Search-and-seizure safeguards under the Legal Metrology Act must be strictly followed; unwarranted seizure and notices were invalid.

Section 15 of the Legal Metrology Act, 2009 permits entry, search and seizure only on recorded reasons to believe based on information or personal knowledge, and it incorporates CrPC safeguards, including warrant procedure and independent respectable witnesses. The Court held that a warehouse or other business premises falls within "premises" under Section 2(n), but that commercial access during business hours does not dispense with statutory safeguards. On the facts, no warrant was obtained, no reasons were recorded, and the witness requirement was not met, so the search, seizure, and consequential notices and orders were illegal and unsustainable; a packaging-declaration defect was treated as merely technical and could not cure the illegality.

---

---

Issues: Whether the inspection, search and seizure conducted under Section 15 of the Legal Metrology Act, 2009, without a prior warrant and without recording reasons to believe, was lawful and whether the consequential notices and orders could be sustained.

Analysis: Section 15 of the Legal Metrology Act, 2009 authorises entry, search, inspection and seizure only where the officer has reason to believe, based on information or personal knowledge, that an offence has been or is likely to be committed. The provision also requires compliance with the search-and-seizure safeguards contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The expression "premises" under Section 2(n) is wide enough to include warehouses and other business locations, and the fact that a place may be open during business hours does not dispense with statutory safeguards. The Court held that the general provisions relating to searches, including Sections 100(4) and 100(5) and the requirement of independent respectable witnesses, applied to the case. It further held that the officer must record reasons to believe before undertaking the search and before seizing goods, and that a warrant is ordinarily required unless a valid statutory exception is shown. On the facts, no warrant was obtained, no reasons were recorded, and the witness requirement was not satisfied. The simultaneous seizure and compounding notices, issued without the required foundation, also reflected non-application of mind. The alleged defect in packaging declarations was treated as, at most, technical and did not cure the illegality in the search and seizure process.

Conclusion: The search, seizure and consequential proceedings were illegal and unsustainable, and the relief granted to the appellant was justified.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a special statute incorporates Cr.P.C. safeguards for search and seizure, strict compliance with the requirement of reasons to believe, warrant procedure and independent witnesses is mandatory, and non-compliance vitiates the action and its consequences.

---