2025 (9) TMI 1460 - SC - Indian Laws

Search and seizure unlawful for failing to record Section 15 reasons to believe and comply with CrPC 165, 100(4)/(5)

The SC allowed the appeal, holding the search and seizure unlawful because officials conducted inspection and seized goods without recording the mandatory ... Legality of inspection and seizure conducted by Respondent No. 2 u/s 15 of Legal Metrology Act, 2009, without obtaining a prior warrant - reasons to believe - invocation of writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution - violation of principles of natural justice - HELD THAT:- Section 15(1) of the 2009 Act contemplates that information may be received orally (which must be reduced into writing), or by way of personal knowledge, or through written information. Upon evaluation of such information or knowledge, the officer must have reason to believe that any weight, measure, or goods, in relation to which any trade or commerce has taken place or is intended to take place, and in respect of which an offence has been committed or is likely to be committed, are kept, concealed, or likely to be transported. In such a situation, the Director, Controller, or any Legal Metrology Officer may, under Section 15(1)(a), enter any premises and search and inspect such weight, measure, goods, records, registers, or other documents - 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 therefrom. In addition, to satisfy the requirements of Section 15, the officials must also comply with the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure relating to search and seizure. In the present case, the respondent authorities conducted a search and inspection on 02.07.2020 during business hours at a commercial warehouse belonging to the appellant and seized 7,600 pre-packed wholesale packages of exercise books, for alleged violations of Rule 24(a) of the 2011 Rules and Section 36(1) of the 2009 Act. The search was conducted without a warrant, and no reasons were admittedly recorded either for conducting the search or inspection, or for seizure of goods. Therefore, the search and seizure are clearly vitiated by procedural violations. The entire proceedings from search to seizure are illegal and unsustainable, as neither a warrant was obtained nor reasons recorded for search, inspection, or seizure. The mandatory safeguards under Section 15 of the 2009 Act, and Sections 165, 100(4) and 100(5) Cr.P.C were disregarded. The 2009 Act itself contemplates action against officials violating its provisions under Sections 42 and 43. Compliance with statutory procedures, including recording “reasons to believe” before initiating search or seizure, is incumbent upon officials; non-compliance renders the action futile and results in arbitrary excise of authority. In the present case, the respondents not only violated Section 15 of the 2009 Act, but also failed to comply with Sections 100(4) and 165 Cr.P.C. Further, there is nothing on record to show that the search was so imminent as to justify dispensing with a warrant. Appeal allowed. ISSUES PRESENTED AND CONSIDERED 1. Whether an inspection and seizure under Section 15 of the Legal Metrology Act, 2009 conducted without a prior search warrant and without recorded 'reason(s) to believe' is lawful. 2. Whether the procedural safeguards of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.)-notably Sections 93, 100(4), 100(5) and 165-apply to searches, inspections and seizures carried out under Section 15 of the Legal Metrology Act, 2009. 3. Whether the presence of a single witness (an official's driver) satisfies the statutory requirement of 'two or more independent and respectable inhabitants' for witnessing a search under Section 100(4) Cr.P.C. 4. Whether goods stored in corrugated fibreboard containers (CFCs) for transport qualify as 'wholesale packages' attracting mandatory printed declarations under Rule 24(a) of the Legal Metrology (Packaged Commodities) Rules, 2011, or whether affixed labels and use of CFCs for transportation render the Rule inapplicable or the alleged violation merely technical. 5. Whether failure to comply with statutory procedures (recording reasons, following Cr.P.C. safeguards, affording hearing) vitiates the entire seizure and renders the exercise of writ jurisdiction under Article 226 appropriate despite the availability of statutory remedies. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS Issue 1 - Requirement of 'reason to believe' and necessity of warrant for search/seizure under Section 15 Legal framework: Section 15(1) authorises entry, search, inspection and seizure by an authorised officer if he 'has any reason to believe' that goods in relation to trade are kept, concealed or in course of transportation and an offence has been or is likely to be committed; Section 15(4) mandates that such search/seizure be carried out in accordance with Cr.P.C. provisions. Precedent treatment: The Court relied on prior authorities establishing that 'reason to believe' requires relevant material and a rational nexus to the belief and that recording of reasons is a mandatory condition precedent where a statute so prescribes. Interpretation and reasoning: Section 15(1) contemplates reasons to believe arising from information (oral/written/personal knowledge) and requires evaluation prior to search and seizure; Section 15(4) incorporates Cr.P.C. safeguards. The Court emphasised that recording reasons and following prescribed procedure are substantive safeguards to prevent arbitrariness. A mere assertion post hoc cannot cure absence of prior recorded reasons. Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - Section 15(1) mandates pre-existing reasons to believe and compliance with Cr.P.C. protections; failure to record such reasons vitiates search and seizure. Obiter - contextual observations on types of information that may suffice. Conclusion: Search and seizure without recorded reasons to believe or prior adherence to the procedural safeguards are unlawful; the requirement is mandatory and non-curable by subsequent acts. Issue 2 - Applicability of Cr.P.C. provisions (Sections 93, 100 and 165) to searches/inspections under the special enactment Legal framework: Cr.P.C. Chapters dealing with search warrants (Sections 93-97), general provisions including call for independent witnesses (Section 100(4)-(5)), and searches without warrant in exigent circumstances (Section 165) set out mandatory procedures and recording requirements. Precedent treatment: The Court followed established principle that special enactments which do not expressly exclude Cr.P.C. provisions must comply with applicable search and seizure safeguards; prior decisions have enforced recording of reasons and compliance with Section 165 where exigency is invoked. Interpretation and reasoning: The words 'search or seizure' in Section 15(4) import relevant Cr.P.C. provisions, including the requirement of a warrant under Sections 93 and 100 unless exigency under Section 165 is shown with reasons recorded. The notion of 'closed' vs 'open' premises cannot be read down to permit bypassing Cr.P.C. safeguards simply because a premises was accessible at the time of visit; warehouses/godowns are 'premises' within the special Act and may have restricted access, so the same protections apply. Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - Cr.P.C. provisions governing searches and seizures apply to searches/inspections under Section 15 unless explicitly excluded; exigent searches under Section 165 require prior written reasons and compliance with Section 100 safeguards. Obiter - discussion on conceptual distinction between inspection and search. Conclusion: Cr.P.C. safeguards, including the warrant regime and requirements of Sections 100 and 165, apply to actions under Section 15 and cannot be disregarded by treating a search as a mere inspection or relying on the fact that premises were open during business hours. Issue 3 - Requirement of independent witnesses under Section 100(4) Cr.P.C. Legal framework: Section 100(4) mandates calling two or more independent and respectable inhabitants to witness a search; Section 100(5) requires witnesses to sign the mahazar and receipt of a copy by the occupant. Precedent treatment: The Court adhered to precedents holding these witness requirements to be mandatory safeguards; official or interested persons cannot serve as independent witnesses. Interpretation and reasoning: The driver of the inspecting officer, being part of the official team, cannot be an independent witness. The record lacked any attempt to demonstrate approaches to locality inhabitants or documentation of efforts; the seizure mahazar did not support the post-facto claims. The requirement can be satisfied from another locality provided independence and respectability are shown. Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - Presence of two independent and respectable witnesses is mandatory; use of an interested party as a witness vitiates the search. Obiter - procedural points on documenting attempts to obtain independent witnesses. Conclusion: The search was vitiated by failure to call and record two independent witnesses; reliance on the official's driver is invalid. Issue 4 - Classification of CFCs used for transportation as 'wholesale packages' and adequacy of declarations under Rule 24(a) Legal framework: Rule 24(a) requires specified declarations on wholesale packages, generally printed; the legal metrology scheme aims to ensure transparent declarations for consumer protection and trade accountability. Precedent treatment: The Court referred to authoritative interpretations distinguishing wholesale packages from secondary/transportation packaging and to clarifications permitting labels in certain contexts. Interpretation and reasoning: The record showed that the goods were in CFCs used for protection/transportation and bore affixed labels disclosing particulars. The alleged non-compliance was at best technical - label affixation rather than direct printing - and there was no evidence that contents differed from label particulars. Given the statutory purpose and prior clarifications, storage in containers for transportation does not automatically transform them into wholesale packages requiring printed declarations. Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - where CFCs serve transportation/protection and accurate label disclosures are present, treating them as wholesale packages requiring printed declarations may be inappropriate; absence of substantive discrepancy undermines a finding of material non-compliance. Obiter - observations on FAQs and policy distinctions between wholesale and secondary packaging. Conclusion: The alleged violation of Rule 24(a) was, at most, technical and did not justify the exercise of coercive powers in the absence of procedural compliance; the seizure lacked necessary nexus to a substantive offence. Issue 5 - Effect of procedural non-compliance on maintainability of writ relief and on the legality of seizure/compounding Legal framework: Constitutional writ jurisdiction is available where action is without jurisdiction or infected by mala fides or violation of fundamental procedural safeguards; special enactments often provide alternative remedies but writ relief may be appropriate where foundational jurisdictional defects exist. Precedent treatment: The Court followed its position that failure to comply with mandatory statutory prerequisites that go to jurisdiction permits writ relief even if alternative remedies exist; prior decisions demonstrate that evidence or prosecution based solely on illegally seized material is an abuse of process. Interpretation and reasoning: Because the search and seizure were conducted without recorded reasons, without compliance with Cr.P.C. safeguards (including independent witnesses), and without justification for dispensing with a warrant, the entire chain of actions (seizure, compounding notice) was vitiated. Procedural defects undermined jurisdictional foundation and natural justice (opportunity to be heard), justifying restoration of the relief granted by the writ court. Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - Fundamental procedural non-compliance that affects jurisdiction and renders action arbitrary permits writ intervention despite statutory remedies; such non-compliance renders seizure and consequent compounding notices unsustainable. Obiter - remarks on disciplinary consequences for officials and the interplay between due process and enforcement objectives. Conclusion: The proceedings from search to seizure and compounding were unlawful and are to be quashed; the writ remedy was maintainable and appropriate in the circumstances, and the impugned appellate reversal was set aside, restoring the writ court's order.