Police Can Search & Seize Suspected Proceeds Of Crime Even Without Warrant Under Section 185 BNSS: Orissa High Court

"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." Orissa High Court, in a notable judgment, held that the seizure of cash, gold, and vehicles suspected to be proceeds of crime is not illegal or arbitrary when conducted pursuant to search warrants issued by a Magistrate.

A single-judge bench of Justice Savitri Ratho observed that even in the absence of a search warrant, a police officer is vested with the power to search and seize properties under Section 185 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023.

The case arose from a series of house searches conducted by fifteen police teams across various districts in Odisha in connection with an organized crime case involving cow slaughter and other offences. The petitioners challenged the seizure of significant amounts of cash, gold ornaments, and vehicles, contending that these items had no nexus with the alleged offences for which the case was registered.

Court Examines Validity Of Search Warrants Issued Under BNSS

The primary question before the court was whether the seizure of household assets, cash, and jewelry during a search for "stolen cattle, arms, and ammunitions" was legally sustainable. The court was also called upon to determine if the police had exceeded their jurisdiction by seizing properties whose legitimate source was allegedly not established by the accused during the search.

The petitioners argued that search warrants were issued without the mandatory prior notice under Section 94 of the BNSS. They contended that since the seized cash and ornaments were not "proceeds of crime" related to the specific charges of cattle theft or cow slaughter, the actions of the Investigating Officer (I.O.) were non-est in the eye of law.

Magistrate’s Power To Issue Search Warrants Under Section 96 BNSS

The High Court noted that the searches were conducted based on warrants issued by the Judicial Magistrate First Class (J.M.F.C.) under Section 96 of the BNSS. The Court highlighted that the Magistrate is empowered to issue a search warrant if there is reason to believe that the purposes of any inquiry, trial, or proceeding will be served by a general search or inspection.

"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."

The State, represented by the Additional Standing Counsel, submitted that the case involved organized crime where all accused were interconnected. It was argued that the massive quantities of cash and gold were seized because the accused persons could not satisfactorily disclose the legitimate source of such property at the time of the search.

Seizure Of Property Suspected As Proceeds Of Crime Validated

The Bench observed that when articles are seized during a search conducted on the strength of a judicial warrant, and such articles are suspected to be the proceeds of crime, the court should be slow to interfere with the investigation. The court found that the police teams had acted within the scope of the warrant while investigating an organized criminal network.

"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."

Justice Ratho specifically referred to Section 185 of the BNSS, which grants an officer-in-charge of a police station the authority to conduct searches without a warrant if there are reasonable grounds to believe that something necessary for the investigation may be found within their jurisdiction and cannot be obtained without undue delay.

Remedy For Release Of Seized Property Lies Under Section 497 BNSS

The Court emphasized that the High Court’s writ jurisdiction is not the appropriate forum for the release of seized property during an ongoing investigation. It noted that the statutory framework provides a specific remedy for the owners or occupiers of the searched premises to seek the return of their belongings.

"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."

Concluding the analysis, the Court held that since the I.O. acted under the authority of a competent Magistrate and the BNSS provides a clear alternative remedy for the release of property, the petition challenging the seizure was liable to be dismissed. The Court declined to declare the police action as arbitrary or illegal.

The CRLMP was accordingly dismissed, with the observation that the petitioners are at liberty to move the appropriate subordinate court under Section 497 of the BNSS for the release of the seized cash, gold, and vehicles.

Date of Decision: 09 July 2026