Recorded reason to believe is mandatory for search or seizure; absence of recorded grounds makes the action without jurisdiction.

Where a statute requires recorded reason to believe as a pre-condition for search or seizure, the belief must be supported by recorded material at the time of action; a bare assertion is insufficient and the raid is without jurisdiction. On that basis, the seizure warrant and impugned Panchanama were set aside, and the writ petitions were maintainable because they challenged the very initiation of proceedings as jurisdictionally invalid, notwithstanding the availability of an alternative remedy.

---

---

Issues: Whether the raid, seizure and consequential proceedings were invalid for want of recorded reason to believe, and whether the writ petitions were maintainable despite the availability of an alternative remedy.

Analysis: The challenge was founded on the requirement that the empowered officer must have reason to believe before conducting a search or seizure, and that such belief must exist at the time of action. The seizure warrant produced before the Court did not record any reasons and only contained a general assertion of belief. In the absence of recorded reasons, the authorities lacked jurisdiction to conduct the raid. The plea of alternative remedy was rejected because the petitions assailed the very initiation of proceedings as being without jurisdiction.

Conclusion: The raid and seizure were held to be jurisdiction for want of recorded reason to believe, and the writ petitions were maintainable.

Final Conclusion: The impugned Panchanama and all consequential proceedings were set aside for absence of the foundational jurisdictional requirement.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the statute requires reason to believe as a pre-condition for search or seizure, the existence of that belief must be supported by recorded material, failing which the action is without jurisdiction and amenable to writ interference notwithstanding an alternative remedy.

---