Every search and seizure carried out by police during a cognizable-offence investigation must now be recorded on video, including the drawing up and signing of the seizure list. This is a genuinely new requirement under Section 105 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, one the old Code of Criminal Procedure never had, and it is quickly becoming a standard ground on which the defence challenges the reliability of a seizure at trial. Here is what the provision actually requires, and why an unrecorded search can now cost the prosecution its evidence.
What exactly must be recorded?
Section 105 applies to searches and seizures conducted in the course of investigating a cognizable offence. It requires that the entire process, not just the seizure of an item, be captured on audio-video electronic means, with a cell phone specifically named as the preferred, accessible device. That includes:
- The search of the premises or person itself
- The actual act of seizure of any property or document
- The preparation of the search list or seizure list (commonly known as the panchnama)
- The signing of that list by the witnesses present
As Nyaaya's explainer on the provision notes, this is meant to close a long-standing gap in Indian criminal procedure: panchnamas were traditionally paper documents signed by independent witnesses, but disputes over what actually happened during a search, and whether the listed items were genuinely found where the police claimed, were common and often came down to the word of the investigating officer against the accused. A contemporaneous video record is intended to remove much of that ambiguity.
Where does the recording have to go?
The recording cannot simply sit in the investigating officer's phone or the police station's own files. Section 105 requires it to be forwarded without delay to the District Magistrate, the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, or a Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, whichever has jurisdiction. This forwarding requirement is what gives the recording independent evidentiary weight: it creates a record outside police custody, at a point close in time to the search itself, that can later be checked against the police's own account of events.
What happens if the police don't record the search?
Courts have started treating an unexplained failure to record as a real evidentiary problem for the prosecution, not a mere technicality. As covered in LiveLaw's analysis of Section 105's operation, courts have referred to a 2024 case, Firoz Hira Manik v. State of U.P., in reiterating the mandatory character of the recording requirement and rejecting evidence produced without it. Separately, an Allahabad High Court ruling covered by SCC OnLine in January 2026 granted bail after noting that a failure to videograph a recovery weakens the prosecution's case, and directed the Uttar Pradesh DGP to issue a standard operating procedure on compliance. Note: verify the precise citation of the Firoz Hira Manik ruling with your advocate or against the official case record before citing it in any filing, as secondary summaries can vary in how they describe a case's exact holding and forum.
The statutory qualifier worth knowing, however, is that the requirement operates "subject to the availability of the necessary technological facilities." This means an outright absence of a working device in a genuinely remote or resource-constrained setting is treated differently from a case where recording was clearly possible and simply skipped. In practice, the burden increasingly falls on the prosecution to explain why a recording that could have been made, wasn't.
Why recording alone doesn't make evidence admissible
A video recording of a search is itself an electronic record, and electronic records in Indian courts are governed by their own admissibility rules, separate from the Section 105 recording mandate. Under Section 63 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam (BSA), 2023, the successor to the old Evidence Act's Section 65B, electronic evidence generally requires an accompanying certificate confirming how the record was generated, stored, and preserved before a court can rely on it, broadly the same certification logic that governed electronic evidence before BNSS/BSA came into force, but with refinements. The exact certification format and who must sign it can vary depending on the type of device and record involved; verify the applicable requirement for a search-and-seizure video recording specifically with your advocate rather than assuming it is identical to the certificate used for, say, CCTV footage or a WhatsApp chat export.
Evidentiary checklist: what a defence advocate typically reviews
- Was the entire search and seizure process recorded, including the panchnama's preparation and signing, not just a snippet of the seizure itself?
- Was the recording forwarded promptly to the appropriate Magistrate, and is there a documented trail of that forwarding?
- If no recording exists, is there a credible, documented explanation tied to unavailability of technological facilities, rather than a bare assertion?
- Does the recording, if relied upon as evidence, carry the certificate required under BSA Section 63?
- Does the recording's content actually corroborate the police's written account of the search, or are there discrepancies worth raising at trial?
What this means for you
If you or someone you know is facing a case where a search and seizure took place, whether as the accused, a witness, or a person whose property was seized, the existence (or absence) of a Section 105-compliant recording is now a genuinely material fact, not a peripheral detail. An advocate reviewing the case file will typically ask for the recording, its forwarding record, and any accompanying BSA certificate early on, since gaps here can materially affect how strong the prosecution's evidence actually is.
For related BNSS procedural changes, see our guides on filing an E-FIR under Section 173 BNSS and what a Section 35 BNSS police notice means. Digital bank-record evidence is covered separately in our guide to the Bankers' Books Evidence Act, 2026.
Disclaimer: This article is for general information only and is not legal advice. Case citations and procedural specifics referenced here should be independently verified against the official record before being relied upon in any legal proceeding; consult a qualified advocate for your specific matter.
Frequently asked questions
What does Section 105 BNSS require the police to record?
The entire process of search and seizure conducted during investigation of a cognizable offence, including the preparation of the search/seizure list (panchnama) and its signing by witnesses, must be recorded using audio-video electronic means, preferably a mobile phone.
Is video recording of a search always mandatory, with no exceptions?
The requirement is treated as mandatory, but courts and commentators note it operates subject to the availability of the necessary technological facilities on the ground. Where recording was feasible and simply wasn't done, courts have increasingly treated that omission as seriously weakening the prosecution's case.
What happens to the recording after the search is completed?
The recording must be forwarded without delay to the District Magistrate, Sub-Divisional Magistrate, or Judicial Magistrate of the First Class having jurisdiction, so there is an independent, contemporaneous record outside police custody.
Does CrPC have an equivalent requirement?
No. The old Code of Criminal Procedure had no comparable stringent audio-video recording mandate for search and seizure; this is a genuinely new evidentiary safeguard introduced by the BNSS.
Does the video recording alone make electronic seizure evidence admissible in court?
Not by itself. Electronic evidence generally, including such recordings when relied upon, must also satisfy the certificate requirements under the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam (BSA), 2023, which replaced the old Indian Evidence Act's Section 65B certificate regime. Confirm the exact certification format required for your matter with an advocate, since it is a distinct procedural step from the recording itself.