Beyond the Panchnama: Untangling Seizure, Recovery and Discovery Under the BNSS and BSA

 A practitioner's guide to three words that are often used interchangeably in FIRs, charge-sheets and judgments — but which carry three distinct legal consequences.

Few triads in criminal law are as loosely used, and as consequential when misunderstood, as seizure, recovery and discovery. Investigating officers write them almost as synonyms in case diaries and seizure memos. Yet each term occupies a separate compartment in the evidentiary architecture, and conflating them can weaken an otherwise sound prosecution — or, conversely, let a defective one slip through unchallenged. With the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) and the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam (BSA) now governing procedure and evidence, and with the new mandate of audio-video recording of searches, it is worth revisiting these concepts with precision — and with reference to how courts in 2026 have already begun applying them.

Three Words, Three Legal Consequences

Print Page

When money seized from accused should be returned to him and not to complainant?

 It seems to us that this order cannot be sustained in view of the clear findings of fact given by the Magistrate to the effect that no offence was committed in respect of the sum of Rs. 463 and that it did not belong to the complainant. It was on the basis of these findings that Pushkar Singh was acquitted and the amount recovered from his house was ordered to be delivered to him. Unless it was found that an offence was committed in respect of this sum, there was no jurisdiction to the High Court to order the payment of this amount to Mst. Kaushillya Bai. We have not been able to appreciate the view of the High Court that though the stolen property consisted of currency notes those notes may have been changed by the accused.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Criminal Appeal No. 22 of 1951

Decided On: 18.09.1951

Pushkar Singh  Vs. State of Madhya Bharat and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

Saiyid Fazl Ali, M.C. Mahajan and Vivian Bose, JJ.

Citation: AIR 1953 SC 508

Print Page

Whether court should return property to person from whom it was seized without considering title of third party over said property?

We are unable to subscribe to the submission which has
been urged on behalf of the first respondent that when it makes
an order under Section 452, the court is merely required to
determine the source from which the property was seized.
Indeed, if this construction were to be placed, it would mean
that the right of a person who claims title to the property
would be subordinate to the claim of a person from whose
possession the property was seized. A claim of title to the
goods which have been seized is a relevant consideration while
passing an order under Section 452. Where there are conflicting
claims of entitlement to the property, the Magistrate may deal
with them or, where it is found that the rival claims need to
be resolved after an evidentiary trial, relegate the
conflicting claimants to prove their rights and entitlements
before a competent court.
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 170 OF 2009

BHARAT SANCHAR NIGAM LIMITED  Vs  SURYANARAYANAN & ANR.

Dated:December 13, 2018
Dr. Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud, J.

Print Page

When property seized from accused be returned to him after his acquittal?

The words "may make such order as it thinks fit" in the Section, vest the Court with a discretion to dispose of the property in any of the three modes specified in the Section. But the exercise of such discretion is inherently a judicial function. The choice of the mode or manner of disposal is not to be made arbitrarily, but judicially in accordance with sound principles founded on reason and justice, keeping in view the class and nature of the property and the material before it. One of such well-recognised principles is that when after an inquiry or trial the accused is discharged or acquitted, the Court should normally restore the property of class (a) or (b) to the person from whose custody it was taken. Departure from this salutary rule of practice is not to be lightly made, when there is no dispute or doubt as in the instant case that the property in question was seized from the custody of such accused and belonged to him.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Criminal Appeal No. 155 of 1973

Decided On: 07.08.1979

N. Madhavan  Vs. State of Kerala

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

O. Chinnappa Reddy, P.N. Singhal and R.S. Sarkaria, JJ.

Citation: (1979) 4 SCC 1

Print Page

Whether seizure of blood stained clothes of accused three days after incident can be relied on?

 So far  as  the alleged  recovery  of clothes of the app/acc.no.1
and  app/acc.no.2  is concerned, the prosecution relied upon the testimony of
PW  7 Inosh Pande.  According to PW  7,   on 13.8.2011  the police called him
to the Police Station.     The bloodstained clothes   of the app/acc.no.1 Sumit
from his  person  were seized in his presence.  The clothes were  black  shirt
(P­11)     and   black     jeans   pant     (P­12).   The   police   prepared   the     seizure
Panchnama  (Exh.  157). According to PW 7  on the same day, the police  took
charge of the clothes of app/acc.no.2  Amar Lohkare.  PW 7   however failed to
recollect those clothes.  The police prepared  the seizure   panchnama (Exh.
158). 
23. On   careful     scrutiny   of the testimony fo PW   7     and the
panchnamas, it   did not   appeal to our mind that the bloodstained clothes
were   taken   charge   three   days     after   the   incident   from   the   person   of
app/acc.nos.1 and 2  and  the  accused persons  were wandering in the town
with those alleged bloodstained clothes. The alleged  recovery of the clothes

does not appear to be convincing   and   appears to be doubtful. Thus, no
reliance  can be placed on the recovery of clothes of  app/accd.Nos.1 and 2.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
 BENCH AT NAGPUR, NAGPUR.

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 521/2014


Amar  s/o Ramesh  Lohkare
v 
The State of Maharashtra


 CORAM :    B.R. GAVAI &
    Mrs. SWAPNA  JOSHI,JJ.
DATED :       4th May, 2016
Citation: 2017 CRLJ(NOC)33 Bom

Print Page

When Magistrate should release of cash on supratnama?

The recital in the sale deed that vendee has received the
entire consideration amount is not conclusive proof in support of
correctness of the recital. In the revision affidavits of Shivraj Kundu, Ved
Pal, Rohit Kundu, Rakesh Arya and Rajesh Mann vendees of sale deeds
No. 201, 202, 203, 204 and 206 respectively have been placed on record.
In the affidavits it has been stated that they had paid ` 75,000/- in cash
and handed over cheque of ` 6,00,000/- to Anil Talwar. The payment
through cheque was to be made after two months. Anil Talwar had sent
Rohit Kothal and Nitish Joshi and each vendee paid ` 6,00,000/- out of
the sale consideration to them. The money so apprehended by the police
on 18.4.2011 was paid by vendees to Rohit Kothal and Nitish Joshi.
10.
The Section 102 (1) Cr.P.C. provides that any police officer
may seize any property which may be alleged or suspected to have
been stolen, or which may be found under circumstances which create
suspicion of the commission of any offence. The petitioner in the reply
before learned Judicial Magistrate has not taken the plea that the
currency notes seized from Rohit Kothal and Nitish Joshi were
alleged/suspected
to
have
been
stolen
or
were
found
under
circumstances which creates suspicion of the commission of any offence.
The proceeding under Sections 41, 109 Cr.P.C. has already been closed
by the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Paonta Sahib on 11.5.2011. Thus, there
is no foundation for seizing of ` 30 lacs by the police from Rohit Kothal
and Nitish Joshi on 18.4.2011.
11.
There is substance in the contention of the respondent that
even till now no other person except the respondent has claimed the
amount taken into possession by the police from Rohit Kothal and Nitish
Joshi on 18.4.2011. Rohit Kothal and Nitish Joshi moved an application
for release of the amount on the ground that the money was recovered
from them but the learned Judicial Magistrate did not release the amount
to them, but this does not mean that the respondent is not entitled to the
amount of ` 30 lacs recovered by police from Rohit Kothal and Nitish
Joshi.
12.
There is enough material on record that respondent had sold
his properties to various vendees vide sale deeds No.201, 202, 203, 204
and 206 for a sale consideration of ` 6,75,000/- each. He had received
` 3,75,000/- in cash from the vendees at the time of registration of the
sale deeds and balance amount of ` 30 lacs was paid to respondent by
the vendees through Rohit Kothal and Nitish Joshi. The learned Sessions
Judge has recorded a finding of fact which has not been shown to be
perverse. There is no error of jurisdiction. The view taken by the learned
Sessions Judge emerges from the material on record. 

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA.

Cr.MMO No. 110 of 2012

Date of decision: 30.10.2012
State of Himachal Pradesh  Vs  Anil Talwar 

The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kuldip Singh, Judge.
Citation; 2013 CR L J 368 HP

Print Page

Whether police has power to seize or prohibit operation of bank account of accused?

 We see no justification to give any narrow interpretation to the provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code. It is well known that corruption in public offices has become so rampant that it has become difficult to cope up with the same. Then again the time consumed by the Courts in concluding the trials is another factor which should be borne in mind in interpreting the provisions of Section 102 of the Criminal Procedure Code and the underlying object engrafted therein, inasmuch as if there can be no order of seizure of the bank account of the accused then the entire money deposited in a bank which is ultimately held in the trial to be the outcome of the illegal gratification, could be withdrawn by the accused and the Courts would be powerless to get the said money which has any direct link with the commission of the offence committed by the accused as a public officer. We are, therefore, persuaded to take the view that the bank account of the accused or any of his relation is `property' within the meaning of Section 102 of the Criminal Procedure Code and a police officer in course of investigation can seize or prohibit the operation of the said account if such assets have direct links with the commission of the offence for which the police officer is investigating into.

Supreme Court of India

State Of Maharashtra vs Tapas D. Neogy on 16 September, 1999

Citation;1999 AIR SCW3389

Print Page