# ITC Limited v. State of Karnataka & Anr

- **Citation:** 2025 INSC 1111
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 2025-09-12
- **Case number:** Civil Appeal No. 11798 of 2025
- **Bench:** J.B. Pardiwala, R. Mahadevan
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/itc-limited-v-state-of-karnataka-anr-38727
- **Pages:** 30

## Headnote

Whether the inspection and seizure conducted by Respondent
No.2 u/s.15, Legal Metrology Act, 2009 without obtaining a prior
warrant, was unlawful and violative of the principles of natural
justice, thereby justifying invocation of writ jurisdiction under Article
226 of the Constitution.
Headnotes†
Legal Metrology Act, 2009 - s.15 - Power of inspection,
seizure, etc. - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - s.165 -
Legal Metrology (Packaged Commodities) Rules, 2011 -
Respondent authorities conducted a search and inspection at
a commercial warehouse belonging to the appellant and seized
7,600 pre-packed wholesale packages of exercise books, for
alleged violations of r.24(a), 2011 Rules and s.36(1), 2009
Act - Challenged by the appellant before High Court alleging
that no search warrant was obtained prior to the entry and
ss.100(4) and 165, CrPC were not complied with - Writ petition
allowed by Single Judge - Order set aside by Division Bench;
review thereagainst filed by the appellant also dismissed -
Interference with:
Held: 1.1 In every search conducted under a special enactment
without a warrant, the requirement of recording reasons to believe is
mandatory - The reasons necessitating the search must be relevant
and must reflect application of mind based on some information,
either from a third party or personal knowledge and cannot be
based on mere presumption or extraneous considerations - Such
reasons cannot rest on mere suspicion or subjective satisfaction;
something more substantial is required for a prudent person to
conclude that a search and/or seizure is necessary. [Para 19.2]
* Author
[2025] 9 S.C.R.
765
ITC Limited v. State of Karnataka & Anr.
1.2 Similarly, there must be application of mind before seizing goods,
materials, or documents during a search - A rational nexus must
exist between the articles seized and the contemplated violation
under the applicable provisions - The authority effecting the seizure
must record reasons for such seizure, and those reasons must
demonstrate due application of mind to the materials available.
[Para 19.3]
1.3 In the present case, the search was conducted without a warrant,
and no reasons were admittedly recorded either for conducting
the search or inspection, or for seizure of goods - Therefore, the
search and seizure are vitiated by procedural violations - The entire
proceedings from search to seizure are illegal and unsustainable,
as neither a warrant was obtained nor reasons recorded for search,
inspection, or seizure - The mandatory safeguards u/s.15, 2009
Act, and ss.165, 100(4) and 100(5), Cr.P.C were disregarded.
[Paras 20, 23]
1.4 Observance of due process of law and the principles of natural
justice being intertwined, is a legal necessity to ensure that the
action of the authorities does not result in manifest arbitrariness
or abuse and misuse of power by those empowered to conduct
inspection, search, and/or seizure - When the law prescribes a
particular procedure to be followed while taking action, the same
must be strictly adhered to. [Para 20.1]
1.5 The 2009 Act itself contemplates action against officials
violating its provisions u/ss.42 and 43 - Compliance with statutory
procedures, including recording "reasons to believe" before initiating
search or seizure, is incumbent upon officials; non-compliance
renders the action futile and results in arbitrary excise of authority.
[Para 23]
1.6 Nothing on record to show that the search was so imminent
as to justify dispensing with a warrant - On the same day as the
inspection, search, and seizure, a notice u/s.48, 2009 Act was
issued, specifying a compounding fee for contraventions of ss.29,
36(1), and 36(2) of the Act, and rr.18(2) and 27, 2011 Rules, and
directing the appellant to respond within 15 days, failing which
further legal action would follow - Single Judge of the High Court
correctly set aside these notices, but the Division Bench erroneously
reversed the order - Therefore, the notices/orders issued by the
respond

## Text

_Characters 0–39,907 of 65,639. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39907 for what follows._

[2025] 9 S.C.R. 764 : 2025 INSC 1111
ITC Limited
v.
State of Karnataka & Anr.
(Civil Appeal No. 11798 of 2025)
12 September 2025
[J.B. Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan,* JJ.]
Issue for Consideration
Whether the inspection and seizure conducted by Respondent
No.2 u/s.15, Legal Metrology Act, 2009 without obtaining a prior
warrant, was unlawful and violative of the principles of natural
justice, thereby justifying invocation of writ jurisdiction under Article
226 of the Constitution.
Headnotes†
Legal Metrology Act, 2009 - s.15 - Power of inspection,
seizure, etc. - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - s.165 -
Legal Metrology (Packaged Commodities) Rules, 2011 -
Respondent authorities conducted a search and inspection at
a commercial warehouse belonging to the appellant and seized
7,600 pre-packed wholesale packages of exercise books, for
alleged violations of r.24(a), 2011 Rules and s.36(1), 2009
Act - Challenged by the appellant before High Court alleging
that no search warrant was obtained prior to the entry and
ss.100(4) and 165, CrPC were not complied with - Writ petition
allowed by Single Judge - Order set aside by Division Bench;
review thereagainst filed by the appellant also dismissed -
Interference with:
Held: 1.1 In every search conducted under a special enactment
without a warrant, the requirement of recording reasons to believe is
mandatory - The reasons necessitating the search must be relevant
and must reflect application of mind based on some information,
either from a third party or personal knowledge and cannot be
based on mere presumption or extraneous considerations - Such
reasons cannot rest on mere suspicion or subjective satisfaction;
something more substantial is required for a prudent person to
conclude that a search and/or seizure is necessary. [Para 19.2]
* Author
[2025] 9 S.C.R.
765
ITC Limited v. State of Karnataka & Anr.
1.2 Similarly, there must be application of mind before seizing goods,
materials, or documents during a search - A rational nexus must
exist between the articles seized and the contemplated violation
under the applicable provisions - The authority effecting the seizure
must record reasons for such seizure, and those reasons must
demonstrate due application of mind to the materials available.
[Para 19.3]
1.3 In the present case, the search was conducted without a warrant,
and no reasons were admittedly recorded either for conducting
the search or inspection, or for seizure of goods - Therefore, the
search and seizure are vitiated by procedural violations - The entire
proceedings from search to seizure are illegal and unsustainable,
as neither a warrant was obtained nor reasons recorded for search,
inspection, or seizure - The mandatory safeguards u/s.15, 2009
Act, and ss.165, 100(4) and 100(5), Cr.P.C were disregarded.
[Paras 20, 23]
1.4 Observance of due process of law and the principles of natural
justice being intertwined, is a legal necessity to ensure that the
action of the authorities does not result in manifest arbitrariness
or abuse and misuse of power by those empowered to conduct
inspection, search, and/or seizure - When the law prescribes a
particular procedure to be followed while taking action, the same
must be strictly adhered to. [Para 20.1]
1.5 The 2009 Act itself contemplates action against officials
violating its provisions u/ss.42 and 43 - Compliance with statutory
procedures, including recording "reasons to believe" before initiating
search or seizure, is incumbent upon officials; non-compliance
renders the action futile and results in arbitrary excise of authority.
[Para 23]
1.6 Nothing on record to show that the search was so imminent
as to justify dispensing with a warrant - On the same day as the
inspection, search, and seizure, a notice u/s.48, 2009 Act was
issued, specifying a compounding fee for contraventions of ss.29,
36(1), and 36(2) of the Act, and rr.18(2) and 27, 2011 Rules, and
directing the appellant to respond within 15 days, failing which
further legal action would follow - Single Judge of the High Court
correctly set aside these notices, but the Division Bench erroneously
reversed the order - Therefore, the notices/orders issued by the
respondents, as well as the judgment of the Division Bench are
quashed - Order of the Single Judge, restored. [Para 23]
766
[2025] 9 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - ss.165, 100:
Held: s.165 deals with circumstances and pre-requisites for
searches without warrant - As a general rule, every search
must be preceded by a warrant and reasons to believe must be
recorded - s.165 applies where, due to exigent circumstances, it
is not possible to obtain a search warrant - In such cases, the
officer may, after recording his reasons in writing and specifying,
as far as possible, the thing for which the search is to be made,
conduct or cause a search of the place - s.165(4) provides that
the general provisions relating to searches contained in s.100 also
apply to searches u/s.165 - Therefore, even u/s.165, the existence
of reasons to believe that an imminent search is necessary, must
be recorded, with as much detail as possible - The mandate of
s.100(4) must also be satisfied even in searches u/s.165. [Para 17]
Legal Metrology Act, 2009 - s.15 - Code of Criminal Procedure,
1973 - s.93 - "search", "inspection"; "seizure"; "detention":
Held: 1.1 s.15, 2009 Act and s.93, CrPC speak about search
and inspection - Both provisions treat "search" and "inspection"
as distinct actions - Inspection refers to the verification of the
books, records, or documents at the premises of a person, which
is generally permissible under the respective law upon compliance
with the prerequisites of authorization, recording of reasons to
believe, and permission from the competent authority under law - It
is made to verify compliance with the statute. [Para 19]
1.2 A search, on the other hand, has a wider connotation - It implies
the power to look in any place for any materials, goods, books,
or documents believed to be secreted or concealed, which may
evidence a violation and may be liable to seizure or confiscation -
Further, to conduct either a search or an inspection, not only is a
warrant ordinarily necessary, but there must also be reasons to
believe that such a search is required. [Para 19]
1.3 Seizure refers to the act of taking the material object into
custody for the purpose of investigation or enquiry - Detention
refers to a situation where the owner, though retaining possession
of the goods, is restrained from using them. [Para 19.1]
1.4 There is also a subtle difference where a search followed by
seizure is effected under a special enactment, which contemplates
a sequence of mandatory steps - Such proceedings are initiated
[2025] 9 S.C.R.
767
ITC Limited v. State of Karnataka & Anr.
not merely to charge a person with a violation but also to prevent
further violations, as in the present case. [Para 19.1]
Legal Metrology Act, 2009 - s.15(4) - Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 - s.165:
Held: Reference in s.15(4), 2009 Act to the provisions of the CrPC
cannot be read to mean that s.165, CrPC can be invoked only if
an offence has already been registered - s.165 itself, under subsection (4), makes other provisions of the Code applicable, leaving
no room for ambiguity - Moreover, s.165 speaks of searches during
an investigation; It comes into operation once an investigation
commences. [Para 18]
Legal Metrology Act, 2009 - s.15(4) - Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 - s.100(4), (5) - Applicability:
Held: ss.100(4) and 100(5), CrPC are applicable to the present
case - Thus, the presence of two respectable independent
witnesses from the locality was mandatory - Such witnesses may
also be drawn from a different locality, provided they meet the
requirements of independence and respectability -However, in the
present case, the driver of the Assistant Controller being a party to
the inspection acted as a witness in violation of law - Although the
respondents claimed that no one from the locality was forthcoming,
there is nothing on record to indicate who was approached, when
such request was made, whether a written request was given, and
what further action was taken - The seizure mahazar also fails to
support the respondents' case, as it records none of the claims
now relied upon in their defence - It is settled law that where the
initial proceedings are vitiated, all subsequent proceedings are
unsustainable - Any act in violation of law cannot be brushed
aside on the ground that no prejudice was caused; every violation
of law is deemed to cause some prejudice. [Para 21]
Legal Metrology (Packaged Commodities) Rules, 2011 -
Respondents submitted that r.24, 2011 Rules mandates specific
declarations on wholesale packages - The seized items,
corrugated fibreboard containers (CFCs) containing pre-packed
notebooks fall within the definition of "wholesale packages"
u/r.2(l), 2011 Rules and hence, mandatory declarations were
required to be directly printed on the package and not merely
affixed through labels, as done by the appellant:
768
[2025] 9 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
Held: Nothing on record to suggest that the goods in the container
differed from the particulars on the label, either in form, quality, or
weight - The seizure mahazar only noted that the packages lacked
clear and conspicuous declarations as required u/r.24(a), which
mandates that declarations on wholesale packages be printed and
not affixed by way of a label - It is not disputed by the respondents
that disclosures were made; their contention is merely that they
were affixed as labels rather than printed - Appellant contended
that the goods were stored in CFCs for transportation and that a
label declaring the particulars required under law was duly affixed -
The alleged violation was therefore, at best, technical. [Para 22]
Code of Criminal Procedure , 1973 - Applicability to special
enactments:
Held: Unless the provisions of the CrPC are explicitly excluded, the
same shall apply to special enactments as well - Various special
enactments, such as the Legal Metrology Act, 2009, Income Tax
Act, 1961, Customs Act, 1962, Central Excise Act, 1944, Finance
Act, 1994, Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017, Narcotic Drugs and
Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, as well as several repealed
indirect Tax Laws of different States, contain provisions relating to
search and seizure - The said list is illustrative and not exhaustive,
as there are many other enactments with similar provisions - In all
such enactments, the object of search and seizure is, more often
than not, to collect evidence relating to an ongoing investigation of
an offence or violation, and in some cases, to prevent a violation -
In all these enactments, the procedure prescribed under the CrPC,
insofar as it is applicable to search and seizure, is to be followed.
[Para 19.5]
Words and Phrases - Legal Metrology Act, 2009 - ss.2(n); 15 -
"premises"; "intended to take place"; "place of inspection" -
Scope, examined - Code of Criminal Procedure , 1973 - Chapter
VII-Part A-D - ss.93, 100 (4), (5). [Paras 13-15.2]
Case Law Cited
State of Punjab v. Baldev Singh and Others [1999] 3 SCR 977 :
MANU/SC/0981/1999: AIR 1999 SC 2378 - followed.
State of Maharashtra and Others v. Raj Marketing and Others [2011]
10 SCR 722 : (2011) 15 SCC 525; State of Madhya Pradesh v.
[2025] 9 S.C.R.
769
ITC Limited v. State of Karnataka & Anr.
Mubarak Ali [1959] Supp. 2 SCR 201 : MANU/SC/0038/1959 : AIR
1959 SC 707; Radhika Agarwal v. Union of India 2025 LiveLaw
SC 255; Narayanappa and Others v. Commissioner of Income
Tax, Bangalore MANU/SC/0124/1966: AIR 1967 SC 623; Ashok
Munilal Jain and Another v. The Assistant Director, Directorate of
Enforcement (2018) 16 SCC 158; State of Rajasthan v. Rehman
[1960] 1 SCR 991 : MANU/SC/0181/1959 : AIR 1960 SC 210;
Ravinder Kumar v. State of Haryana MANU/SC/1006/2024 : AIR
2024 SC 4311 - relied on.
List of Acts
Legal Metrology Act, 2009; Legal Metrology (Packaged Commodities)
Rules, 2011; Criminal Procedure Code; 1973; Constitution of India;
Income Tax Act, 1961; Customs Act, 1962; Central Excise Act, 1944;
Finance Act, 1994; Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017; Narcotic
Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985.
List of Keywords
Section 15 of Legal Metrology Act, 2009; Section 165, CrPC; Section
100, CrPC; Power of inspection; Seizure; Search; Inspection;
Seizure; Inspection and seizure without prior warrant; No search
warrant obtained prior to entry; Search conducted without a warrant;
Violation of principles of natural justice; Search under special
enactment without warrant; Reasons to believe; Requirement of
recording reasons to believe; Application of mind; Information from
a third party; Personal knowledge; Arbitrary excise of authority;
Commercial warehouse; Pre-packed wholesale packages; Exercise
books seized; Articles seized; Summons and searches; No reasons
recorded for conducting the search or inspection; No reasons
recorded for seizure of goods; Search and seizure vitiated by
procedural violations; Search to seizure illegal and unsustainable.
Case Arising From
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 11798 of 2025
From the Judgment and Order dated 15.04.2021 of the High Court
of Karnataka at Bengaluru in WA No. 572 of 2020
With
Civil Appeal No. 11799 of 2025
770
[2025] 9 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
Appearances for Parties
Advs. for the Appellant:
Dr. A.m. Singhvi, Sr. Adv., M/s Dua Associates, L.k. Bhushan,
Ms. Raashi Beri, V. N. Raghupathy.
Advs. for the Respondents:
Aman Panwar, A.A.G., Sushil Dutt Salwan, Sr. Adv., Aditya P
Arora, Udit Chauhan, Namit Saxena, V. N. Raghupathy, Shivansh
Saxena, Ms. Mythili S, Ms. Vrinda Bhandari.
Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court
Judgment
R. Mahadevan, J.
Leave granted in both the SLPs.
2.
The appellant, ITC Limited, is engaged in the business of stationery
items including Exercise Books / Notebooks, Pens, Pencils, etc.
under its brand 'Classmate'. On 02.07.2020, Respondent No.2 acting
under Section 15 of the Legal metrology Act, 20091, conducted an
inspection at the appellant's premises situated at Survey No.9/4,
A, B 9/2, 9/8 Arjunabettahalli Village, Madurai Road, Nelamangala
Taluk, Bengaluru, and seized 7600 CFCs / packages of 'Classmate'
exercise books for the alleged violation of Rule 24(a) of the Legal
Metrology (Packaged Commodities) Rules, 20112 which is punishable
under Section 36(1) of the 2009 Act. Pursuant to the seizure, a
seizure notice and a compounding notice both dated 02.07.2020
were issued to the appellant. Alleging that no search warrant was
obtained prior to the entry and that the provisions of Sections 100(4)
and 165 of the Criminal Procedure Code3 were not complied with,
the appellant preferred Writ Petition No.8954 of 2020 (GM-RES)
under Article 226 of the Constitution of India before the High Court
of Karnataka4, seeking to quash the said notices and for a direction
to Respondent No.2 to release the seized goods.
1
For short, "the 2009 Act"
2
For short, "the 2011 Rules"
3
For short, "Cr.P.C"
4
For short, "the High Court"
[2025] 9 S.C.R.
771
ITC Limited v. State of Karnataka & Anr.
3.
After hearing both parties, the learned Single Judge of the High Court,
by order dated 04.09.2020, allowed the writ petition, quashed the
notices issued by Respondent No.2, and directed the release of the
seized goods, holding that the search and seizure were conducted
without jurisdiction. Aggrieved by the said order, the respondents
filed Writ Appeal No.572 of 2020 (GM-RES).
4.
Upon consideration, the Division Bench of the High Court allowed
the writ appeal and set aside the order of the Single Judge, by
judgment dated 15.04.2021. In doing so, it was observed that the
requirement of a search warrant does not arise where action is
initiated under Section 15 of the 2009 Act and that the Authority is
duly empowered to inspect, search, and seize. Hence, there was no
illegality or procedural error in the search and seizure undertaken by
the Authority. Feeling aggrieved, the appellant filed Special Leave
Petition (C) No.16830 of 2021 before this Court.
5.
In the meanwhile, the appellant also filed Review Petition No.388
of 2021 in Writ Appeal No.572 of 2020 seeking a review of the
Division Bench's judgment. The said review petition was dismissed,
by order dated 10.08.2022, against which, the appellant filed SLP
(C) No.18336 of 2022 before this Court.
6.
Pursuant to this Court's order dated 04.11.2022, SLP (C) No.18336
of 2022 was tagged with SLP (C) No.16830 of 2021. This Court,
after hearing the submissions made by the parties, now proceeds
to dispose of both matters by this common judgment.
7.
The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant, at the outset,
submitted that there was no violation of Rule 24 of the 2011 Rules
that would attract the penalty envisaged under Section 36(1) of the
2009 Act, as the CFCs in question are not "wholesale packages"
but are merely meant for the protection and transportation of goods.
Nevertheless, as a matter of abundant caution, declarations in terms
of Rule 24 were affixed on these CFCs. In this regard, reliance was
placed on the judgment in State of Maharashtra and Others v. Raj
Marketing and Others5, which draws a distinction between wholesale
and secondary packages. It was further submitted that despite raising
objections before the respondents and the High Court regarding the
inapplicability of the 2009 Act and 2011 Rules, the same were not
considered, thereby vitiating the foundation of the seizure.
5
(2011) 15 SCC 525
772
[2025] 9 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
7.1. The second submission was that Section 15 of the 2009 Act
mandates the existence of "reasons to believe" as a condition
precedent for conducting inspection or seizure. However, the
seizure receipt dated 02.07.2020 does not disclose any such
reasons recorded prior to the search. Further, the compounding
notice issued under Section 48 of the 2009 Act, also dated
02.07.2020, similarly lacks any disclosure of reasons. The
simultaneous issuance of both seizure and compounding
notices, without due deliberation, indicates non-application of
mind on the part of the respondents. While the learned Single
Judge rightly acknowledged this lapse, the Division Bench failed
to consider it adequately.
7.2. It was also contended that Section 100(4) Cr.P.C requires the
presence of two or more independent witnesses during the
conduct of a search. In the present case, only one witness -
Nagabhushan, a driver employed by Respondent No.2 - was
present. Such a person cannot be considered an "independent
witness" within the meaning of Section 100(4). Moreover,
there is no record of any "reasons to believe" either before or
after the search, nor was any urgency or exigency pleaded to
justify immediate seizure. The respondents merely relied on
Section 102 Cr.P.C., which does not dispense with the statutory
requirement of a warrant or justification for seizure.
7.3. The learned Senior Counsel further contended that the premises
in question - namely, a warehouse owned by the appellant - was
not open to the public, and access was restricted to authorised
personnel. Therefore, the respondents were required to obtain
a warrant before conducting any search or seizure. It was also
pointed out that the argument advanced by the respondents
before the Division Bench - that Section 100 Cr.P.C applies
only to closed premises - was raised for the first time during
oral arguments and without any pleading or evidence. Such
a submission was made solely to retrospectively justify the
respondents' actions. Moreover, Section 2(n) of the 2009 Act,
which defines "premises", makes no such distinction between
open and closed premises. The Division Bench's failure to
consider this aspect, even in the review petition, renders its
decision legally unsustainable.
[2025] 9 S.C.R.
773
ITC Limited v. State of Karnataka & Anr.
7.4. The learned Senior Counsel further contended that the appellant
had no alternative efficacious remedy, as the very jurisdictional
foundation of the seizure was illegal. Thus, the appellant rightly
invoked the writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution.
The learned Single Judge of the High Court, by order dated
04.09.2020, allowed the writ petition on the ground that even
where an alternative remedy exists, a writ petition would lie if
the action is without jurisdiction. However, the Division Bench
erroneously reversed the decision, holding that in the absence
of a violation of natural justice, the writ was not maintainable.
7.5. Additionally, it was submitted that the principles of natural
justice were indeed violated, as the seizure and compounding
notices were issued simultaneously, depriving the appellant of
any opportunity of being heard. The appellant's request for a
personal hearing was ignored. Furthermore, the review petition
filed by the appellant against the Division Bench's judgment
was dismissed summarily, without due consideration of these
contentions.
7.6. In view of the above, the learned Senior Counsel prayed to
allow these appeals by setting aside the impugned judgment
and order passed by the Division Bench of the High Court.
8.
In response, the learned Counsel for the respondents submitted that
the Legal Metrology Act, 2009 was enacted to ensure consumer
protection by mandating accurate declarations on goods sold by
weight, measure, or number. Compliance with the Act and Rules is
essential to safeguard consumer rights. The requirement for proper
declarations on wholesale packages ensures transparency and
accountability in trade practices.
8.1. Continuing further, it was submitted that the inspection
and seizure were conducted at the appellant's commercial
warehouse during working hours. The premises were neither
a private dwelling nor inaccessible. Members of the appellant's
staff were present during the inspection. The seizure was limited
to pre-packed notebooks, which were found to lack mandatory
declarations as required under the Legal Metrology (Packaged
Commodities) Rules, 2011. A seizure mahazar was drawn onsite, and notice was served on the authorised person present.
774
[2025] 9 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
8.2. It was also submitted that the warehouse was a place of
business, accessible to others, and not a closed or private
premises. Referring to the definition of "premises" under section
2(n) of the 2009 Act, it was contended that the Division Bench
rightly distinguished between open and closed premises and
held that Section 100 Cr.P.C applies only to closed premises.
Thus, the absence of a search warrant does not vitiate the
seizure in this case.
8.3. The learned Counsel further argued that the procedural
safeguards under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 are not
applicable in toto to inspections under the Legal Metrology Act.
Section 15(4) of the 2009 Act incorporates Cr.P.C. provisions only
to the extent applicable. Therefore, no warrant is required under
Section 15 when the action is taken to determine compliance
with the Act and the Rules. The Division Bench correctly held
that under Section 15, the competent authority is empowered
to enter premises, inspect, search, and seize goods in case of
violations. The seizure notice dated 02.07.2020 (No.0691674)
clearly sets out the nature of the offence and the grounds for
seizure.
8.4. The learned Counsel also submitted that Rule 24 of the 2011
Rules mandates specific declarations on wholesale packages.
The seized items - corrugated fibreboard containers (CFCs)
containing pre-packed notebooks - fall within the definition of
"wholesale packages" under Rule 2(l) of the 2011 Rules. Hence,
mandatory declarations were required to be directly printed
on the package and not merely affixed through labels, as was
done by the appellant. The respondents denied the appellant's
claim of compliance, and asserted that the declarations were
inadequate and in breach of Rule 24.
8.5. It was further contended that Section 165 Cr.P.C is not applicable
and that seizure of goods can be undertaken without a search
warrant under Section 102 Cr.P.C. read with Section 15(4) of
the 2009 Act.
8.6. As regards the requirement of independent witnesses under
Section 100(4) Cr.P.C., it was submitted that the action taken
was an inspection, not a "search" in the strict legal sense.
[2025] 9 S.C.R.
775
ITC Limited v. State of Karnataka & Anr.
Therefore, the presence of two independent witnesses was
not mandatory. The presence of one witness, being a driver of
Respondent No.2 does not vitiate the legality of the seizure.
8.7. Finally, the learned Counsel for the respondents submitted
that the appellant had an efficacious statutory remedy under
Section 50 of the 2009 Act. Therefore, the appellant's decision
to approach the High Court directly under Article 226, without
first availing the alternative remedy, was improper and the writ
petition was not maintainable. The allegation that the appellant's
representation was disregarded, was denied. It was contended
that reasonable opportunity was afforded, and the Division
Bench addressed all relevant issues in detail in its judgment
passed in the writ appeal.
8.8. In conclusion, it was submitted that the action of Respondent
No.2 was in accordance with law and procedure, and hence,
the judgment and order of the Division Bench warrant no
interference at the hands of this court.
9.
We have considered the rival submissions and perused the materials
available on record.
10. The principal issue that arises for consideration herein is whether the
inspection and seizure conducted by Respondent No.2 under Section
15 of the 2009 Act, without obtaining a prior warrant, was unlawful
and violative of the principles of natural justice, thereby justifying
invocation of writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution.
11. At the outset, it is relevant to extract Section 15 of the 2009 Act,
as follows:
"15. Power of inspection, seizure, etc. (1) The Director,
Controller or any legal metrology officer may, if he has
any reason to believe, whether from any information
given to him by any person and taken down in writing or
from personal knowledge or otherwise, that any weight
or measure or other goods in relation to which any trade
and commerce has taken place or is intended to take
place and in respect of which an offence punishable
under this Act appears to have been, or is likely to be,
committed are either kept or concealed in any premises
or are in the course of transportation,-
776
[2025] 9 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
(a) enter at any reasonable time into any such
premises and search for and inspect any weight,
measure or other goods in relation to which trade
and commerce has taken place, or is intended to
take place and any record, register or other document
relation thereto;
(b) seize any weight, measure or other goods and any
record, register or other document or article which he
has reason to believe may furnish evidence indicating
that an offence punishable under this Act has been,
or is likely to be, committed in the course of, or in
relation to, any trade and commerce.
(2) The Director, Controller or any legal metrology officer
may also require the production of every document or
other record relating to the weight or measure referred to
in sub-section (1) and the person having the custody of
such weight or measure shall comply with such requisition.
(3) Where any goods seized under sub-section (1) are
subject to speedy or natural decay, the Director, Controller
or legal metrology officer may dispose of such goods in
such manner as may be prescribed.
(4) Every search or seizer made under this section shall
be carried out in accordance with the provisions of the
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), relating
to searches and seizures."
11.1. From a plain reading of the above provision, it is clear that
Section 15(1) of the 2009 Act contemplates that information
may be received orally (which must be reduced into writing), or
by way of personal knowledge, or through written information.
Upon evaluation of such information or knowledge, the officer
must have reason to believe that any weight, measure, or
goods, in relation to which any trade or commerce has taken
place or is intended to take place, and in respect of which an
offence has been committed or is likely to be committed, are
kept, concealed, or likely to be transported. In such a situation,
the Director, Controller, or any Legal Metrology Officer may,
under Section 15(1)(a), enter any premises and search and
inspect such weight, measure, goods, records, registers, or
[2025] 9 S.C.R.
777
ITC Limited v. State of Karnataka & Anr.
other documents. Further, upon having reason to believe that
an offence under the Act has been or is likely to be committed,
and that such weight, measure, goods, records, registers,
documents, or articles may furnish evidence of such offence,
the officer may seize the same under section 15(1)(b). Subsection (4) provides that such search or seizure shall be carried
out in accordance with the provisions of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973. Therefore, Section 15, on its face, mandates
that there must be reasons to believe both for conducting a
search or inspection of premises and for seizure of materials
therefrom. In addition, to satisfy the requirements of Section
15, the officials must also comply with the provisions of the
Code of Criminal Procedure relating to search and seizure.
12. In the present case, the Division Bench of the High Court, considering
the use of the words "search or seizure" in Section 15(4) of the
2009 Act, held that Section 100 Cr.P.C would apply only in respect
of closed premises; and since, the business premises were open,
the pre-requisites under Section 100 Cr.P.C were not required to be
followed. It is, therefore, necessary to examine the scope of "place
of inspection" as defined and applied under the 2009 Act.
13. Section 2(n) of the 2009 Act defines the term "premises" and reads
as follows:
(n) "premises" includes-
(i) a place where any business, industry, production or
transaction is carried on by a person, whether by himself
or through an agent, by whatever name called, including
the person who carries on the business in such premises,
(ii) a warehouse, godown or other place where any weight
or measure or other goods are stored or exhibited,
(iii) a place where any books of account or other
documents pertaining to any trade or transaction are kept,
(iv) a dwelling house, if any part thereof is used for the
purpose of carrying on any business, industry, production
or trade,
(v) a vehicle or vessel or any other mobile device, with the
help of which any transaction or business is carried on;
778
[2025] 9 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
13.1. The word "premises" is exhaustive and includes not only a place
where goods are traded or manufactured but also where they
are stored. It also includes the place where books of accounts
or other documents are kept, a dwelling house if any part of it
is used for business, industry, production, or trade, and even
a vehicle used in the course of business activity.
14. Section 15 contemplates three different actions, namely, search,
inspection, and seizure. The provision authorises an officer entering
the premises to conduct a search for the recovery or discovery of
any concealed material used or proposed to be used in contravention
of the Act and, during such search, to inspect such materials. If
the officer has reason to believe that the material may be used as
evidence, he is empowered to seize it. The language of Section 15(1)
makes it clear that the officer must have reason to believe that an
offence has been committed or is likely to be committed and that
materials or evidence relevant thereto are available in the premises.
These pre-requisites under Section 15(1) are common to inspection,
search and seizure. Significantly, Section 15(1)(b) stipulates that,
before seizure, the officer must have reason to believe that such
materials, goods, records, or documents may furnish evidence
indicating that an offence under the Act has been committed or is
likely to be committed with regard to goods already traded or likely
to be traded. The definition of "premises" and the phrase "intended
to take place" further reinforce that the procedure prescribed under
the Cr.P.C. must be followed even with respect to goods stored in
warehouses or godowns, irrespective of whether open or closed.
15. Chapter VII of the Criminal Procedure Code deals with summons
and searches. Part A concerns summon to produce, Part B relates
to search warrants, Part C lays down general provisions applicable
to searches, and Part D contains miscellaneous matters. Section
93 Cr.P.C. empowers a Court to issue a search warrant in three
circumstances: (i)where the Court has reason to believe that a
person to whom a summons or order under Section 91 Cr.P.C. has
been or might be issued, or to whom a requisition under Section
92 has been or might be addressed, would not comply with such
summons, order, or requisition; (ii)where the thing for which search is
to be made is not known to the Court to be in the possession of any
person; and (iii)where a general search or inspection is considered
necessary by the Court. A warrant may specify the particular place
[2025] 9 S.C.R.
779
ITC Limited v. State of Karnataka & Anr.
or part of a place to be searched or inspected, and only such place
as is mentioned in the warrant can be entered. Section 93(1)(c)
read with sub-section (2) uses the expression "search or inspect",
thereby signifying that a warrant is mandatory for both search and
inspection, and that the Court must record reasons to believe the
necessity of issuing such warrant. Sections 94 and 95, in turn, deal
with warrants in respect of stolen property, objectionable articles,
and forfeited publications.
15.1. Part C commencing with Section 99 provides that the provisions
in Sections 38, 70, 72,74, 77, 78 and 79, shall, as far as may
be, apply to search warrants issued under Sections 93, 94, 95
and 97. These provisions relate to aid in execution of warrants
of arrest, issuance, purpose, endorsement, authorization,
and execution both within and outside India. Section 100(1)
prescribes that where a place required to be searched or
inspected is closed, the person in charge, upon production of
the warrant, must allow ingress and afford all facilities for the
search. Section 100(2) states that, in case of non-cooperation,
the procedure under Section 47(2) (relating to authority to
break open the premises) shall be followed. Section 100(4)
mandates that, before making a search under this Chapter,
the person conducting the search shall call upon two or more
independent and respectable inhabitants of the locality (or
other localities, if necessary) to witness the search. If they
refuse, they may be compelled, and if they still fail or refuse,
they are liable to prosecution under Section 187 IPC. Section
100(5) further requires that persons witnessing the search and
seizure must sign the mahazar, and a copy of such mahazar
shall be delivered to the occupant.
15.2. Part D begins with Section 102, which deals with seizure by
a police officer of goods alleged or suspected to be stolen,
or goods found under circumstances creating suspicion of
commission of an offence. Section 102(3) requires that such
seizure be immediately reported to the Magistrate having
jurisdiction. If the seized goods cannot be transported to Court,
or where there is difficulty in securing proper accommodation
for custody, or where they are no longer necessary for
investigation, they may be handed over to a person upon such
person executing a bond to produce them before the Court
780
[2025] 9 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
as and when required or under further orders. It is pertinent
to note here that goods seized under Section 102 refers to
goods recovered or seized during a causal recovery or general
search, such as stolen goods or goods found accidentally, which
the officer believes to be involved in some offence. It does
not include goods seized under Sections 100(4) and 100(5)
pursuant to a search or inspection conducted under Section
93 Cr.P.C. Section 102 thus addresses a distinct situation
of seizure during a general search, not during a search or
inspection under Section 15 of the 2009 Act. A plain reading
of Section 15 of the 2009 Act, along with Sections 93 and 100
(4) - (5) Cr.P.C leads to the irresistible conclusion that, in the
absence of a search, there cannot be any seizure.
16. The respondents have consistently pleaded before both the writ
Court and the Appellate Court that the search and seizure were
carried out in accordance with Section 15 of the 2009 Act. Their
present attempt to contend that there was no search but merely an
inspection cannot aid their case, since the pre-requisites under both
Section 15 of the 2009 Act as well as Section 93 Cr.P.C must be
satisfied in either event. The expression 'closed premises' denotes
premises, where access is locked or otherwise unavailable to the
public except with the permission of the occupant, and cannot be
construed narrowly to exclude open-air premises, if such access is
not generally available to unauthorised persons. A distinction must
be drawn between premises where the public has access for a
limited purpose and premises that are truly public. In the case of a
warehouse or godown, access is granted only to those who have
some business connection with the owner. Even in trading premises,
entry is subject to restrictions. Therefore, merely because a place
is open at the time of visit does not mean that the requirements
under Section 15 of the 2009 Act or the Cr.P.C. can be bypassed.
Any officer intending to conduct a search or inspection and effect a
seizure must necessarily follow the prescribed procedure and cannot
forcibly enter premises without warrant or reasons duly recorded.
These safeguards, embodied both in the special enactment and the
Cr.P.C., are designed to prevent arbitrary action and to uphold the
guarantee of due process.
17. Section 165 Cr.P.C. deals with circumstances and pre-requisites for
searches without warrant. As a general rule, every search must be
[2025] 9 S.C.R.
781
ITC Limited v. State of Karnataka & Anr.
preceded by a warrant and reasons to believe must be recorded.
Section 165 applies where, due to exigent circumstances, it is
not possible to obtain a search warrant. In such cases, the officer
may, after recording his reasons in writing and specifying, as far
as possible, the thing for which the search is to be made, conduct
or cause a search of the place. Section 165(4) provides that the
general provisions relating to searches contained in Section 100
also apply to searches under Section 165. It is therefore clear that
even under Section 165, the existence of reasons to believe that an
imminent search is necessary, must be recorded, with as much detail
as possible. The mandate of Section 100(4) must also be satisfied
even in searches under Section 165.
18. It must also be recalled that Section 15(4) of the 2009 Act requires
compliance with the provisions of the Cr.P.C. relating to search or
seizure when such actions are taken under the Act. Section 51 of the
2009 Act, expressly lays down that Section 153 Cr.P.C dealing with
preventive action of the police, or the provisions of the IPC as they
then stood, are not applicable to matters under the Legal Metrology
Act. Therefore, the reference in Section 15(4) of the 2009 Act to the
provisions of the Cr.P.C. cannot be read to mean that Section 165
Cr.P.C can be invoked only if an offence has already been registered.
Section 165 itself, under sub-section (4), makes other provisions
of the Code applicable, leaving no room for ambiguity.