The District Magistrate lacked jurisdiction to seal premises prior to a court declaration of property as proceeds of crime under BNSS.

JUDGMENT :

DEVASHIS BARUAH, J.

Heard Mr. Pran Borah, the learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. H. K. Sarma, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners. Mr. D. Nath, the learned Senior Government Advocate appears on behalf of the respondents.

2. The present writ petition has been filed challenging the order dated 13.10.2025 issued by the District Magistrate, Kamrup whereby the petitioners’ premises were sealed in connection with an ongoing investigation.

3. From a very perusal of the contents of the impugned order dated 13.10.2025, it is apparent that certain search and seizure were conducted at the premises of the petitioners at Chatabari under Boko Police Station by the Inspector of Police, CID (Investigating Agency/IO of the SIT) in presence of the Circle Officer and EM, Chhaygaon Revenue Circle in connection with CID P.S. Case No.18/2025 registered under Sections 61 (2)/105(1)/106(1) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (wrongly written in the impugned order as Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023) read with Section 103 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (for short, ‘ BNSS ’).

4. It is apparent from a perusal of the impugned order that on the ground of seriousness of the case, the District Magistrate temporarily sealed the premises of the petitioners. The short question which arises in the instant proceedings is as to whether the District Magistrate, Kamrup, had the authority and jurisdiction to seal the premises of the petitioners.

5. Mr. Pran Borah, the learned Senior Counsel who appears on behalf of the petitioners submitted that the District Magistrate, Kamrup had no jurisdiction or authority to pass the impugned order dated 13.10.2025. He submitted that the role of the District Magistrate would only come after there is an attachment and upon conclusion of the forfeiture of the proceedings that too by a competent Court of law. He submitted that the provision of BNSS would also show that the power reserved upon the District Magistrate is only to distribute amongst the persons who have suffered on account of the crime. In that regard, he has referred to Sub-sections (6) and (7) of Section 107 of the .

6. During the course of the hearing, this Court enquired with the learned Senior Government Advocate appearing on behalf of the respondents under what provision the said power was exercised by the District Magistrate taking into account that the power to seal is not available to the District Magistrate under the BNSS . The learned Senior Government Advocate submitted that the power can be traced to Section 107 of the . He further submitted that in the meantime, the State had also filed application before the competent Court seeking an order of attachment in terms with of the and the said matter is presently pending. He further submitted that in the circumstances if the impugned order is set aside, the properties which are proceeds of crime arising out of CID P.S. Case No.18/2025 would be difficult to be retrieved for initiating further proceedings in terms with of the .

7. This Court has duly heard the learned counsels appearing on behalf of the parties and has also perused the materials on record including the respective pleadings before this Court. A perusal of the impugned order shows that the District Magistrate, Kamrup, i.e. the respondent No.4 had sealed the premises of the petitioners on the ground of an ongoing investigation of CID P.S. Case No.18/2025. The power to seal, attach, seize and forfeit are powers which have to be conferred by statute. In the instant case, it would be seen that there is a power to attach, forfeit and restore under Section 107 of t