Case Law Details
Sk. Sirajuddin Vs State of Odisha (Orissa High Court)
Material Facts
The petitioners filed a Criminal Miscellaneous Petition seeking a declaration that the action of the Investigating Officer, Daitari Police Station, pursuant to search warrants dated 06.01.2026 issued under Sections 96 and 97 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) in connection with Daitari P.S. Case No.107 of 2025 was illegal and arbitrary. They also sought consequential reliefs.
The petitioners were accused in Daitari P.S. Case No.107 dated 29.10.2025 registered under Sections 303(2), 317(2), 109, 111(3), 325 and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, Section 11(1)(d) of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act and Section 7(1) of the Orissa Prevention of Cow Slaughter Act, 1980. Pursuant to search warrants issued by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Keonjhar, searches were conducted at their residences and various articles were seized.
Procedural History
The search warrants were issued on 06.01.2026 by the learned JMFC (Cog. Taking), Keonjhar under Section 96 of the BNSS. Following the searches and seizures, the petitioners approached the Orissa High Court by filing the present Criminal Miscellaneous Petition under Article 226 seeking declaration that the searches and seizures were illegal.
Legal Issues
- Whether the searches and seizures conducted pursuant to warrants issued under Section 96 of the BNSS were illegal or arbitrary.
- Whether seizure of cash, gold, silver ornaments and vehicles could be declared illegal.
- Whether the High Court should interfere with the seizure when statutory remedies were available.
Relevant Statutory Provisions
- Sections 96, 97, 185 and 497 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.
- Sections 303(2), 317(2), 109, 111(3), 325 and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.
- Section 11(1)(d) of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act.
- Section 7(1) of the Orissa Prevention of Cow Slaughter Act, 1980.
Petitioners’ Submissions
The petitioners submitted that:
- They were reputed businessmen.
- Search warrants were issued without issuing notice under Section 94 of the BNSS.
- Although the warrants were issued for searching stolen cattle, stolen vehicles, arms, ammunition, incriminating documents and other incriminating articles, the search team seized household articles, cash, gold and silver ornaments and vehicles.
- Household articles were subsequently released in their zima, whereas cash, gold, silver ornaments and vehicles were retained.
- The seized cash, jewellery and vehicles had no connection with the offences under investigation and therefore could not be treated as proceeds of crime.
- The Investigating Officer exceeded his jurisdiction and the seizure should be declared illegal, with release of the seized articles in the petitioners’ zima.
Opposite Parties’ Submissions
The opposite parties submitted that:
- The Investigating Officer obtained search warrants from the learned JMFC.
- Fifteen teams were constituted to simultaneously conduct searches at different locations.
- It was a case of organised crime involving interconnected accused persons.
- Cash, gold, silver ornaments and vehicles were seized as the accused persons were unable to satisfactorily disclose or establish their legitimate source.
- The learned JMFC was competent to issue the search warrants and the seized articles were suspected to be proceeds of crime, making the seizures lawful.
Court’s Findings and Reasoning
The High Court observed that the articles had been seized pursuant to search warrants issued by the learned JMFC under Section 96 of the BNSS.
The Court held that since the Magistrate had the power to issue such warrants and the articles were seized pursuant to those warrants on suspicion of being proceeds of crime, there was no reason to declare the seizure illegal or arbitrary.
The Court further observed that, even in the absence of a search warrant, a police officer possesses the power to search and seize under Section 185 of the BNSS. Accordingly, the Court declined to interfere with the impugned action.
The Court also observed that the petitioners had a statutory remedy under Section 497 of the BNSS to apply before the competent court for release of the seized property during investigation.
Final Ruling
The Orissa High Court declined to interfere with the searches and seizures conducted pursuant to the search warrants, held that the petitioners could seek release of the seized property under Section 497 of the BNSS, and dismissed the Criminal Miscellaneous Petition.
Orissa HC Upholds Seizure of Cash, Gold & Vehicles Under BNSS; Notes Scope of ‘Objectionable Articles’ u/s 97 of Customs Act
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF ORISSA HIGH COURT
This CRLMP has been filed with the following prayer:-
“Under the aforesaid facts and circumstances, it is therefore, prayed that this Hon’ble Court may graciously be pleased to:
(i) declare/ hold that the action taken by the 1.1. C., Daitari Police Station (Opp. Party No.3) is illegal and arbitrary, pertaining search Warrant, dt.06.01.2026 in compliance with Section 96 and 97 of B.N.S.S, 2023 in connection with Daitari P.S. Case No.107 of 2025, corresponding to G.R. Case No.1221 of 2025, which is bad and non-est in the eye of law;
(ii) pass such other order(s) or issue direction(s) as may be deemed fit and proper in the bona fide interest of justice;
And for which act of kindness, the Petitioners as in duty bound, shall ever pray.”
2. The Petitioners are accused in Daitari PS Case No.107 dated 29.10.2025 registered under Sections 303(2)/317(2)/109/ 111(3)/325/3(5) of BNS, 2023 and Section 11(1)(d) of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act (PCA) and Section 7(1) of the Orissa Prevention of Cow Slaughter Act, 1980, along with others.
3. Pursuant to issue of search warrants on 06.01.2026 under Section 96 of the BNSS by the learned J.M.F.C. (Cog. Taking), Keonjhar, for search of the residential premises of the accused persons, their houses were searched and a number of articles were seized from the houses of some of the Petitioners and Sk. Rahim (father of Sk. Mojahir, Petitioner in CRLMP No.269 of 2026) as per search / inventory lists (Annexure-3 series).
SUBMISSIONS
4. Mr. Partha Sarathi Das, learned counsel for the Petitioners submits that the Petitioners are reputed businessman of the locality. Search warrants were issued without issuing notice under Section 94 of the BNSS. Pursuant to issue of the search warrants for search of the residential premises of the Petitioners for “stolen cattle, stolen vehicles, arms, ammunitions, incriminating documents and other incriminating articles connected with the offence”, household articles, cash, gold and silver ornaments and vehicles were seized. Household articles were released in zima of the Petitioners. But gold, cash and vehicles were not released and they were taken away for further investigation. These articles do not have any connection with the alleged offences for which the case has been registered, so they cannot be considered to be proceeds of the crime and hence could not have been seized. The search party / I.O. have exceeded their jurisdiction as they could not have seized the cash, silver or the gold ornaments on the vehicles which had no connection with the offences for which the case has been registered, so their seizure is illegal and should be declared as such. The cash and gold and silver ornaments, should have been released in the zima of the Petitioners.
Rejoinder affidavit has been filed on behalf of the Petitioners refuting the averments in the counter affidavits.
5. Counter affidavits have been filed by Opp. Parties No.3 and 4, stating that on the prayer of the I.O. for issuing house search warrant, the learned J.M.F.C. issued search warrant against Sk. Mojahir and others. Several teams were formed on 16.01.2026 for conducting search in the houses of the accused persons as it would not be possible for the 10 to conduct the searches at the same time is so many places. Accordingly, fifteen teams were formed and they proceeded to different destination at Jharpokharia, Bisoi, Tentoposi, Chadheibhol, Karanjia under Mayurbhanj District, Santarapur (Keonjhar District), Baruan, Jajpur, Bhadrak, Ghasipura, Telkoi, Turumunga, Thakurmunda, Jamujodi (Harichandanpur), Kendrei (Mayurbhanj) respectively. It is further stated that it is a case of organized crime and all the accused persons are connected with each other. House search was conducted in the houses of Sk. Sirajuddin and Sk. Shoaib and three vehicles approximate cost of Rs.27 lakhs and household articles of Rs.51,000/- were seized. Household articles were left in the zima. House of Mujafar Hosen and Sk. Mojahir Hosen, son of Sk. Rahim were searched and different household articles, gold, silver ornaments and next cash of Rs.3,84,100/- and vehicles of Petitioners No. 2 and 4 approximate total cost of Rs.16,42,000/- were seized for which they could not satisfactorily disclose the legitimate source of income. Cash of Rs.26,00,000/- was seized from the house search Sk. Allaudin, Sk. Farhan and Sk. Rehan all sons of Sk. Sarful @ Sk. Sarfuddin and Sk. Sarful @ Sk. Sarfuddin. Three numbers of vehicles, gold ornaments 107.66 grams, silver ornaments 1072 grams and household articles approximately worth Rs.8,00,000/-. From house of Nasir Alli and Sk. Asgar both sons of Sk. Allam Alli, cash of Rs.3,23,310/-, four vehicles and gold and silver ornaments were seized. These articles were seized as the accused persons were unable to satisfactorily disclose or establish the legitimate source of the aforesaid huge amount of cash, gold and property.
6. Mr. Amitabh Pradhan, learned Additional Standing Counsel submits that the learned JMFC had the power to issue the search warrant. Therefore, seizure of articles including cash, gold ornaments and vehicles being suspected to be the proceeds of the crime, pursuant to such search, is not illegal.
STATUTORY PROVISIONS
7. The relevant statutory provisions – Sections 96, 97 and 185 of the BNSS are extracted below:-
“Section 96. When search-warrant may be issued
(1) Where —
a. any Court has reason to believe that a person to whom a summons order under section 94 or a requisition under sub-section (1) of section 95 has been, or might be, addressed, will not or would not produce the document or thing as required by such summons or requisition; or
b. such document or thing is not known to the Court to be in the possession of any person; or
c. the Court considers that the purposes of any inquiry, trial or other proceeding under this Sanhita will be served by a general search or inspection, it may issue a search-warrant; and the person to whom such warrant is directed, may search or inspect in accordance therewith and the provisions hereinafter contained.
(2) The Court may, U. it thinks fit, specify in the warrant the particular place or part thereof to which only the search or inspection shall extend; and the person charged with the execution of such warrant shall then search or inspect only the place or part so specified.
(3) Nothing contained in this section shall authorise any Magistrate other than a District Magistrate or Chief Judicial Magistrate to grant a warrant to search for a document, parcel or other thing in the custody of the postal authority.
“Section 97. Search of place suspected to contain stolen property, forged documents, etc. – (1) If a District Magistrate, Sub-divisional Magistrate or Magistrate of the first class, upon information and after such inquiry as he thinks necessary, has reason to believe that any place is used for the deposit or sale of stolen property, or for the deposit, sale or production of any objectionable article to which this section applies, or that any such objectionable article is deposited in any place, he may by warrant authorise any police officer above the rank of a constable —
a. to enter, with such assistance as may be required, such place;
b. to search the same in the manner specified in the warrant;
c. to take possession of any property or article therein found which he reasonably suspects to be stolen property or objectionable article to which this section applies;
d. to convey such property or article before a Magistrate, or to guard the same on the spot until the offender is taken before a Magistrate, or otherwise to dispose of it in some place of safety;
e. to take into custody and carry before a Magistrate every person found in such place who appears to have been privy to the deposit, sale or production of any such property or article knowing or having reasonable cause to suspect it to be stolen property or, as the case may be, objectionable article to which this section applies.
(2) The objectionable articles to which this section applies are—
a. counterfeit coin;
b. pieces of metal made in contravention of the Coinage Act, 2011, or brought into India in contravention of any notification for the time being in force issued under section 11 of the Customs Act, 1962;
c. counterfeit currency note; counterfeit stamps;
d. forged documents;
e. false seals;
f. obscene objects referred to in section 294 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023;
g. instruments or materials used for the production of any of the articles mentioned in clauses (a) to
Section 185 of the BNSS is extracted below:-
“Section 185. Search by police officer – (1) Whenever an officer in charge of a police station or a police officer making an investigation has reasonable grounds for believing that anything necessary for the purposes of an investigation into any offence which he is authorised to investigate may be found in any place within the limits of the police station of which he is in charge, or to which he is attached, and that such thing cannot in his opinion be otherwise obtained without undue delay, such officer may, after recording in writing the grounds of his belief in the case-diary and specifying in such writing, so far as possible, the thing for which search is to be made, search, or cause search to be made, for such thing in any place within the limits of such station.
(2) A police officer proceeding under sub-section (1), shall, if practicable, conduct the search in person:
Provided that the search conducted under this section shall be recorded through audio-video electronic means preferably by mobile phone.
(3) If he is unable to conduct the search in person, and there is no other person competent to make the search present at the time, he may, after recording in writing his reasons for so doing, require any officer subordinate to him to make the search, and he shall deliver to such subordinate officer an order in writing, specking the place to be searched, and so far as possible, the thing for which search is to be made; and such subordinate officer may thereupon search for such thing in such place.
(4) The provisions of this Sanhita as to search-warrants and the general provisions as to searches contained in section 103 shall, so far as may be, apply to a search made under this section.
(5) Copies of any record made under sub-section (1) or sub-section (3) shall forthwith, but not later than forty-eight hours, be sent to the nearest Magistrate empowered to take cognizance of the offence, and the owner or occupier of the place searched shall, on application, be furnished, free of cost, with a copy of the same by the Magistrate.”
ANALYSIS AND CONCLUSION
8. The articles have been seized pursuant to search warrants issued by the learned J.M.F.C. (Cog. Taking), Keonjhar under Section 96 of the BNSS. As the learned Magistrate had the power to issue such warrant and the articles having been seized on the basis of such search warrants, being suspected to be proceeds of the crime, I find no reason to declare the seizure illegal or arbitrary. Even otherwise, in absence of a search warrant, a Police Officer has the power to search and seize under Section 185 of the BNSS, I am therefore not inclined to interfere in the matter.
9. The Petitioners have the remedy under Section 497 of the BNSS to apply before the Court for release of any property which have been seized during investigation.
10. The CRLMP is accordingly dismissed.
Author Bio
