सं Samvidhan

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023

Section 103

Persons in charge of closed place to allow search

Why this exists

This provision continues the long-standing safeguard (earlier Section 100 of the CrPC, 1973, itself rooted in 19th-century codes) meant to stop police from conducting searches secretly or arbitrarily. By requiring independent witnesses, documented seizure lists, and the presence of the occupant, the law tries to prevent planted evidence, abuse of power, and disputes over what was actually found during a search.

How courts read it

Under the equivalent CrPC Section 100, courts have held that failure to call independent witnesses or improper search procedure does not automatically invalidate a seizure, but it seriously weakens its evidentiary value and invites suspicion of foul play. Courts have also emphasized that female search subjects must be searched only by women, treating this as a mandatory dignity safeguard, and that occupants have a real right to watch searches and receive seizure lists, not just a formality.

Common misconceptions
  • Myth: Police can search anyone on the spot without any witnesses.
    Fact: The law requires independent witnesses to observe searches and sign the list of seized items, to keep the process transparent.
  • Myth: Witnesses to a search will definitely have to testify in court later.
    Fact: The law says witnesses need not attend court unless specially summoned by it.
  • Myth: A woman can be searched by any police officer present.
    Fact: The law specifically requires that a woman be searched only by another woman, with strict regard to decency.