Search Cannot Be Cloaked As Inspection To Bypass Legal Safeguards: Supreme Court Quashes Illegal Seizure by Legal Metrology Authorities

“Seizure Without Warrant And Absence Of ‘Reasons To Believe’ Violates CrPC And Legal Metrology Act” - In a decisive ruling Supreme Court of India held that the search and seizure carried out by Legal Metrology officials at ITC’s Bengaluru warehouse was illegal and procedurally defective, as it was conducted without a warrant and without recording ‘reasons to believe’. The bench comprising Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice R. Mahadevan ruled that “when a statute mandates compliance with CrPC safeguards, such compliance is not optional but mandatory.” The Court restored the Single Judge’s decision quashing the seizure and set aside the Division Bench’s contrary judgment.

The core legal issue revolved around the misuse of statutory power under Section 15 of the Legal Metrology Act, 2009, and the attempt to bypass criminal procedure safeguards by characterising a search as an ‘inspection’.

“An Officer Cannot Enter Premises Without Recording Why He Believes an Offence Has Occurred”

At the heart of the dispute was a search conducted on July 2, 2020, at a warehouse belonging to ITC Limited, where 7,600 cartons of pre-packed notebooks were seized. The authorities cited a violation of Rule 24(a) of the Legal Metrology (Packaged Commodities) Rules, 2011, alleging that statutory declarations were affixed as labels rather than printed. A seizure notice and a compounding notice were issued the same day.

ITC approached the Karnataka High Court, asserting that the entire action was vitiated due to absence of a warrant, no prior recording of “reasons to believe”, and non-compliance with Sections 100(4), 100(5), and 165 of the CrPC. The Single Judge agreed and quashed the proceedings. However, the Division Bench reversed this, upholding the seizure.

The Supreme Court overruled the Division Bench and categorically held:

“The requirement of ‘reasons to believe’ is a condition precedent to any action under Section 15 of the Legal Metrology Act… It is not a mere procedural formality; it is jurisdictional.”

“Search and Seizure Without Warrant Is Illegal Even In Commercial Premises Unless Urgency Is Demonstrated”

Rejecting the state’s argument that no warrant was needed since the premises was a commercial warehouse, the Court clarified:

“Merely because a place is open to business does not render it a ‘public place’ in law. Access to a warehouse is not unfettered. It remains a protected private premises requiring legal authority for search.”

The Court expressly rejected the Division Bench’s reasoning that Section 100 CrPC applies only to “closed premises”, stating:

“The expression ‘closed premises’ cannot be interpreted to mean that open business spaces are exempt from safeguards. The CrPC does not draw such a distinction.”

Referring to Section 15(4) of the 2009 Act, which mandates that every search or seizure shall be in accordance with the CrPC, the Court observed:

“The safeguards in Sections 100(4), 100(5) and 165 CrPC are designed to protect against arbitrary exercise of power. Ignoring them renders the entire action unlawful.”

“Presence of Independent Witnesses Is Not a Ritual; It Is a Constitutional Safeguard Against Abuse”

A glaring defect in the search was the absence of independent witnesses, which is a statutory requirement under Section 100(4) CrPC. The only witness present was a driver employed by the very officer conducting the search, whom the Court rejected as not ‘independent’ in law.

“The driver of the inspecting authority cannot be treated as an independent and respectable inhabitant of the locality… The very purpose of requiring independent witnesses is defeated if only departmental personnel are used.”

The Court found no documentation or evidence that the officers attempted to call for independent witnesses, and added:

“The seizure mahazar is conspicuously silent on any attempt to comply with Section 100(4). Once the initial illegality is established, all actions flowing from it collapse.”

“Simultaneous Seizure and Compounding Notices Reflect Non-Application of Mind”

The Court was scathing about the simultaneous issuance of the seizure notice and the compounding notice on the very date of inspection. The compounding notice under Section 48 of the Legal Metrology Act offered a penalty for multiple alleged violations, without giving ITC any opportunity to respond or be heard.

“The principle of audi alteram partem—no one should be condemned unheard—was entirely ignored. Procedural fairness is the cornerstone of administrative action.”

Noting that the entire basis of action rested on a technicality, i.e., affixing declarations via label instead of printing, the Court held:

“There is no dispute that statutory declarations existed. The only allegation is that they were affixed and not printed. At best, this is a technical lapse—not a substantive violation justifying seizure.”

“Procedural Safeguards Cannot Be Sacrificed For Administrative Convenience”

Citing a long line of precedents including State of Madhya Pradesh v. Mubarak Ali, State of Rajasthan v. Rehman, Ravinder Kumar v. State of Haryana, and Radhika Agarwal v. Union of India, the Court reaffirmed:

“When a statute incorporates CrPC provisions, they must be followed in letter and spirit unless explicitly excluded. Safeguards like warrant, reasons to believe, and presence of witnesses are not optional.”

The Court criticised the respondents for retroactively attempting to justify their action as an “inspection” rather than a “search” to avoid compliance with the CrPC.

“Inspection, search and seizure are distinct. Merely relabelling a search as inspection cannot legitimise an otherwise illegal action.”

“No Seizure Without Prior Search; No Search Without Reason; No Reason Without Record”

The Supreme Court clarified the sequencing and threshold for lawful seizure:

“A seizure cannot precede a lawful search. A search cannot occur unless reasons to believe are recorded. These are jurisdictional requirements—not optional administrative choices.”

Further, the Court underlined that Section 165 CrPC, which allows for searches without warrant in exceptional cases, was not applicable here, as no urgency was demonstrated and no reasons were recorded.

“Section 165 CrPC is an exception, not the rule. It applies only where delay would defeat the purpose of search, and even then, written reasons must be recorded. That was wholly absent here.”

Illegal Search, Procedurally Flawed Seizure, Unlawful Notices—Entire Action Quashed

In unequivocal terms, the Supreme Court held:

“The entire proceedings from search to seizure are illegal and unsustainable, as neither a warrant was obtained nor reasons recorded… The mandatory safeguards under Section 15 of the 2009 Act and Sections 165, 100(4) and 100(5) CrPC were disregarded.”

The Court concluded that violation of statutory procedure amounts to violation of natural justice, and thus, all notices and the Division Bench’s judgment were quashed.

“The Single Judge rightly quashed the action. The Division Bench’s contrary view was legally unsustainable and is hereby set aside.”

Accordingly, the appeal was allowed, and the impugned seizure and compounding notices were quashed, restoring the order of the Single Judge of the Karnataka High Court.

Date of Decision: September 12, 2025