SC – Legal Metrology Search Must Follow Cr PC for search
On 2.7.2020, the respondent no.2 conducted inspection of the ITC premises at Bengaluru and seized 7600 CFCs / packages of “Classmate” exercise books for the violation of Rule 24(a) of the Legal Metrology (Packaged Commodities) Rules, 2011 punishable under Section 36(1) of the 2009 LM Act.
The appellant filed writ petition challenging the compounding notice and to release seized goods on the ground that no search warrant was obtained for entry and provisions of Sections 100(4) and 165 of Cr PC were not complied with.
HELD that 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. Merely because a place is open at the time of visit does not mean that the requirements under Section 15 of LM Act or CR PC can be bypassed. Any officer intending to conduct search or inspection and effect seizure cannot forcibly enter premises without warrant or reasons duly recorded.
Section 15(4) of the LM Act, 2009, requires compliance with the provisions of the Cr PC relating to search or seizure when such actions are taken under the Act.
It is well settled law that unless the provisions of Cr PC are explicitly excluded, the same shall apply to special enactments as well.
The goods in the container are not different from the particulars on the label, either in form, quality or weight. The seizure memo only noted that the packages lacked clear and conspicuous declarations as required under Rule 24(a) which mandates that declarations on wholesale packages be printed and not affixed by way of a label. The disclosures were made but they were affixed as labels rather than printed.
The alleged violation was, therefore, at best, technical.
Judgment dated 12.9.2025 of the Supreme Court of India in Civil Appeal No.11798 of 2025 of ITC Limited Vs. State of Karnataka and another
