Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 · Chapter VII: Processes to Compel the Production of Things · C.–General provisions relating to searches
Section 100: Persons in charge of closed place to allow search
The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 was repealed and replaced by the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 from 1 July 2024. It still applies to matters and proceedings from before that date, as the repealing law provides.
In plain words
The person in charge of a place to be searched must, on production of the warrant, allow entry and reasonable facilities for the search. If entry is refused, the officer can break in as under section 47.
- Before searching, the officer must call two or more independent and respectable local inhabitants to witness it, and the search must take place in their presence.
- A list of everything seized and where it was found must be signed by the witnesses, and a copy given to the occupant, who is allowed to attend.
- A person suspected of hiding an item on their body can be searched, a woman only by another woman with strict regard to decency.
- Refusing without reasonable cause to witness a search when ordered in writing is an offence under section 187 of the Indian Penal Code.
A simplified explanation, prepared with AI assistance from the official text below and checked automatically against it for numbers and cross-references. The official text is the law and prevails over this summary. Not legal advice.
Official text
(1) Whenever any place liable to search or inspection under this Chapter is closed, any person residing in, or being in charge of, such place, shall, on demand of the officer or other person executing the warrant, and on production of the warrant, allow him free ingress thereto, and afford all reasonable facilities for a search therein.
(2) If ingress into such place cannot be so obtained, the officer or other person executing the warrant may proceed in the manner provided by sub-section (2) of section 47.
(3) Where any person in or about such place is reasonably suspected of concealing about his person any article for which search should be made, such person may be searched and if such person is a woman, the search shall be made by another woman with strict regard to decency.
(4) Before making a search under this Chapter, the officer or other person about to make it shall call upon two or more independent and respectable inhabitants of the locality in which the place to be searched is situate or of any other locality if no such inhabitant of the said locality is available or is willing to be a witness to the search, to attend and witness the search and may issue an order in writing to them or any of them so to do.
(5) The search shall be made in their presence, and a list of all things seized in the course of such search and of the places in which they are respectively found shall be prepared by such officer or other person and signed by such witnesses; but no person witnessing a search under this section shall be required to attend the Court as a witness of the search unless specially summoned by it.
(6) The occupant of the place searched, or some person in his behalf, shall, in every instance, be permitted to attend during the search, and a copy of the list prepared under this section, signed by the said witnesses, shall be delivered to such occupant or person.
(7) When any person is searched under sub-section (3), a list of all things taken possession of shall be prepared, and a copy thereof shall be delivered to such person.
(8) Any person who, without reasonable cause, refuses or neglects to attend and witness a search under this section, when called upon to do so by an order in writing delivered or tendered to him, shall be deemed to have committed an offence under section 187 of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860).
Corresponding sections were matched by comparing the wording of both official texts, and for the IPC and BNS, also against a published correspondence table. Wording, punishments and structure often changed, so read both sections before relying on the match.
Source: India Code (Legislative Department), the text of the Act as it stood before its repeal. Words in square brackets [ ] were inserted or substituted by later amending Acts, and *** marks words omitted by an amendment. The amendment footnotes are not reproduced here. Official text on India Code.
Supreme Court judgments citing the section 100
-
ITC Limited v. State of Karnataka & Anr.
Whether the inspection and seizure conducted by Respondent No.2 u/s.15, Legal Metrology Act, 2009 without obtaining a prior warrant, was unlawful and violative of the principles of natural justice, thereby justifying…
- Ranjan Kumar Chadha v. State of Himachal Pradesh
-
Balwinder Singh (Binda) v. The Narcotics
Matter pertains to admissibility in evidence of the confessional statement recorded by the Narcotics Control Bure au officers u/s. 67 of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985; and proving of possession of…
-
Rajesh & Anr. v. The State of Madhya Pradesh
In a case based on circumstantial evidence as there was no eyewitness to the kidnapping and murder, and where the prosecution’s case essentially turned upon the ‘recoveries’ made at the behest of the…
- Shri Chatrapati Shivaji Gaushala v. State of Maharashtra and Others
- Abdul Vahab v. State of Madhya Pradesh
- Tofan Singh v. State of Tamil Nadu
- Rajesh Dhiman v. State of Himachal Pradesh
- Anwar Ali and Another v. The State of Himachal Pradesh
- Mukesh Singh v. State (Narcotic Branch of Delhi)
- Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. & Ors. v. M/S. R.M. Service Centre & Anr.
- G H State of Punjab v. Baljinder Singh & Anr.
- Varinder Kumar v. State of Himachal Pradesh
- S. K. Raju @ Abdul Haque @ Jagga v. State of West Bengal
- State of Gujarat & Ors. v. Utility Users’ Welfare Association & Ors.
- Dilbagh Singh v. State of Punjab
- State of Rajasthan v. Jag Raj Singh @ Hansa
- State of NCT of Delhi v. Sanjay
- Mohinder v. State of Haryana
- Vijaysinh Chandubha Jadeja v. State of Gujarat
- Dharampal Singh v. State of Punjab
- Musheer Khan @ Badshah Khan & Anr. v. State of M.P.
- Karnail Singh v. State of Haryana
- Hamidbhai Azambhai Malik v. State of Gujarat
- Ghasita Sahu v. State of Madhya Pradesh
- Dilip and Anr. v. State of M.P.
- Commissioner, Sales Tax, U.P. v. M/S Mohan Brickfield, Agra
- Rakesh Kumar Mishra v. The State of Bihar and Ors.
- Bharatbhai Bhagwanjibhai v. State of Gujarat
- State, Govt. of NCT of Delhi v. Sun Il and Another
- The State of Punjab v. Baldev Singh
- Ronny@Ronald James Alwaris Etc. v. State of Maharashtra
- State of Punjab . v. Balbir Singh and Ors. Etc. Etc.
- Transport Commissioner, Andhra Pradesh v. Sardar Ali, Bus Owner