The Supreme Court held that inspection, search, and seizure under Section 15 of the Legal Metrology Act, 2009, must comply with the mandatory procedural safeguards of the Cr.P.C., including recording “reasons to believe” and the presence of independent witnesses under Section 100(4). Non-compliance with these statutory procedures vitiates the entire action, rendering it illegal and unsustainable.
Facts Of The Case:
The appellant, ITC Limited, maintained a warehouse for its ‘Classmate’ brand stationery. On July 2, 2020, Legal Metrology officers inspected these premises without a warrant and seized 7600 packages of exercise books for an alleged violation of Rule 24 of the Legal Metrology (Packaged Commodities) Rules, 2011. The appellant challenged this action before the Karnataka High Court, contending that the search and seizure were illegal as they were conducted without a prior warrant, without recording any “reasons to believe” as mandated by Section 15 of the Legal Metrology Act, 2009, and without the presence of independent witnesses required under Section 100(4) of the Cr.P.C. A Single Judge of the High Court quashed the seizure and compounding notices, ruling the action was without jurisdiction. However, a Division Bench reversed this decision, holding that a warrant was not necessary for the inspection of business premises and that the procedural safeguards of the Cr.P.C. did not fully apply. Aggrieved by the Division Bench’s judgment, the appellant filed the present appeal before the Supreme Court.
Procedural History:
The procedural history of this case commenced with the filing of Writ Petition No.8954 of 2020 before the High Court of Karnataka, challenging the search, seizure, and subsequent notices. A Single Judge allowed the writ petition, quashing the notices and ordering the release of the seized goods, holding the search and seizure to be without jurisdiction. The State respondents then filed Writ Appeal No.572 of 2020. A Division Bench of the High Court allowed this appeal, setting aside the Single Judge’s order and upholding the legality of the action taken by the authorities. Subsequently, the appellant’s Review Petition No.388 of 2021 was dismissed by the Division Bench. The appellant then filed two Special Leave Petitions (SLP (C) No.16830 of 2021 and SLP (C) No.18336 of 2022) before the Supreme Court, which were clubbed and heard together, leading to the present judgment.
READ ALSO:A Landmark Ruling: Supreme Court Directs States to Transform Beggars’ Homes from Prisons to Places of Care
Court Observation:
The Supreme Court observed that the actions under Section 15 of the Legal Metrology Act, 2009, are not mere administrative inspections but coercive measures that must strictly adhere to the procedural safeguards of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The Court held that the mandatory prerequisites of recording “reasons to believe” before any search or seizure and ensuring the presence of two or more independent and respectable witnesses during the search under Section 100(4) Cr.P.C. were not complied with. It emphasized that these procedural requirements are fundamental and their non-compliance vitiates the entire proceeding, rendering the search and subsequent seizure illegal and unsustainable in law. The Court also noted that the alleged violation was, at best, technical in nature.
Final Decision & Judgement:
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the judgment of the Division Bench of the High Court. The Court quashed the seizure notice, the compounding notice, and all subsequent proceedings initiated by the respondent authorities. It held that the search and seizure were illegal due to non-compliance with the mandatory procedural safeguards under Section 15 of the Legal Metrology Act, 2009, and Sections 100(4) and 165 of the Cr.P.C., 1973. Consequently, the order passed by the Single Judge of the High Court, which had quashed the impugned notices, was restored.
Case Details:
Case Title: ITC LIMITED vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA & ANR. Citation: 2025 INSC 1111 Civil Appeal No: Civil Appeal No. 11798 of 2025 Date of Judgement: September 12, 2025 Judges/Justice Name: Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice R. Mahadevan
Download The Judgement Here