The introduction of Section 105 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, marks a significant structural departure from the regime governing search and seizure under Section 100 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. While the earlier provision relied on the credibility of independent witnesses and written panchnamas, the new framework institutionalises technological transparency by mandating the audio-video recording of the entire search and seizure process and requiring its immediate transmission to the jurisdictional Magistrate. This shift is not merely procedural; it reflects a deeper jurisprudential transformation aimed at embedding accountability within investigative discretion.
Section 100 of the CrPC was fundamentally premised on the presence of two or more independent and respectable inhabitants of the locality during the search. The legitimacy of the recovery process depended on their attestation of the seizure memo and their subsequent testimony at trial. However, experience under the CrPC revealed systemic vulnerabilities—panch witnesses frequently turning hostile, the mechanical preparation of panchnamas, and recurring allegations of planted recoveries. The evidentiary architecture was thus heavily reliant on testimonial reliability, which in practice often proved fragile.
Section 105 BNSS reorients this framework by mandating that the entire search and seizure process, including the preparation of the seizure memo and the obtaining of witness signatures, be audio-visually recorded. The statute further requires that such recording be sent forthwith to the District Magistrate, Sub-Divisional Magistrate, or Judicial Magistrate of the First Class. The use of the expression “shall” indicates legislative intent to treat compliance as obligatory. More importantly, the requirement of immediate transmission introduces contemporaneous judicial oversight, thereby strengthening chain-of-custody safeguards and reducing the scope for later evidentiary disputes.
This statutory evolution marks a transition from witness-based legitimacy to digital traceability. Rather than relying exclusively on human recollection and testimonial corroboration, the law now emphasises contemporaneous visual documentation. The reform aligns with constitutional principles of fair investigation under Article 21, as repeatedly underscored by the Supreme Court. By ensuring that the search process is recorded and promptly placed before a Magistrate, Section 105 operationalises transparency as a structural safeguard rather than a discretionary practice.
The critical question, however, concerns the legal consequences of non-compliance. Indian evidentiary jurisprudence, governed by the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, has consistently prioritised relevance over the manner of collection. Unlike the American doctrine of the Fruit of the Poisonous Tree, Indian courts have not adopted a rigid exclusionary rule that automatically renders illegally obtained evidence inadmissible. Consequently, failure to comply with Section 105 is unlikely, by itself, to invalidate the seizure or vitiate the trial. However, such non-compliance may materially affect the evidentiary weight of the recovery and invite heightened judicial scrutiny of authenticity, chain of custody, and procedural fairness.
Courts are likely to examine whether the omission caused prejudice to the accused and whether the statutory safeguard goes to the root of the prosecution case. In cases where the prosecution relies heavily on the fact of recovery, the absence of mandatory audio-video recording may substantially weaken the evidentiary foundation. Conversely, where independent corroborative material exists, courts may treat the breach as an irregularity rather than an illegality.
In comparative terms, Section 100 of the CrPC emphasises procedural propriety through independent witnesses, whereas Section 105 of the BNSS foregrounds forensic credibility through technological documentation. This transformation is emblematic of a broader modernisation of criminal procedure—one that seeks to reconcile investigative efficiency with constitutional accountability. The success of this reform will depend on robust implementation protocols, the preservation of digital integrity, and uniform compliance standards across jurisdictions.
Ultimately, Section 105 BNSS does not revolutionise admissibility doctrine but recalibrates investigative legitimacy. It signals that, in contemporary criminal jurisprudence, fairness must not only be asserted but also demonstrably recorded.
Author Bio
