LexITC LIMITED versus STATE OF KARNATAKA & ANR.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[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
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.