Search of place suspected to contain stolen property, forgeddocuments, etc
Section 94 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 deals with search of place suspected to contain stolen property, forgeddocuments, etc. Search of place suspected to contain stolen property, forged documents, etc. The Act came into force on 01 Apr 1974. Repealed by section 531 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (46 of 2023) with effect from 1 July 2024, but conduct before that date is still charged, tried and appealed under it.
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 only 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 Metal Tokens Act, 1889 (1 of 1889), or brought into India in contravention of any notification for the time being in force 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 292 of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860);
(g) instruments or materials used for the production of any of the articles mentioned in clauses (a) to (f).
Section 94, The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Act 2 of 1974).
Now in the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita
BNSS 97 Search of place suspected to contain stolen property, forged documents, etc Text carried over almost unchanged 91%
Measured by comparing the text of the two provisions, not taken from an official correspondence table — there is no machine-readable one. See both texts side by side before relying on it.
Both regimes are live. The repealed enactment still governs what happened while it was in force. We never redirect one to the other.
Cross-references
Extracted from the operative text of the enactments themselves. Every destination below exists in our corpus.
This section refers to
Related judgements & precedents
These are some judgments that construed this section, and hold precedence value. They hold authority on how to read, interpret and use this section.
-
S Krishnaiah vs B Mallika Rjuna
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
When a criminal complaint alleging theft is filed before a magistrate, the magistrate's primary duty is to inquire into the complaint and decide whether to take cognizance of the offense or forward it to police for investigation. The magistrate cannot entertain applications regarding the subject matter of the complaint (such as interim custody of seized property) without first taking cognizance of the offense. Furthermore, a magistrate cannot return seized property to the accused without proper inquiry into the criminal allegations, merely because the accused disputes ownership. The distinction between civil ownership disputes and criminal theft allegations must be maintained, and the magistrate's earlier finding of prima facie case of theft cannot be contradicted by subsequently returning the property without justification.
On this section: Permits issuance of search warrants for property subject matter of theft; the court examined the magistrate's application of this section through an advocate commissioner
The holding above is the ratio decidendi as extracted from the judgment by eCourts India, reproduced unaltered — it is a rendering of the court's reasoning, not a substitute for its words. Read the order itself before relying on it.
Judgments citing this section
These may be obiter dicta or a precedent, for you to study. These are the judgments where this section is quoted.
-
… The Constitution Bench observed that in Kathi Kalu Oghad it has been held that an accused person cannot be compelled to disclose documents which are incriminatory and based on his own knowledge. Section 94 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Act 5 of 1898) permits the production of all documents including the documents which are incriminatory and based on the personal knowledge of the accused person. The Constitution Bench observed that if Section 94 is construed to include an accused person, some unfortunate …
Questions about Section 94
What have the courts held on Section 94 of the Code of Criminal Procedure?
S Krishnaiah vs B Mallika Rjuna (18 Nov 2024) is the leading judgment on this section among those set out below: Permits issuance of search warrants for property subject matter of theft; the court examined the magistrate's application of this section through an advocate commissioner.
How do I find court cases under Section 94 of the Code of Criminal Procedure?
In judgments and charge sheets this section is written several ways, and each form finds a different set of orders. These search the full text of every order eCourtsIndia holds, best matches first: CRPC 94, section 94 CRPC, section 94 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Each opens the full list of orders on eCourtsIndia, where it can be narrowed by court, year and outcome. 1 reported judgment on this section is set out on this page, beginning with S Krishnaiah vs B Mallika Rjuna (18 Nov 2024).
What should I read with Section 94 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, and has it changed?
Its own text turns on Indian Penal Code 292 (Sale, etc., of obscene books, etc), so none of them can safely be read on its own. 2 other provisions in this corpus refer back to it. For anything done on or after 1 July 2024 the provision to read is BNSS 97 (Search of place suspected to contain stolen property, forged documents, etc), which replaced it; conduct before that date is still charged, tried and appealed under this section.
When did Section 94 of the Code of Criminal Procedure come into force?
Section 94 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, cited as CRPC 94, came into force on 01 Apr 1974, having been enacted on 25 Jan 1974. It is no longer in force.
Other sections of this Act
- 320. Compounding of offences1554 words
- 167. Procedure when investigation cannot be completed in twenty four hours1005 words
- 220. Trial for more than one offence962 words
- 360. Order to release on probation of good conduct or after admonition804 words
- 2. Definitions799 words
- 198. Prosecution for offences against marriage774 words
Source and method. Compiled from the enactments of Parliament and of the State legislatures as published on India Code, and republished together with commentary and other original matter under section 52(1)(q)(ii) of the Copyright Act, 1957. Structured, cross-referenced and maintained by eCourtsIndia. Recovered from the consolidated text published by India Code (item 330a1099-77ad-4a2e-b22a-769b33398f9e). This page is not a substitute for legal advice.