The Supreme Court on October 8 ruled that a procedural violation during seizure does not automatically invalidate the seizure itself, but it can reduce its evidentiary value in court. The Court also held that an accused's failure to explain a seizure made at his premises cannot be used to fill gaps in the prosecution's case. The prosecution must independently establish its case before any adverse inference can be drawn from the accused's silence.

This ruling clarifies a critical distinction in criminal evidence law that often confuses courts and practitioners: the difference between the validity of a seizure and the weight of evidence it carries.

Under the CrPC (now mirrored in BNSS), seizures are governed by procedural requirements — preparation of a panchnama, presence of witnesses, compliance with Section 100 CrPC (Section 185 BNSS). When these procedures are violated, courts have historically oscillated between two positions: either the seizure is void, or the violation is merely an irregularity.

The Supreme Court has now firmly settled this: procedural non-compliance does not vitiate the seizure (it remains legally valid), but it does affect the evidentiary value — meaning the court will scrutinise the material with greater caution, and the prosecution cannot rely on it with full confidence.

The second limb is equally important. Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act (Section 108 BSA) requires an accused to explain facts especially within their knowledge. But this provision is not meant to be a substitute for the prosecution's primary burden. The accused's silence under Section 106 can only support an already-established prosecution case — it cannot create one where none exists.

For CLAT PG, this ruling sits at the intersection of evidence law and criminal procedure — a favourite examiner zone involving burden of proof, seizure validity, and adverse inference.