The Supreme Court observed that the inspection and seizure conducted under Section 15 of the Legal Metrology Act, 2009, without obtaining a prior warrant, was unlawful and violative of the principles of natural justice.

The Supreme Court also underscored that unless the provisions of the Cr.P.C. are explicitly excluded, the same shall apply to special enactments as well.

The Bench of Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice R. Mahadevan observed, “In view of the foregoing, 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 under Section 15 of the 2009 Act, and Sections 165, 100(4) and 100(5) Cr.P.C were disregarded. The 2009 Act itself contemplates action against officials violating its provisions under Sections 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. In the present case, the respondents not only violated Section 15 of the 2009 Act, but also failed to comply with Sections 100(4) and 165 Cr.P.C.”

Case Brief

An inspection was conducted at the premises of the ITC Ltd. and seizure of 7600 CFCs / packages of ‘Classmate’ exercise books were made for the alleged violation of Rule 24(a) of the Legal Metrology (Packaged Commodities) Rules, 2012 which is punishable under Section 36(1) of the Legal Metrology Act, 2009.

A Writ Petition was filed at the High Court to quash seizure notice and release the seized goods alleging that no search warrant was obtained prior to the entry. The Singh Judge of the High Court allowed the writ petition, holding that the search and seizure were conducted without jurisdiction. However, the Division Bench of the High Court allowed the Writ Appeal and set aside the order of the Single Judge and observed that the requirement of a search warrant does not arise where action is initiated under Section 15 of the 2009 Act.

Court’s Observation

The principal issue that arose for consideration was whether the inspection and seizure conducted by Respondents under Section 15 of the 2009 Act, without obtaining a prior warrant, was unlawful and violative of the principles of natural justice.

The Supreme Court referred to Section 15 of the Act, 2009 which provides for the power of inspection, seizure, etc to the Director, Controller or any legal metrology officer. The Court observed that the Section 15(4) of the Act, 2009 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”, the Court held.

The Supreme Court also took into account that the Section 15 of the Act, 2009 contemplates three different actions, namely, search, inspection, and seizure and said that 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.

While referring to Section 93 of the CrPC, the Court observed that 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.

The Court said, “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.”

Further, the Court also opined that 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.

Resultantly, the Supreme Court observed that the entire proceedings from search to seizure were illegal and unsustainable, as neither a warrant was obtained nor reasons recorded for search, inspection, or seizure. The mandatory safeguards under Section 15 of the 2009 Act, and Sections 165, 100(4) and 100(5) Cr.P.C were disregarded

Accordingly, the appeal was allowed.

Cause Title: ITC Ltd. V. State of Karnataka & Anr. (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 1111)

Click here to read/download Order


Justice J.B. PardiwalaJustice R. Mahadevan

Pridhi Chopra

    Pridhi Chopra was earlier practicing as an Advocate in Delhi. She pursued B.A. (H) English from Gargi College, University of Delhi, and subsequently pursued a degree in Law.