The legitimacy of criminal investigation depends not only on the power of the State to discover evidence, but also on the fairness and reliability of the process through which that evidence is obtained. Audio-video recording of search and seizure is an important procedural safeguard because it can preserve a contemporaneous account of the search, the property allegedly recovered, the preparation of the seizure list and the participation of witnesses. In India, Section 105 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) expressly requires audio-video recording of the specified search and seizure process, including preparation of the list of seized articles and the signing of that list by witnesses. The provision also requires the police officer to forward the recording without delay to the designated Magistrate. This paper examines the statutory framework, constitutional values, practical implementation, evidentiary significance, privacy concerns and judicial treatment of recording requirements. It discusses the decisions in Shadab v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Gokal Ram v. State of Rajasthan as numbered case studies. It argues that meaningful compliance requires more than the existence of a video file: recording must be complete, authentic, securely preserved, promptly transmitted and capable of being independently verified. The paper concludes with practical recommendations for standard operating procedures, training, equipment, audit trails and judicial scrutiny. The analysis further considers the practical relationship between recording, the seizure memorandum, independent witnesses and the chain of custody. It highlights the importance of retaining the original digital file, documenting interruptions, restricting unauthorised access and ensuring that the recording can be produced for judicial scrutiny when required. It also recognises that recording must be balanced with privacy and dignity, particularly where searches expose personal documents or involve persons who are not suspected of an offence. The central argument is that a recording is effective only when supported by lawful procedure, reliable technology, trained officers and accountable preservation practices.