Search and seizure under Legal Metrology require recorded reasons and CrPC safeguards

A bench of Justices J.B. Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan heard appeals arising from seizures effected under the Legal Metrology Act, 2009, concerning 7,600 corrugated fibreboard containers of ‘Classmate’ exercise books seized from a warehouse in Bengaluru. The appeals tested whether inspections and seizures under Section 15 of the 2009 Act could be carried out without prior recording of “reasons to believe” and without compliance with the Cr.P.C. safeguards, including the requirement of independent witnesses for searches of closed premises.

The Court allowed the appeal, held that Section 15(1) of the 2009 Act mandated the existence and recording of reasons to believe before any search or seizure and required compliance with the Cr.P.C. in relation to searches and seizures. The Court found that no warrant was obtained, no reasons were recorded for the search or the seizure, and that the mandatory requirement under Section 100(4) Cr.P.C. for independent witnesses was not observed. The Court, in its reasoning, observed: The Court further emphasised that "in the absence of a search, there cannot be any seizure," and concluded that the inspection, search and seizure of 02.07.2020 were vitiated by procedural violations.

Background The dispute arose after Respondent No.2, acting under Section 15 of the Legal Metrology Act, inspected the appellant’s warehouse on 02.07.2020 and seized 7,600 CFC packages of pre-packed exercise books for alleged non-compliance with Rule 24(a) of the Legal Metrology (Packaged Commodities) Rules, 2011. A seizure mahazar and a compounding notice were issued the same day. ITC Limited challenged the action by a writ petition in the Karnataka High Court, alleging that the officers did not obtain a warrant, did not record “reasons to believe,” failed to comply with Sections 100(4) and 165 Cr.P.C., and used an employee of the inspecting authority as the sole witness. The Single Judge quashed the notices and ordered release of the goods on 04.09.2020. The Division Bench reversed that order on 15.04.2021, holding that Section 15 empowered inspection and seizure without a warrant in the circumstances and that the premises were not “closed” for the purposes of Section 100 Cr.P.C. The appellant filed SLPs before this Court and a review petition in the High Court which was dismissed.

Before this Court, the appellant argued that the CFCs were transport containers and, at most, technical non-compliance was involved; that no reasons were recorded; and that the compounding notice being contemporaneous with seizure showed absence of application of mind. The respondents defended the seizure as lawful, contending the warehouse was a place of business open to others, that Section 15(4) invoked Cr.P.C. only as applicable, and that the seized packages were wholesale packages requiring printed declarations under Rule 24. The Court examined statutory language and precedent (including State of Madhya Pradesh v. Mubarak Ali, Baldev Singh, and other authorities) and concluded that the procedural safeguards in the Cr.P.C. applied and had not been followed. The Court quashed the seizure, the compounding notice and the Division Bench’s judgment, restored the Single Judge’s order, allowed the appeal, and disposed of the connected review and miscellaneous applications with no order as to costs.

Case No.: CIVIL APPEAL NO. 11798 OF 2025; CIVIL APPEAL NO. 11799 OF 2025 (Arising out of SLP (C) No.16830 of 2021 and SLP (C) No.18336 of 2022) Case Title: ITC Limited v. State of Karnataka & Anr. Appearances: For the Petitioner(s): [Senior Counsel for appellant—name not specified in text] For the Respondent(s): [Counsel for respondents—names not specified in text]