Do police officers seize only those items listed in warrant?

As general, the procedures as stated in Section 63(1) Criminal Procedure Code where any
police officer that had been authorized by the Chief Police Officer with a search warrant may
enter any place in search of stolen property in order to search, seize and secure any property
which he believes to have been stolen. In which, the police officer may seize the property as
being described in the search warrant1. In addition, it is also stated in Section 64 that there
must be a list of all things that are going to be seized in the course of a search made and the
list shall be prepared by the officer or other people making the search and signed by him.2
From the practicality view, referring to the interview done with a police officer
regarding this issue, it is the normal practice for the police officers to include the items that
they found to be stolen at the said location or place that they search and seized. The police
officer conducting the search and seizure would be the person in charge to write the new item
in the warrant if it was not listed in the first place. This concept applies when there are
additional items to be included to the current list. But, this does not mean that the police
should use power given to them arbitrarily where the Court can cast doubt upon the bona
fides of the parties conducting the prosecution.
This is according to the case of San Soo Ha where in this case a house was broken
into and cash in currency notes, coins, a wrist watch and two plastic bags were stolen. In
which the appellant in this case was arrested for this. He gave a statement to the police officer
to the effect that "the stolen money was kept in his room". As a result of such information the
appellant led a police party to his flat. There they recovered some cash wrapped and marked
in paper wrapping with writing on each roll and also the bags which the complainant
identified. As a result the appellant was charged with housebreaking and theft of the property
under section 454 of the Penal Code, alternatively with dishonestly retaining stolen property,
to wit, and cash under section 411 of the Penal Code. He was convicted and sentenced to
three years' imprisonment. The issue was that the statement of the appellant to the police
leading to discovery "the stolen money was kept in my room" was prejudicial and that a
search list as required by section 64 of the Criminal Procedure Code was not prepared by the
1 Section 63 Criminal Procedure Code
2 Section 64 Criminal Procedure Code

officer who conducted the search. Raja Azlan Shah J. in this case stated his view that due to
the cast of doubt upon the bona fides of the prosecution, it accordingly affords the ground for
scrutiny where after such scrutiny is carried out, the court still concluded that the stolen
articles is recovered from the possession of the accused, the defence cannot say that the
evidence was obtain in an irregular manner. This renders the evidence to admissible. The
court held that the stolen articles were recovered from the accused and the failure to prepare a
search list would not be a ground to acquit the accused.3
Therefore, Section 64 and 65 only applies as additional safeguards if the search is
conducted under chapter VI of the Criminal Procedure Code. As an example to this matter, in
the case of Chin Hock Aun, since the seizure conducted by the police was in accordance with
the provisions of the Dangerous Drugs Act 1952. The judge in this case, K.C. Vohrah held the
raiding part in this case is not obliged to prepare and deliver a search list under the terms of
sections 64 or 65. 4
In addition to this, Section 435 of the Criminal Procedure Code stated that any
member of the police force may seize any property which is alleged or may be suspected to
have been stolen, or which is found under circumstances which create suspicion that an
offence has been committed, and such member, if subordinate to the officer in charge of the
nearest police station, shall forthwith report such seizure to such officer.5 In my opinion on
this matter, if the police officer during the search operation, found any object which were not
listed in the search list, but somehow create some sort of suspicion which relates to any
offence, it is not reasonable for him to not seize the item. For example, in an operation
searching and seizing for stolen auto mobile in the suspects premise, the police found large
amount of firearms in the said premise, it would be reasonable for them to seize it by
including the item in the original search list. As a government servant, the top priority is
public interest of the state. In relation to this matter, it is an offence under Section 8 of
Firearms (Increased Penalties) Act 1971. Therefore, the public interest is severely affected if
this crime is looked pass by the authority.

3 [1968] 1 MLJ 34.

4 [19890 1MLJ 509.
5 Section 435 Criminal Procedure Code

In conclusion, even though the item found in the premise is not listed in the search list
in the first place, the police conducting the search and seizure can include the item he found
in the premise as long as it create suspicion for the suspect to have possession on the said
item.