made may be searched. If the person is a woman, the search shall be made by another woman with strict regard to decency. 
• Section 103(4): Before making a search, the officer shall call upon two or more independent and respectable inhabitants of the locality (or of any other locality, if none is available or willing) to attend and witness the search. 
• Section 103(5): The search shall be made in their presence, and a list of all things seized and the places where they were found shall be prepared and signed by the witnesses. A witness to the search shall not be required to attend court unless specially summoned. 
• Section 103(6): The occupant of the place searched, or a person on his behalf, shall be permitted to attend during the search, and a copy of the list, signed by the witnesses, shall be delivered to him. 
• Section 103(7): When a person is searched under sub-section (3), a list of all things taken possession of shall be prepared and a copy delivered to that person. 
• Section 103(8): Any person who, without reasonable cause, refuses or neglects to attend and witness a search when called upon by a written order shall be deemed to have committed an offence under Section 222 of the BNS.