Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Court | Supreme Court of India |
| Case Number | C.A. No.-011798-011798 – 2025 |
| Diary Number | 24746/2021 |
| Judge Name | HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE R. MAHADEVAN |
| Bench | HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE J.B. PARDIWALA; HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE R. MAHADEVAN |
| Precedent Value | Binding authority on subordinate courts |
| Overrules / Affirms |
|
| Type of Law | Statutory interpretation; procedural law under Legal Metrology Act, 2009 and CrPC |
| Questions of Law | Whether inspection and seizure under Section 15 of the Legal Metrology Act, 2009—without obtaining a warrant, recording “reasons to believe,” or securing two independent witnesses—violate procedural safeguards and natural justice, justifying writ relief under Article 226. |
| Ratio Decidendi | The Court held that Section 15(4) of the Legal Metrology Act incorporates CrPC provisions relating to searches and seizures in full, including the need for a search warrant (CrPC §93), compliance with CrPC §100 (two independent witnesses, mahazar), and recording of “reasons to believe” before inspection or seizure. Failure to follow these mandatory steps vitiates the action. |
| Judgments Relied Upon |
|
| Logic / Jurisprudence / Authorities Relied Upon |
|
| Facts as Summarised by the Court | ITC’s Classmate stationery warehouse in Bengaluru was inspected on 02.07.2020 under LMA 2009, leading to seizure of 7,600 wholesale packages (CFCs) of exercise books for alleged breach of Rule 24(a). No search warrant or recorded reasons to believe were obtained and only one witness (the officer’s driver) was present. Single Judge quashed, Division Bench reversed. |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All subordinate courts |
| Persuasive For | Other High Courts, future benches of the Supreme Court |
| Overrules | Division Bench of Karnataka High Court in Writ Appeal No. 572 of 2020 (quashing of Single Judge’s order) |
| Follows |
|
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- Section 15(4) LMA 2009 explicitly incorporates CrPC §93 (warrant), §100 (two independent witnesses, mahazar) and §165 (record reasons for exigent search) irrespective of premise being “open.”
- Officers must record contemporaneous, rational “reasons to believe” before inspection and before seizure; failure is fatal.
- Labels affixed on wholesale packages cannot cure procedural non-compliance, even if violation is technical.
- Writ jurisdiction under Article 226 is available when the foundational jurisdictional conditions of a special enactment are breached.
- No substitution of statutory safeguards by post-hoc affidavits or contentions; officers’ non-application of mind vitiates entire proceeding.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- Section 15(1) LMA 2009 mandates (a) recorded “reasons to believe” before entering for search/inspection, and (b) reason-to-believe for seizure; Section 15(4) mandates compliance with CrPC search/seizure provisions.
- CrPC §93–95: warrant is mandatory for “search or inspect”; §100(4)–(5): two independent witnesses, mahazar with signatures, copy to occupant.
- CrPC §165: exigent searches require written reasons, application of mind, and follow §100 safeguards.
- Supreme Court precedents (Baldev Singh, Mubarak Ali, Rehman, Narayanappa, Ravinder Kumar) underscore strict adherence to warrant, reasons, witness safeguards.
- Application: LM officers conducted search without warrant, failed to record reasons, summoned only one non-independent witness—rendering search and seizure void.
- High Court Single Judge was correct to quash; Division Bench erred in departing from binding procedural safeguards; appeal allowed.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner (ITC Limited)
- CFCs were secondary/transport packages; labels sufficed under Raj Marketing; no substantive Rule 24(a) violation.
- Section 15 requires pre-recorded “reasons to believe”; none were recorded for search or seizure.
- CrPC §100(4) mandates two independent witnesses; only the officer’s driver was present.
- Premises were closed warehouse; warrant mandatory; Division Bench’s “open premises” distinction raised late.
- Writ under Art 226 maintainable as seizure jurisdiction was lacking; review dismissal ignored natural justice breach.
Respondents (State of Karnataka & LM Authority)
- LM Act aims at consumer protection; proper declarations on wholesale packages mandatory.
- Warehouse is business premises, open to trade; Section 15 authorizes warrantless inspection/seizure during working hours.
- Section 15(4) applies CrPC only “to the extent” applicable; no warrant needed when inspecting compliance.
- CFCs qualify as wholesale packages; affixed labels were inadequate; seizure notice detailed offence and grounds.
- Single witness sufficient as exercise was “inspection,” not “search” under CrPC; remedy under Section 50 LMA existed, writ not maintainable.
Factual Background
On July 2, 2020, Legal Metrology officers entered ITC’s Classmate stationery warehouse in Bengaluru, seized 7,600 corrugated fibreboard containers of exercise books for alleged non-compliance with Rule 24(a) of the Packaged Commodities Rules, 2011. No search warrant was obtained, no “reasons to believe” were recorded, and only the officer’s driver witnessed the seizure. The Single Judge of the Karnataka High Court quashed the seizure and compounding notices; the Division Bench reversed. The Supreme Court granted leave and restored the Single Judge’s order.
Statutory Analysis
- Legal Metrology Act, 2009
- Section 2(n): expansive definition of “premises” (includes business places, warehouses, vehicles).
- Section 15(1)(a)(b): “reasons to believe” pre-condition for entry, search, inspection, seizure.
- Section 15(4): mandates compliance with CrPC provisions on searches and seizures.
- Criminal Procedure Code, 1973
- Section 93–95: search warrants mandatory for search or inspection; reasons recorded on face of warrant.
- Section 100(4)–(5): two independent witnesses, mahazar signed and copy delivered to occupant.
- Section 165: warrantless/exigent searches only upon written reasons; §100 safeguards apply.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed – Strict adherence to CrPC safeguards under special enactments
- 🔄 Conflicting Decisions – Overrules Karnataka High Court Division Bench’s “open premises” approach
- 🚨 Breaking Precedent – Displaces the High Court’s narrow reading of Section 15(4) LMA 2009