Seizure Memo Irregularity Does Not Vitiate Prosecution When Other Evidence Supports the Criminal Case

Mere non-preparation of a seizure memo does not, by itself, justify quashing criminal proceedings where the prosecution is otherwise supported by seized cash, witness statements, and statements recorded under Section 164 CrPC. The seizure memo is only corroborative and not substantive evidence; its omission amounts at most to an irregularity and does not vitiate the prosecution when other material is available. On that basis, the absence of a seizure memo was held insufficient to terminate the proceedings, and the quashing petition was liable to be dismissed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the criminal proceedings were liable to be quashed on the ground that no seizure memo was prepared in respect of the alleged tainted money.

Analysis: The petition sought quashing under the inherent jurisdiction of the High Court. The Court noted that the prosecution case was supported not only by the seizure of cash but also by statements of witnesses, including statements recorded under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. It held that a seizure memo is only corroborative in nature and is not substantive evidence. Referring to Section 461 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and the cited precedents, the Court held that omission to prepare a seizure memo amounts at most to an irregularity and does not by itself vitiate the prosecution, particularly where other material is available.

Conclusion: The absence of a seizure memo did not justify quashing of the prosecution, and the petition was liable to be dismissed.

Ratio Decidendi: Mere non-preparation of a seizure memo is not a ground to quash criminal proceedings when the prosecution is otherwise supported by material evidence and witness statements, because such a memo is only corroborative and its absence does not vitiate the case.

---