Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 · Chapter VII: Processes to Compel the Production of Things · D.–Miscellaneous
Section 102: Power of police officer to seize certain property
The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 was repealed and replaced by the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 from 1 July 2024.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
Any police officer can seize property alleged or suspected to be stolen, or found in circumstances suggesting an offence. A subordinate officer must report it to the station officer, and every seizure must be reported promptly to the Magistrate.
- If the property cannot easily be taken to court, there is no proper storage, or keeping it is not needed for the investigation, it can be handed to someone on a bond to produce it when required.
- Perishable property worth less than five hundred rupees, whose owner is unknown or absent, can be auctioned on the Superintendent of Police's orders.
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) Any police officer may seize any property which may be alleged or suspected to have been stolen, or which may be found under circumstances which create suspicion of the commission of any offence.
(2) Such police officer, if subordinate to the officer in charge of a police station, shall forthwith report the seizure to that officer. [(3) Every police officer acting under sub-section (1) shall forthwith report the seizure to the Magistrate having jurisdiction and where the property seized is such that it cannot be conveniently transported to the Court, [or where there is difficulty in securing proper accommodation for the custody of such property, or where the continued retention of the property in police custody may not be considered necessary for the purpose of investigation,] he may give custody thereof to any person on his executing a bond undertaking to produce the property before the Court as and when required and to give effect to the further orders of the Court as to the disposal of the same:] 1. Ins. by Act 45 of 1978, s. 10 (w.e.f. 18-12-1978). 2. Ins. by Act 25 of 2005, s. 13 (w.e.f. 23-6-2006).
[Provided that where the property seized under sub-section (1) is subject to speedy and natural decay and if the person entitled to the possession of such property is unknown or absent and the value of such property is less than five hundred rupees, it may forthwith be sold by auction under the orders of the Superintendent of Police and the provisions of sections 457 and 458 shall, as nearly as may be practicable, apply to the net proceeds of such sale.]
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 102
-
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…
-
Kathyayini v. Sidharth P.S. Reddy & Ors.
The High Court quashed the criminal proceedings against respondent nos.1 and 2 in two complaint cases whereby they were charged for offences punishable u/ss.120B, 415, 420 r/w. s.34 of Penal Code, 1860. Whether a prima…
-
Renuka Prasad v. The State Represented by Assistant Superintendent of Police
Whether the High Court erred in reversing the acquittal and convicting the accused persons based on the testimony of the IOs which was founded only on s.161, CrPC statements of the witnesses; whether present was a case…
- Pawan Kumar Rai v. Union of India & Anr
- Seagull Maritime Agencies Pvt. Ltd v. State of NCT Delhi & Anr
- Central Bureau of Investigtation v. R. Vasudevan & Ors
- Central Bureau of Investigation v. R Vasudevan & Ors
-
Shento Varghese v. Julfikar Husen & Ors.
What is the implication of non-reporting of the seizure forthwith to the jurisdictional Magistrate as provided under Section 102(3) Cr.P.C.; does delayed reporting of the seizure to the Magistrate vitiate the seizure…
- Ashish Bhalla v. State & Anr
- M/S. Jermyn Capital Llc Dubai v. Central Bureau
- Vijay Madanlal Choudhary & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors.
- Manoj & Ors v. State of Madhya Pradesh
- Opto Circuit India Ltd. v. Axis Bank & Ors.
- Nevada Properties Private Limited Through Its Director v. State of Maharashtra and Anr.
- Teesta Atul Setalvad v. The State of Gujarat
- State of Maharashtra v. Avinash
- M.T. Enrica Lexie & Anr. v. Doramma & Ors.
- Rajesh Talwar v. C.B.I. & Ors.
- Smt. Rasila S. Mehta v. Custodian, Nariman Bhavan, Mumbai
- Suresh Nanda v. C.B.I
- State of Himachal Pradesh v. Uttam Kumar and Ors.
- Jayendra Saraswathy Swamigal, Tamil Nadu v. State of Tamil Nadu and Ors.
- State of Maharashtra v. Tapas D. Neogy
- State of Bihar v. Kamla Prasad Singh and Ors.