Search and seizure without adequate foundation can be quashed when allegations are inherently improbable and mala fide.

Search and seizure under the textile control framework requires a real foundation, namely reason to believe that a contravention has occurred, before that power can be exercised. On the record, the basis for seizing mercerised cloth was found inadequate, and the allegations were treated as inherently improbable and lacking satisfactory explanation. Applying the principles governing quashing, the Court stated that criminal proceedings may be interfered with where the allegations are absurd, mala fide, or so unsupported that continuation would amount to harassment without legal basis. The search, seizure, and consequential proceeding were quashed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the search and seizure and the consequential criminal proceeding could be sustained when the record disclosed no adequate foundation for the action and the allegations appeared inherently improbable and mala fide.

Analysis: The seizure was traced to Clause 12(e) of the relevant textile notification and the control order provision empowering search and seizure on reason to believe that a contravention had been committed. The Court found that the material on record did not disclose the necessary foundation for the exercise of that power. The goods were described as mercerised cloth, and the stated basis for contravention did not satisfactorily explain the seizure. Applying the governing principles on quashing, the Court held that proceedings may be interfered with where the allegations are absurd, inherently improbable, or attended with mala fide and where continuation would amount to harassment without legal basis.

Conclusion: The search and seizure and the consequential proceeding were quashed.

---