Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023
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 (11 of 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 (52 of 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 (45 of 2023);
(g) instruments or materials used for the production of any of the articles mentioned in clauses (a) to (f).
Why this exists
This provision continues a long-standing power (earlier found in Section 94 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, itself descended from 19th-century codes) that lets law enforcement act against organised crime involving stolen goods, counterfeiting, and forgery. Because searching private premises is intrusive, the law requires a Magistrate's prior satisfaction and a warrant, rather than letting police search on their own initiative, balancing effective crime control against protection from arbitrary searches.
How courts read it
Under the identical predecessor provision (Section 94 CrPC), courts have generally held that the Magistrate's 'reason to believe' must be based on some material and genuine application of mind, not mechanical issuance of warrants, and that the search must stay within the scope described in the warrant. Courts have also clarified that mere suspicion of the police is not enough — it is the Magistrate who must be satisfied before authorising the search, and any property seized must eventually be dealt with through proper judicial process rather than informal disposal.
Common misconceptions
- Myth: Police can search any place for stolen goods whenever they suspect something, without permission.
Fact: Under this section, a Magistrate must first be satisfied there's genuine reason to believe the place holds stolen or objectionable items, and must issue a warrant before police can search. - Myth: This section only covers stolen property.
Fact: It also covers a specific list of 'objectionable articles' like counterfeit coins, fake currency, forged documents, fake seals, and obscene objects, plus tools used to make them. - Myth: Any police officer can carry out this search.
Fact: The warrant must authorise a police officer above the rank of constable to carry out the search.