Section 23: Search of vessels, vehicles for arms, etc.
Arms Act • Official Statutory Text & Practice Guide
Statutory Regulation
Legal Standard
Competent Court / Tribunal
Act 1959
Section 23 of Arms Act: Search of vessels, vehicles for arms, etc.
Official Bare Act Text
Override / Mandate Mens Rea (Intent) Actus Reus (Conduct) Punishment Limitation Monetary
Any Magistrate, any police officer or any other officer specially empowered in this behalf by the Central Government, may for the purpose of ascertaining whether any contravention of this Act or the rules made thereunder is being or is likely to be committed, stop and search any vessel, vehicle or other means of conveyance and seize any arms or ammunition that may be found therein alongwith such vessel, vehicle or other means of conveyance.
Legal Commentary & Landmark Judgments: Section 23
Section 23 mandates that all searches conducted under the Arms Act, 1959 must be executed in accordance with the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure, incorporating statutory requirements of independent witnesses and contemporaneous panchnamas.
Mandatory CrPC / BNSS Compliance: Search of premises, vessels, or persons under the Act must strictly follow the procedural safeguards embodied in Section 100 of the CrPC, 1973 (now Section 103 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 - BNSS).
Independent Locality Witnesses (Panchas): Mandates calling upon two or more independent and respectable inhabitants of the locality to attend and witness the search, ensuring that recoveries are not concocted by police personnel.
Contemporaneous Seizure Memo: Requires preparing an immediate, detailed inventory of seized arms/ammunition at the spot, signed by the independent witnesses and handing over a copy to the occupant/accused.
Key Landmark Precedents:
State of Rajasthan v. Rehman, AIR 1960 SC 210: The Supreme Court held that recording of reasons and compliance with statutory search requirements under the Code is mandatory; failure to record reasons before conducting a search vitiates the recovery.
Radha Kishan v. State of U.P., AIR 1963 SC 822: The Supreme Court held that while an irregular search does not per se render seizure evidence inadmissible, it imposes a duty of severe judicial caution and demands corroborative proof beyond reasonable doubt.
Courtroom Practice & Strategic Litigation Guidance:
In cross-examination, systematically dismantle search memos that lack genuine independent witnesses. Expose the common police practice of using 'stock witnesses' (police informers or home guards). If the search memo was prepared at the police station rather than on the spot, establish this through dispatch register timings and lack of ink/pen consistency, rendering the recovery under Section 23 fatal.
Legal Commentary & Landmark Judgments: Section 23
Section 23 mandates that all searches conducted under the Arms Act, 1959 must be executed in accordance with the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure, incorporating statutory requirements of independent witnesses and contemporaneous panchnamas.
In cross-examination, systematically dismantle search memos that lack genuine independent witnesses. Expose the common police practice of using 'stock witnesses' (police informers or home guards). If the search memo was prepared at the police station rather than on the spot, establish this through dispatch register timings and lack of ink/pen consistency, rendering the recovery under Section 23 fatal.