Separate mahazar not essential when the inspection report records seizure details and statutory burden remains unrebutted.

Absence of a separate mahazar did not vitiate the search and seizure where the shop inspection report recorded the inspection details, seized records and dealer's acknowledgment. Section 100(5) of the Code of Criminal Procedure requires a list of seized articles, not a separate mahazar in every case, and a detailed inspection report can satisfy that requirement. The Court also held that materials obtained from the search remained usable in penalty proceedings, and the dealer failed to rebut the statutory burden under explanation I to section 45A of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, so the penalty was upheld.

---

---

Issues: Whether the absence of a separate mahazar vitiated the search and seizure and prevented reliance on the shop inspection report and seized records for imposing penalty under section 45A of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963.

Analysis: The search was conducted at the appellant's business premises and the shop inspection report recorded the details of inspection, the records seized, and the dealer's acknowledgment. The Court held that section 100(5) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 requires preparation of a list of things seized, but does not mandate a separate mahazar in every case. The shop inspection report, when it contains the necessary particulars of the search and seizure, satisfies that requirement. The Court further held that even if the search procedure is disputed, the materials obtained could still be relied upon in penalty proceedings, and the appellant had not rebutted the statutory burden placed on him under explanation I to section 45A.

Conclusion: The challenge to the search and seizure failed, the records were validly relied upon, and the penalty under section 45A was upheld.

---