The Supreme Court has held that a Section 100 CrPC violation does not by itself vitiate a seizure, but can weaken its evidentiary value when read with other doubts in the prosecution case.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Thursday (October 8) set aside a Bombay High Court (Aurangabad Bench) ruling that had reversed an accused’s acquittal for criminal breach of trust under Section 409 IPC, restoring the trial court’s acquittal after finding that the seizure of documents from his house was not duly proved. The Court held that the failure of an accused to explain a seizure cannot be treated as an incriminating circumstance, because the burden of proving a valid seizure rests on the prosecution.
A bench of Justice Ujjal Bhuyan and Justice Atul S. Chandurkar allowed the appeal. The judgment was authored by Justice Chandurkar.
The case
The trial court had acquitted the appellant after finding that the procedure under Section 100(7) of the Code of Criminal Procedure was not followed during the search and seizure. The High Court reversed that acquittal. It relied on the testimony of the Investigating Officer without further corroboration, treated the absence of the appellant’s signature on the seizure panchnama as insignificant, and reasoned that the police officer had no reason to depose falsely. The prosecution had also not supplied the list of seized items to the accused, and the panch witnesses did not support its case.
What the Court said
Justice Chandurkar found that there was an infraction of Sections 100(4) and 100(7) of the Code and that the seizure could not be held proved on the Investigating Officer’s deposition alone.
In this scenario, the seizure could not be held to be duly proved solely on the basis of deposition of the IO without any further corroboration. There is no explanation given by the IO as to why a list of the articles seized from the appellant’s house was not furnished to him.
The Court rejected the High Court’s approach of treating the seized documents as an incriminating circumstance that the appellant had to explain.
The burden of proving a valid seizure of the articles was on the prosecution, but it failed to prove the same, in accordance with law.
Irregularity, not an automatic bar
The Court clarified that not every violation of Section 100 CrPC invalidates a search or seizure.
It is true that non-compliance of the requirements of Section 100 of the Code by itself would not vitiate a seizure and the same would be an irregularity in the investigation. However, when this factor is considered cumulatively with other factors that contribute to doubting the prosecution case, the same would weigh in favour of the appellant, especially in an appeal against acquittal.
The two seizure witnesses did not support the prosecution, the Investigating Officer admitted several shortcomings, and the documentary case suffered from other serious deficiencies. The Court also held that the prosecution had failed to establish entrustment of property and dishonest intention, both essential ingredients of an offence under Section 409 IPC. It therefore restored the trial court’s acquittal and allowed the appeal.
Why the judgment matters
The ruling separates two questions that are often blurred: whether a procedural lapse in search and seizure makes the seizure void, and what weight the seized material deserves. A lapse alone is only an investigative irregularity, but where it combines with hostile panch witnesses and an uncorroborated police version, it can tip the balance. The judgment also reaffirms that an accused is not required to explain a seizure the prosecution has not first proved.
Case Title: Not stated in the available report
Bench: Justice Ujjal Bhuyan and Justice Atul S. Chandurkar, Supreme Court of India
Date of Judgment: October 8, 2026
Appearances: Senior Advocates B.H. Marlapalle and Sudhanshu S Choudhari, with Advocate-on-Record Vatsalya Vigya and others, for the appellant; Advocate Shrirang B. Varma, with Advocates Siddharth Dharmadhikari, Aaditya Aniruddha Pande (AOR) and others, for the respondent
