No Seizure Without a CrPC‑Compliant Search Under the Legal Metrology Act: Supreme Court mandates recorded “reasons to believe”, warrants, and two independent witnesses for all premises

Case: ITC Limited v. State of Karnataka & Anr., 2025 INSC 1111

Court: Supreme Court of India (Civil Appellate Jurisdiction)

Date of Judgment: 12 September 2025

Coram: J.B. Pardiwala, J. and R. Mahadevan, J. (Author)

Introduction

This reportable decision decisively clarifies the procedural architecture governing inspections, searches, and seizures under Section 15 of the Legal Metrology Act, 2009 (LMA) and its interplay with the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC). The Court addresses whether officers acting under the LMA can enter, inspect, search, and seize without a prior warrant and whether CrPC safeguards—especially the presence of two independent witnesses and recording of “reasons to believe”—apply to business premises, including warehouses open during business hours.

ITC Limited, a manufacturer of stationery under the “Classmate” brand, challenged a search and seizure conducted on 02.07.2020 at its warehouse in Nelamangala, Bengaluru. Respondent No.2 (Legal Metrology authority) seized 7,600 corrugated fibreboard cartons (CFCs) of pre-packed exercise books alleging non-compliance with Rule 24(a) of the Legal Metrology (Packaged Commodities) Rules, 2011 (LMPC Rules), punishable under Section 36(1) of the LMA. ITC’s writ petition succeeded before the Single Judge but was reversed by the Division Bench, which held no warrant was needed and Section 100 CrPC applied only to “closed” premises. ITC appealed to the Supreme Court.

The principal issues included:

Whether a prior warrant and CrPC safeguards are mandatory for inspections/searches/seizures under Section 15 LMA, including at business premises open during working hours.
Whether “reasons to believe” must be recorded before such action.
Whether Section 100(4) CrPC (two independent witnesses) applies and who qualifies as an “independent” witness.
Whether seizure can be justified via Section 102 CrPC absent a lawful search, and whether Section 165 CrPC exigency was satisfied.
Whether the alleged LMPC violation (labels affixed on CFCs) was, at best, technical and whether affixing labels on wholesale packages is permissible.
Whether writ jurisdiction was rightly invoked despite the availability of an alternative remedy.

Summary of the Judgment

The Supreme Court allowed ITC’s appeals, quashed the Division Bench’s judgment, restored the Single Judge’s order, and set aside the seizure and compounding notices.
Section 15 LMA requires the officer to have and record “reasons to believe” before entering, inspecting, searching, or seizing. By virtue of Section 15(4), searches and seizures under the LMA must comply with CrPC provisions relating to searches and seizures.
CrPC safeguards, including Section 100(4)–(5) (presence and signatures of two independent, respectable witnesses from the locality or nearby locality), apply. The “open vs closed premises” distinction is rejected; warehouses/business premises—even if open during business hours—are “premises” for Section 15 purposes, and CrPC procedures cannot be bypassed.
Section 165 CrPC exigency searches require prior recording of reasons; Section 100 safeguards still apply. No such reasons were recorded here. Section 102 CrPC is inapplicable as a stand-alone justification for seizure under the LMA framework.
In the absence of a lawful, CrPC-compliant search, there can be no lawful seizure under Section 15 LMA.
The only witness to the search mahazar was the driver of the authority, who is not “independent”; the mandatory witness requirement was violated.
The alleged packaging violation was, at best, technical; the Court referenced prior jurisprudence and clarificatory guidance indicating no bar on affixing labels on wholesale packages and that transportation CFCs may not be “wholesale packages.”
Given the jurisdictional defects and violation of mandatory procedure, writ jurisdiction was rightly invoked despite the availability of statutory remedies.

Analysis

Statutory Framework and Interplay

Section 15 LMA: Authorizes entry, search, inspection, and seizure if the officer has “reasons to believe” that an offence under the Act has been or is likely to be committed in relation to weights, measures, or goods kept/concealed in any “premises,” including warehouses and places where books/records are kept. Critically, Section 15(4) mandates that “every search or seizure” shall be carried out in accordance with CrPC provisions relating to searches and seizures.
Definition of “premises” (Section 2(n) LMA): Broadly includes places of business, warehouses/godowns, places where records are kept, parts of dwelling houses used for business, and vehicles. No “open vs closed” distinction exists in the statute.
CrPC provisions incorporated by Section 15(4) LMA:
- Section 93 CrPC: Court-issued search warrants for search or inspection; reasons must be recorded. Ordinarily, searches/inspections proceed on a warrant.
- Section 100(4)–(5) CrPC: Before making a search, two or more independent and respectable witnesses of the locality (or nearby locality if needed) must witness and sign the search/seizure mahazar; a copy must be given to the occupant.
- Section 165 CrPC: Exigency provision permitting searches without warrant during investigation, but only after recording reasons in writing and still subject to Section 100 safeguards.
- Section 102 CrPC: Seizure by police of suspected stolen property or items found under suspicious circumstances. The Court clarified this is a distinct, general police power and cannot be used to circumvent the structured search regime of Section 15 LMA read with Sections 93/100/165 CrPC.

Precedents Cited and Their Influence

State of Madhya Pradesh v. Mubarak Ali, AIR 1959 SC 707. The Court reaffirmed that certain prerequisites (e.g., prior permission/recording reasons) are conditions precedent and not curable post-facto. It also unpacked “investigation,” including visits to the spot, examination of persons, and searches. Applied here to emphasize that recording “reasons to believe” and adhering to the staged procedure before search/seizure is jurisdictional, not a mere technicality.
State of Rajasthan v. Rehman, AIR 1960 SC 210. Searches under special enactments must comply with CrPC provisions if the special law so stipulates. Recording reasons under Section 165 is an “important step” and its omission vitiates the search. This squarely supports the holding that Section 15(4) LMA imports CrPC safeguards.
State Of Punjab v. Baldev Singh, AIR 1999 SC 2378 (Constitution Bench). Emphasized that mandatory procedural safeguards (NDPS Section 50) secure fairness; violation vitiates the search and undermines the legitimacy of the judicial process. Used to underscore that the means matter: compliance with statutory safeguards is non-negotiable.
Narayanappa v. CIT, AIR 1967 SC 623. “Reason to believe” must have a rational connection to the formation of belief; it must be in good faith and is judicially reviewable to a limited extent. Grounded the Court’s insistence on recording reasons before inspection/search/seizure.
Ravinder Kumar v. State of Haryana, AIR 2024 SC 4311. Illegal search under PCPNDT Act vitiated the proceeding; continued prosecution would be an abuse of process. Reinforces the proposition that once the foundational search is unlawful, subsequent steps fall.
Ashok Munilal Jain v. Asst. Director, Directorate of Enforcement, (2018) 16 SCC 158. Unless expressly excluded, CrPC applies to special enactments for search/seizure processes. Cited to confirm Section 15(4) LMA’s incorporation of CrPC safeguards.
Radhika Agarwal v. Union of India, 2025 LiveLaw SC 255. Cited to the same effect on CrPC applicability and compliance in special statutes (as noted in the judgment).
State Of Maharashtra v. Raj Kumar Marketing & Anr., (2011) 15 SCC 525. Referenced for the distinction between “wholesale packages” and secondary/transport packages; and for clarifications that affixing labels on wholesale packages is not per se prohibited. The Court noted that, at best, the alleged LMPC lapse here was technical, bolstering the proportionality critique of the respondents’ action.

Legal Reasoning: From Text to Principles

“Reasons to believe” as a jurisdictional gateway: Section 15(1) LMA requires the officer to have reasons to believe—based on information reduced to writing, personal knowledge, or credible material—that an offence has been or is likely to be committed, and that relevant goods/documents are on the premises. The Court held that such reasons must be recorded before entry, inspection, search, or seizure. Mere suspicion will not do.
CrPC compliance is mandatory, not optional: Section 15(4) explicitly commands adherence to CrPC provisions for search and seizure. Accordingly:
- Ordinarily, a warrant under Section 93 CrPC is needed for search/inspection;
- If exigency justifies a warrantless search, Section 165 CrPC requires prior recording of reasons, and Section 100 safeguards (two independent witnesses; mahazar formalities) remain applicable;
- Section 102 CrPC is not a bypass for the structured LMA search regime; it pertains to general police action unrelated to the special-act search contemplated by Section 15.
Open vs closed premises: a false dichotomy: The Division Bench’s view that Section 100 CrPC applies only to “closed” premises was rejected. The LMA’s definition of “premises” is broad and covers warehouses and business places irrespective of whether the shutter is up or down. The fact that business premises are open during working hours does not dilute statutory safeguards.
No seizure without a lawful search/inspection: Within the LMA framework, seizure under Section 15(1)(b) presupposes a lawful entry/search/inspection founded on recorded reasons. The Court stated that “in the absence of a search, there cannot be any seizure” for the purposes and scheme of Section 15 read with CrPC.
Witness requirement is substantive: Section 100(4)–(5) requires two independent, respectable witnesses from the locality or, if necessary, nearby localities. An employee or associate of the seizing agency is not “independent.” The use of the authority’s driver as a witness was fatal.
Natural justice and non-application of mind: Simultaneous issuance of the seizure and compounding notices on the same day—without recorded reasons or a warrant, and without procedural safeguards—displayed non-application of mind and violated due process.
LMPC Rule 24 issue: technicality and proportionality: The Court noted that declarations existed on the CFCs and the respondent’s grievance was only that they were on affixed labels rather than printed. Referring to Raj Kumar Marketing and clarificatory guidance (including FAQs), the Court regarded the alleged breach as technical at best. This reinforced the lack of proportionality in launching a drastic search and seizure without statutory compliance.
Writ maintainability despite alternative remedy: Where the very foundation of jurisdiction—compliance with mandatory preconditions for search/seizure—is absent, writ jurisdiction is properly invoked. The Single Judge’s approach was endorsed; the Division Bench’s contrary view was set aside.

Impact: Why this decision matters

For Legal Metrology enforcement nationwide:
- Establishes a clear, uniform protocol: record “reasons to believe” before entry; obtain a warrant unless Section 165 exigency is demonstrable and reasons are recorded; ensure Section 100 witnesses and mahazar formalities.
- Eliminates the “open premises” exception; warehouses and business premises are fully covered by CrPC safeguards.
- Disallows reliance on Section 102 CrPC to justify seizures under the LMA absent a lawful search.
- Calls for revision of SOPs, training, and documentation practices; expects oversight and potential action under LMA Sections 42 and 43 against errant officials.
For businesses and trade:
- Empowers challenges to raids lacking recorded reasons, warrants (where ordinarily required), or the presence of two independent witnesses.
- Affirms that technical or debatable packaging lapses are not a carte blanche for intrusive searches without due process.
- Encourages robust compliance (labels/declarations), record-keeping, and rights awareness during inspections.
Across special statutes: Reiterates a cross-cutting principle: unless expressly excluded, CrPC search-and-seizure safeguards apply to special enactments. The logic resonates beyond LMA—to tax, customs, excise, GST, NDPS, and other regulatory regimes.
Procedural discipline over enforcement zeal: The judgment cautions that substantive ends cannot justify procedural shortcuts; illegal searches corrode legitimacy and invite quashment of downstream action.

Complex Concepts Simplified

“Reasons to believe”: The officer must have credible, objective grounds—based on information or personal knowledge—suggesting an offence has been or is likely to be committed. These reasons must be recorded. Courts can review whether the reasons have a rational nexus to the action taken.
Inspection vs Search vs Seizure vs Detention:
- Inspection: Verification of compliance by examining goods/records on premises; under Section 15 LMA it still requires recorded reasons and CrPC compliance when it shades into search.
- Search: Looking for goods/documents believed to be concealed/secreted; ordinarily requires a warrant; exigency searches must comply with Section 165 and Section 100 CrPC safeguards.
- Seizure: Taking custody of items as potential evidence; under the LMA, a valid seizure presupposes a lawful search/inspection.
- Detention: Owner retains possession but is restrained from using/removing items; distinct from seizure but may occur in related contexts.
Section 100(4)–(5) CrPC witnesses: Two independent and respectable locals (or nearby locals) must witness the search; agency staff or associates are not independent.
Section 165 CrPC exigency: Warrantless search is permissible only in urgent circumstances; reasons must be recorded beforehand, and Section 100 formalities still apply.
Section 102 CrPC: A general police power to seize suspected stolen/suspicious property discovered outside the structured special-statute search process; cannot be invoked to short-circuit Section 15 LMA requirements.
“Premises” under LMA: Includes warehouses/godowns and places where records are kept; the law draws no “open vs closed” distinction.
Wholesale vs secondary/transport packages: Under LMPC Rules, not all outer cartons are “wholesale packages.” Prior guidance recognizes that transport/storage CFCs may be secondary packaging; affixing labels on wholesale packages is not per se barred, though content and manner of declarations must comply with the Rules.

Procedural Timeline and Case Posture

02.07.2020: Legal Metrology officers enter ITC’s warehouse, seize 7,600 CFCs; seizure and compounding notices issued the same day.
04.09.2020: Single Judge of the Karnataka High Court quashes the notices and orders release of goods, holding the action without jurisdiction.
15.04.2021: Division Bench allows State’s writ appeal, holding no warrant was required and Section 100 CrPC applies only to “closed” premises.
10.08.2022: Review dismissed by Division Bench.
12.09.2025: Supreme Court allows ITC’s appeals, quashes the Division Bench’s judgment and the notices; restores Single Judge’s order.

Practical Compliance Checklists

For Enforcement Agencies (Legal Metrology and analogous regulators)

Before entry/inspection/search:
- Record “reasons to believe” in writing, grounded in information/personal knowledge.
- Obtain a search/inspection warrant under Section 93 CrPC, unless Section 165 exigency exists and is recorded.
During search:
- Secure two independent, respectable witnesses from the locality or nearby locality; agency staff do not qualify.
- Prepare a detailed mahazar; have witnesses sign; furnish a copy to the occupant.
Seizure:
- Seize only items rationally connected to the suspected offence; record reasons for seizure.
- If goods are perishable, follow the LMA’s prescribed disposal procedure.
Post-search:
- Avoid simultaneous compounding notices that reflect pre-judgment; ensure considered application of mind.
- Report and document as required; respect timelines and rights of representation/hearing.

For Businesses and Trade

Maintain clear, accessible records and ensure LMPC declarations are compliant; where labels are used, ensure content and visibility satisfy Rule 24 and other requirements.
During inspections, request warrant details or, if warrantless, the written reasons invoking Section 165; insist on the presence of two independent witnesses.
Ensure the mahazar is accurate; retain your copy; note objections contemporaneously.
If procedural safeguards are breached, consider challenging seizure/compounding via writ; jurisdictional defects (e.g., no recorded reasons, no witnesses) are strong grounds.

Key Takeaways

Under Section 15 LMA, “reasons to believe” must be recorded before entry/inspection/search; by Section 15(4), CrPC safeguards apply in full.
Ordinarily, a warrant is required; warrantless searches demand Section 165 exigency with recorded reasons; in both scenarios, Section 100(4)–(5) witness and mahazar requirements are mandatory.
No lawful seizure under the LMA without a lawful, CrPC-compliant search; Section 102 CrPC cannot be used to bypass Section 15.
The “open vs closed premises” exception is rejected; warehouses and business premises are fully protected by the CrPC framework.
Agency employees are not “independent witnesses.”
Simultaneous seizure and compounding notices can evidence non-application of mind and procedural unfairness.
On LMPC Rule 24, affixing labels on wholesale packages is not per se prohibited; transport CFCs may not be “wholesale packages”; alleged breach here was technical at best.
Writ jurisdiction lies where foundational procedural/jurisdictional defects taint the action, notwithstanding alternative remedies.

Conclusion

This judgment lays down a clear and rigorous blueprint for inspections, searches, and seizures under the Legal Metrology Act. Its core premise is straightforward: procedural safeguards are substantive rights, not dispensable rituals. Officers must record “reasons to believe,” obtain warrants unless true exigency exists (and even then, record reasons), and comply with Section 100 CrPC’s witness and mahazar regime. The Court closes the perceived “open premises” loophole and forecloses reliance on Section 102 CrPC to salvage seizures that do not pass through a lawful Section 15 gateway.

By emphasizing due process and proportionality—especially where alleged violations are technical—the decision reinforces the legitimacy of enforcement while protecting businesses from arbitrary intrusions. Its cross-referential reliance on earlier Supreme Court authorities ensures the ruling’s resonance beyond Legal Metrology, signaling to all regulators that CrPC compliance is the default unless a special law explicitly says otherwise. The message is unambiguous: in search and seizure, the ends never justify unlawful means.