ITC LIMITEDversusSTATE OF KARNATAKA & ANR.

                  [2025] 9 S.C.R. 764 : 2025 INSC 1111

                                ITC Limited
                                     v.
                         State of Karnataka & Anr.
                       (Civil Appeal No. 11798 of 2025)
                               12 September 2025
              [J.B. Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan,* JJ.]


                             Issue for Consideration
       Whether the inspection and seizure conducted by Respondent
       No.2 u/s.15, Legal Metrology Act, 2009 without obtaining a prior
       warrant, was unlawful and violative of the principles of natural
       justice, thereby justifying invocation of writ jurisdiction under Article
       226 of the Constitution.

                                    Headnotes†
       Legal Metrology Act, 2009 – s.15 – Power of inspection,
       seizure, etc. – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s.165 –
       Legal Metrology (Packaged Commodities) Rules, 2011 –
       Respondent authorities conducted a search and inspection at
       a commercial warehouse belonging to the appellant and seized
       7,600 pre-packed wholesale packages of exercise books, for
       alleged violations of r.24(a), 2011 Rules and s.36(1), 2009
       Act – Challenged by the appellant before High Court alleging
       that no search warrant was obtained prior to the entry and
       ss.100(4) and 165, CrPC were not complied with – Writ petition
       allowed by Single Judge – Order set aside by Division Bench;
       review thereagainst filed by the appellant also dismissed –
       Interference with:
       Held: 1.1 In every search conducted under a special enactment
       without a warrant, the requirement of recording reasons to believe is
       mandatory – The reasons necessitating the search must be relevant
       and must reflect application of mind based on some information,
       either from a third party or personal knowledge and cannot be
       based on mere presumption or extraneous considerations – Such
       reasons cannot rest on mere suspicion or subjective satisfaction;
       something more substantial is required for a prudent person to
       conclude that a search and/or seizure is necessary. [Para 19.2]


* Author
[2025] 9 S.C.R.                                                               765

                    ITC Limited v. State of Karnataka & Anr.


     1.2 Similarly, there must be application of mind before seizing goods,
     materials, or documents during a search – A rational nexus must
     exist between the articles seized and the contemplated violation
     under the applicable provisions – The authority effecting the seizure
     must record reasons for such seizure, and those reasons must
     demonstrate due application of mind to the materials available.
     [Para 19.3]
     1.3 In the present case, 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 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 u/s.15, 2009
     Act, and ss.165, 100(4) and 100(5), Cr.P.C were disregarded.
     [Paras 20, 23]
     1.4 Observance of due process of law and the principles of natural
     justice being intertwined, is a legal necessity to ensure that the
     action of the authorities does not result in manifest arbitrariness
     or abuse and misuse of power by those empowered to conduct
     inspection, search, and/or seizure – When the law prescribes a
     particular procedure to be followed while taking action, the same
     must be strictly adhered to. [Para 20.1]
     1.5 The 2009 Act itself contemplates action against officials
     violating its provisions u/ss.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.
     [Para 23]
     1.6 Nothing on record to show that the search was so imminent
     as to justify dispensing with a warrant – On the same day as the
     inspection, search, and seizure, a notice u/s.48, 2009 Act was
     issued, specifying a compounding fee for contraventions of ss.29,
     36(1), and 36(2) of the Act, and rr.18(2) and 27, 2011 Rules, and
     directing the appellant to respond within 15 days, failing which
     further legal action would follow – Single Judge of the High Court
     correctly set aside these notices, but the Division Bench erroneously
     reversed the order – Therefore, the notices/orders issued by the
     respondents, as well as the judgment of the Division Bench are
     quashed – Order of the Single Judge, restored. [Para 23]
766                                                             [2025] 9 S.C.R.

                            Supreme Court Reports


       Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – ss.165, 100:
       Held: s.165 deals with circumstances and pre-requisites for
       searches without warrant – As a general rule, every search
       must be preceded by a warrant and reasons to believe must be
       recorded – s.165 applies where, due to exigent circumstances, it
       is not possible to obtain a search warrant – In such cases, the
       officer may, after recording his reasons in writing and specifying,
       as far as possible, the thing for which the search is to be made,
       conduct or cause a search of the place – s.165(4) provides that
       the general provisions relating to searches contained in s.100 also
       apply to searches u/s.165 – Therefore, even u/s.165, the existence
       of reasons to believe that an imminent search is necessary, must
       be recorded, with as much detail as possible – The mandate of
       s.100(4) must also be satisfied even in searches u/s.165. [Para 17]

       Legal Metrology Act, 2009 – s.15 – Code of Criminal Procedure,
       1973 – s.93 – “search”, “inspection”; “seizure”; “detention”:
       Held: 1.1 s.15, 2009 Act and s.93, CrPC speak about search
       and inspection – Both provisions treat “search” and “inspection”
       as distinct actions – Inspection refers to the verification of the
       books, records, or documents at the premises of a person, which
       is generally permissible under the respective law upon compliance
       with the prerequisites of authorization, recording of reasons to
       believe, and permission from the competent authority under law – It
       is made to verify compliance with the statute. [Para 19]
       1.2 A search, on the other hand, has a wider connotation – It implies
       the power to look in any place for any materials, goods, books,
       or documents believed to be secreted or concealed, which may
       evidence a violation and may be liable to seizure or confiscation –
       Further, to conduct either a search or an inspection, not only is a
       warrant ordinarily necessary, but there must also be reasons to
       believe that such a search is required. [Para 19]
       1.3 Seizure refers to the act of taking the material object into
       custody for the purpose of investigation or enquiry – Detention
       refers to a situation where the owner, though retaining possession
       of the goods, is restrained from using them. [Para 19.1]
       1.4 There is also a subtle difference where a search followed by
       seizure is effected under a special enactment, which contemplates
       a sequence of mandatory steps – Such proceedings are initiated
[2025] 9 S.C.R.                                                             767

                    ITC Limited v. State of Karnataka & Anr.


     not merely to charge a person with a violation but also to prevent
     further violations, as in the present case. [Para 19.1]

     Legal Metrology Act, 2009 – s.15(4) – Code of Criminal
     Procedure, 1973 – s.165:
     Held: Reference in s.15(4), 2009 Act to the provisions of the CrPC
     cannot be read to mean that s.165, CrPC can be invoked only if
     an offence has already been registered – s.165 itself, under sub-
     section (4), makes other provisions of the Code applicable, leaving
     no room for ambiguity – Moreover, s.165 speaks of searches during
     an investigation; It comes into operation once an investigation
     commences. [Para 18]

     Legal Metrology Act, 2009 – s.15(4) – Code of Criminal
     Procedure, 1973 – s.100(4), (5) – Applicability:
     Held: ss.100(4) and 100(5), CrPC are applicable to the present
     case – Thus, the presence of two respectable independent
     witnesses from the locality was mandatory – Such witnesses may
     also be drawn from a different locality, provided they meet the
     requirements of independence and respectability –However, in the
     present case, the driver of the Assistant Controller being a party to
     the inspection acted as a witness in violation of law – Although the
     respondents claimed that no one from the locality was forthcoming,
     there is nothing on record to indicate who was approached, when
     such request was made, whether a written request was given, and
     what further action was taken – The seizure mahazar also fails to
     support the respondents’ case, as it records none of the claims
     now relied upon in their defence – It is settled law that where the
     initial proceedings are vitiated, all subsequent proceedings are
     unsustainable – Any act in violation of law cannot be brushed
     aside on the ground that no prejudice was caused; every violation
     of law is deemed to cause some prejudice. [Para 21]

     Legal Metrology (Packaged Commodities) Rules, 2011 –
     Respondents submitted that r.24, 2011 Rules mandates specific
     declarations on wholesale packages – The seized items,
     corrugated fibreboard containers (CFCs) containing pre-packed
     notebooks fall within the definition of “wholesale packages”
     u/r.2(l), 2011 Rules and hence, mandatory declarations were
     required to be directly printed on the package and not merely
     affixed through labels, as done by the appellant:
768                                                               [2025] 9 S.C.R.

                            Supreme Court Reports


       Held: Nothing on record to suggest that the goods in the container
       differed from the particulars on the label, either in form, quality, or
       weight – The seizure mahazar only noted that the packages lacked
       clear and conspicuous declarations as required u/r.24(a), which
       mandates that declarations on wholesale packages be printed and
       not affixed by way of a label – It is not disputed by the respondents
       that disclosures were made; their contention is merely that they
       were affixed as labels rather than printed – Appellant contended
       that the goods were stored in CFCs for transportation and that a
       label declaring the particulars required under law was duly affixed –
       The alleged violation was therefore, at best, technical. [Para 22]

       Code of Criminal Procedure , 1973 – Applicability to special
       enactments:
       Held: Unless the provisions of the CrPC are explicitly excluded, the
       same shall apply to special enactments as well – Various special
       enactments, such as the Legal Metrology Act, 2009, Income Tax
       Act, 1961, Customs Act, 1962, Central Excise Act, 1944, Finance
       Act, 1994, Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017, Narcotic Drugs and
       Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, as well as several repealed
       indirect Tax Laws of different States, contain provisions relating to
       search and seizure – The said list is illustrative and not exhaustive,
       as there are many other enactments with similar provisions – In all
       such enactments, the object of search and seizure is, more often
       than not, to collect evidence relating to an ongoing investigation of
       an offence or violation, and in some cases, to prevent a violation –
       In all these enactments, the procedure prescribed under the CrPC,
       insofar as it is applicable to search and seizure, is to be followed.
       [Para 19.5]
       Words and Phrases – Legal Metrology Act, 2009 – ss.2(n); 15 –
       “premises”; “intended to take place”; “place of inspection” –
       Scope, examined – Code of Criminal Procedure , 1973 – Chapter
       VII-Part A-D – ss.93, 100 (4), (5). [Paras 13-15.2]

                                 Case Law Cited
       State of Punjab v. Baldev Singh and Others [1999] 3 SCR 977 :
       MANU/SC/0981/1999: AIR 1999 SC 2378 – followed.
       State of Maharashtra and Others v. Raj Marketing and Others [2011]
       10 SCR 722 : (2011) 15 SCC 525; State of Madhya Pradesh v.
[2025] 9 S.C.R.                                                            769

                    ITC Limited v. State of Karnataka & Anr.


     Mubarak Ali [1959] Supp. 2 SCR 201 : MANU/SC/0038/1959 : AIR
     1959 SC 707; Radhika Agarwal v. Union of India 2025 LiveLaw
     SC 255; Narayanappa and Others v. Commissioner of Income
     Tax, Bangalore MANU/SC/0124/1966: AIR 1967 SC 623; Ashok
     Munilal Jain and Another v. The Assistant Director, Directorate of
     Enforcement (2018) 16 SCC 158; State of Rajasthan v. Rehman
     [1960] 1 SCR 991 : MANU/SC/0181/1959 : AIR 1960 SC 210;
     Ravinder Kumar v. State of Haryana MANU/SC/1006/2024 : AIR
     2024 SC 4311 – relied on.

                                  List of Acts
     Legal Metrology Act, 2009; Legal Metrology (Packaged Commodities)
     Rules, 2011; Criminal Procedure Code; 1973; Constitution of India;
     Income Tax Act, 1961; Customs Act, 1962; Central Excise Act, 1944;
     Finance Act, 1994; Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017; Narcotic
     Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985.

                               List of Keywords
     Section 15 of Legal Metrology Act, 2009; Section 165, CrPC; Section
     100, CrPC; Power of inspection; Seizure; Search; Inspection;
     Seizure; Inspection and seizure without prior warrant; No search
     warrant obtained prior to entry; Search conducted without a warrant;
     Violation of principles of natural justice; Search under special
     enactment without warrant; Reasons to believe; Requirement of
     recording reasons to believe; Application of mind; Information from
     a third party; Personal knowledge; Arbitrary excise of authority;
     Commercial warehouse; Pre-packed wholesale packages; Exercise
     books seized; Articles seized; Summons and searches; No reasons
     recorded for conducting the search or inspection; No reasons
     recorded for seizure of goods; Search and seizure vitiated by
     procedural violations; Search to seizure illegal and unsustainable.

                              Case Arising From
     CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 11798 of 2025
     From the Judgment and Order dated 15.04.2021 of the High Court
     of Karnataka at Bengaluru in WA No. 572 of 2020
     With
     Civil Appeal No. 11799 of 2025
770                                                           [2025] 9 S.C.R.

                                   Supreme Court Reports


                                   Appearances for Parties
       Advs. for the Appellant:
       Dr. A.m. Singhvi, Sr. Adv., M/s Dua Associates, L.k. Bhushan,
       Ms. Raashi Beri, V. N. Raghupathy.
       Advs. for the Respondents:
       Aman Panwar, A.A.G., Sushil Dutt Salwan, Sr. Adv., Aditya P
       Arora, Udit Chauhan, Namit Saxena, V. N. Raghupathy, Shivansh
       Saxena, Ms. Mythili S, Ms. Vrinda Bhandari.

                       Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court

                                         Judgment

       R. Mahadevan, J.

       Leave granted in both the SLPs.
2.     The appellant, ITC Limited, is engaged in the business of stationery
       items including Exercise Books / Notebooks, Pens, Pencils, etc.
       under its brand ‘Classmate’. On 02.07.2020, Respondent No.2 acting
       under Section 15 of the Legal metrology Act, 20091, conducted an
       inspection at the appellant’s premises situated at Survey No.9/4,
       A, B 9/2, 9/8 Arjunabettahalli Village, Madurai Road, Nelamangala
       Taluk, Bengaluru, and seized 7600 CFCs / packages of ‘Classmate’
       exercise books for the alleged violation of Rule 24(a) of the Legal
       Metrology (Packaged Commodities) Rules, 20112 which is punishable
       under Section 36(1) of the 2009 Act. Pursuant to the seizure, a
       seizure notice and a compounding notice both dated 02.07.2020
       were issued to the appellant. Alleging that no search warrant was
       obtained prior to the entry and that the provisions of Sections 100(4)
       and 165 of the Criminal Procedure Code3 were not complied with,
       the appellant preferred Writ Petition No.8954 of 2020 (GM-RES)
       under Article 226 of the Constitution of India before the High Court
       of Karnataka4, seeking to quash the said notices and for a direction
       to Respondent No.2 to release the seized goods.


1    For short, “the 2009 Act”
2    For short, “the 2011 Rules”
3    For short, “Cr.P.C”
4    For short, “the High Court”
[2025] 9 S.C.R.                                                         771

                     ITC Limited v. State of Karnataka & Anr.


3.    After hearing both parties, the learned Single Judge of the High Court,
      by order dated 04.09.2020, allowed the writ petition, quashed the
      notices issued by Respondent No.2, and directed the release of the
      seized goods, holding that the search and seizure were conducted
      without jurisdiction. Aggrieved by the said order, the respondents
      filed Writ Appeal No.572 of 2020 (GM-RES).
4.    Upon consideration, the Division Bench of the High Court allowed
      the writ appeal and set aside the order of the Single Judge, by
      judgment dated 15.04.2021. In doing so, it was observed that the
      requirement of a search warrant does not arise where action is
      initiated under Section 15 of the 2009 Act and that the Authority is
      duly empowered to inspect, search, and seize. Hence, there was no
      illegality or procedural error in the search and seizure undertaken by
      the Authority. Feeling aggrieved, the appellant filed Special Leave
      Petition (C) No.16830 of 2021 before this Court.
5.    In the meanwhile, the appellant also filed Review Petition No.388
      of 2021 in Writ Appeal No.572 of 2020 seeking a review of the
      Division Bench’s judgment. The said review petition was dismissed,
      by order dated 10.08.2022, against which, the appellant filed SLP
      (C) No.18336 of 2022 before this Court.
6.    Pursuant to this Court’s order dated 04.11.2022, SLP (C) No.18336
      of 2022 was tagged with SLP (C) No.16830 of 2021. This Court,
      after hearing the submissions made by the parties, now proceeds
      to dispose of both matters by this common judgment.
7.    The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant, at the outset,
      submitted that there was no violation of Rule 24 of the 2011 Rules
      that would attract the penalty envisaged under Section 36(1) of the
      2009 Act, as the CFCs in question are not “wholesale packages”
      but are merely meant for the protection and transportation of goods.
      Nevertheless, as a matter of abundant caution, declarations in terms
      of Rule 24 were affixed on these CFCs. In this regard, reliance was
      placed on the judgment in State of Maharashtra and Others v. Raj
      Marketing and Others5, which draws a distinction between wholesale
      and secondary packages. It was further submitted that despite raising
      objections before the respondents and the High Court regarding the
      inapplicability of the 2009 Act and 2011 Rules, the same were not
      considered, thereby vitiating the foundation of the seizure.


5    (2011) 15 SCC 525
772                                                        [2025] 9 S.C.R.

                          Supreme Court Reports


       7.1. The second submission was that Section 15 of the 2009 Act
            mandates the existence of “reasons to believe” as a condition
            precedent for conducting inspection or seizure. However, the
            seizure receipt dated 02.07.2020 does not disclose any such
            reasons recorded prior to the search. Further, the compounding
            notice issued under Section 48 of the 2009 Act, also dated
            02.07.2020, similarly lacks any disclosure of reasons. The
            simultaneous issuance of both seizure and compounding
            notices, without due deliberation, indicates non-application of
            mind on the part of the respondents. While the learned Single
            Judge rightly acknowledged this lapse, the Division Bench failed
            to consider it adequately.
       7.2. It was also contended that Section 100(4) Cr.P.C requires the
            presence of two or more independent witnesses during the
            conduct of a search. In the present case, only one witness –
            Nagabhushan, a driver employed by Respondent No.2 – was
            present. Such a person cannot be considered an “independent
            witness” within the meaning of Section 100(4). Moreover,
            there is no record of any “reasons to believe” either before or
            after the search, nor was any urgency or exigency pleaded to
            justify immediate seizure. The respondents merely relied on
            Section 102 Cr.P.C., which does not dispense with the statutory
            requirement of a warrant or justification for seizure.
       7.3. The learned Senior Counsel further contended that the premises
            in question – namely, a warehouse owned by the appellant – was
            not open to the public, and access was restricted to authorised
            personnel. Therefore, the respondents were required to obtain
            a warrant before conducting any search or seizure. It was also
            pointed out that the argument advanced by the respondents
            before the Division Bench – that Section 100 Cr.P.C applies
            only to closed premises – was raised for the first time during
            oral arguments and without any pleading or evidence. Such
            a submission was made solely to retrospectively justify the
            respondents’ actions. Moreover, Section 2(n) of the 2009 Act,
            which defines “premises”, makes no such distinction between
            open and closed premises. The Division Bench’s failure to
            consider this aspect, even in the review petition, renders its
            decision legally unsustainable.
[2025] 9 S.C.R.                                                          773

                    ITC Limited v. State of Karnataka & Anr.


     7.4. The learned Senior Counsel further contended that the appellant
          had no alternative efficacious remedy, as the very jurisdictional
          foundation of the seizure was illegal. Thus, the appellant rightly
          invoked the writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution.
          The learned Single Judge of the High Court, by order dated
          04.09.2020, allowed the writ petition on the ground that even
          where an alternative remedy exists, a writ petition would lie if
          the action is without jurisdiction. However, the Division Bench
          erroneously reversed the decision, holding that in the absence
          of a violation of natural justice, the writ was not maintainable.
     7.5. Additionally, it was submitted that the principles of natural
          justice were indeed violated, as the seizure and compounding
          notices were issued simultaneously, depriving the appellant of
          any opportunity of being heard. The appellant’s request for a
          personal hearing was ignored. Furthermore, the review petition
          filed by the appellant against the Division Bench’s judgment
          was dismissed summarily, without due consideration of these
          contentions.
     7.6. In view of the above, the learned Senior Counsel prayed to
          allow these appeals by setting aside the impugned judgment
          and order passed by the Division Bench of the High Court.
8.   In response, the learned Counsel for the respondents submitted that
     the Legal Metrology Act, 2009 was enacted to ensure consumer
     protection by mandating accurate declarations on goods sold by
     weight, measure, or number. Compliance with the Act and Rules is
     essential to safeguard consumer rights. The requirement for proper
     declarations on wholesale packages ensures transparency and
     accountability in trade practices.
     8.1. Continuing further, it was submitted that the inspection
          and seizure were conducted at the appellant’s commercial
          warehouse during working hours. The premises were neither
          a private dwelling nor inaccessible. Members of the appellant’s
          staff were present during the inspection. The seizure was limited
          to pre-packed notebooks, which were found to lack mandatory
          declarations as required under the Legal Metrology (Packaged
          Commodities) Rules, 2011. A seizure mahazar was drawn on-
          site, and notice was served on the authorised person present.
774                                                          [2025] 9 S.C.R.

                          Supreme Court Reports


       8.2. It was also submitted that the warehouse was a place of
            business, accessible to others, and not a closed or private
            premises. Referring to the definition of “premises” under section
            2(n) of the 2009 Act, it was contended that the Division Bench
            rightly distinguished between open and closed premises and
            held that Section 100 Cr.P.C applies only to closed premises.
            Thus, the absence of a search warrant does not vitiate the
            seizure in this case.
       8.3. The learned Counsel further argued that the procedural
            safeguards under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 are not
            applicable in toto to inspections under the Legal Metrology Act.
            Section 15(4) of the 2009 Act incorporates Cr.P.C. provisions only
            to the extent applicable. Therefore, no warrant is required under
            Section 15 when the action is taken to determine compliance
            with the Act and the Rules. The Division Bench correctly held
            that under Section 15, the competent authority is empowered
            to enter premises, inspect, search, and seize goods in case of
            violations. The seizure notice dated 02.07.2020 (No.0691674)
            clearly sets out the nature of the offence and the grounds for
            seizure.
       8.4. The learned Counsel also submitted that Rule 24 of the 2011
            Rules mandates specific declarations on wholesale packages.
            The seized items – corrugated fibreboard containers (CFCs)
            containing pre-packed notebooks – fall within the definition of
            “wholesale packages” under Rule 2(l) of the 2011 Rules. Hence,
            mandatory declarations were required to be directly printed
            on the package and not merely affixed through labels, as was
            done by the appellant. The respondents denied the appellant’s
            claim of compliance, and asserted that the declarations were
            inadequate and in breach of Rule 24.
       8.5. It was further contended that Section 165 Cr.P.C is not applicable
            and that seizure of goods can be undertaken without a search
            warrant under Section 102 Cr.P.C. read with Section 15(4) of
            the 2009 Act.
       8.6. As regards the requirement of independent witnesses under
            Section 100(4) Cr.P.C., it was submitted that the action taken
            was an inspection, not a “search” in the strict legal sense.
[2025] 9 S.C.R.                                                        775

                    ITC Limited v. State of Karnataka & Anr.


           Therefore, the presence of two independent witnesses was
           not mandatory. The presence of one witness, being a driver of
           Respondent No.2 does not vitiate the legality of the seizure.
     8.7. Finally, the learned Counsel for the respondents submitted
          that the appellant had an efficacious statutory remedy under
          Section 50 of the 2009 Act. Therefore, the appellant’s decision
          to approach the High Court directly under Article 226, without
          first availing the alternative remedy, was improper and the writ
          petition was not maintainable. The allegation that the appellant’s
          representation was disregarded, was denied. It was contended
          that reasonable opportunity was afforded, and the Division
          Bench addressed all relevant issues in detail in its judgment
          passed in the writ appeal.
     8.8. In conclusion, it was submitted that the action of Respondent
          No.2 was in accordance with law and procedure, and hence,
          the judgment and order of the Division Bench warrant no
          interference at the hands of this court.
9.   We have considered the rival submissions and perused the materials
     available on record.
10. The principal issue that arises for consideration herein is whether the
    inspection and seizure conducted by Respondent No.2 under Section
    15 of the 2009 Act, without obtaining a prior warrant, was unlawful
    and violative of the principles of natural justice, thereby justifying
    invocation of writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution.
11. At the outset, it is relevant to extract Section 15 of the 2009 Act,
    as follows:
            “15. Power of inspection, seizure, etc. (1) The Director,
            Controller or any legal metrology officer may, if he has
            any reason to believe, whether from any information
            given to him by any person and taken down in writing or
            from personal knowledge or otherwise, that any weight
            or measure or other goods in relation to which any trade
            and commerce has taken place or is intended to take
            place and in respect of which an offence punishable
            under this Act appears to have been, or is likely to be,
            committed are either kept or concealed in any premises
            or are in the course of transportation,-
776                                                           [2025] 9 S.C.R.

                           Supreme Court Reports


                  (a) enter at any reasonable time into any such
                  premises and search for and inspect any weight,
                  measure or other goods in relation to which trade
                  and commerce has taken place, or is intended to
                  take place and any record, register or other document
                  relation thereto;
                  (b) seize any weight, measure or other goods and any
                  record, register or other document or article which he
                  has reason to believe may furnish evidence indicating
                  that an offence punishable under this Act has been,
                  or is likely to be, committed in the course of, or in
                  relation to, any trade and commerce.
             (2) The Director, Controller or any legal metrology officer
             may also require the production of every document or
             other record relating to the weight or measure referred to
             in sub-section (1) and the person having the custody of
             such weight or measure shall comply with such requisition.
             (3) Where any goods seized under sub-section (1) are
             subject to speedy or natural decay, the Director, Controller
             or legal metrology officer may dispose of such goods in
             such manner as may be prescribed.
             (4) Every search or seizer made under this section shall
             be carried out in accordance with the provisions of the
             Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), relating
             to searches and seizures.”
       11.1. From a plain reading of the above provision, it is clear 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
[2025] 9 S.C.R.                                                           777

                    ITC Limited v. State of Karnataka & Anr.


            other documents. Further, upon having reason to believe that
            an offence under the Act has been or is likely to be committed,
            and that such weight, measure, goods, records, registers,
            documents, or articles may furnish evidence of such offence,
            the officer may seize the same under section 15(1)(b). Sub-
            section (4) provides that such search or seizure shall be carried
            out in accordance with the provisions of the Code of Criminal
            Procedure, 1973. Therefore, 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.
12. In the present case, the Division Bench of the High Court, considering
    the use of the words “search or seizure” in Section 15(4) of the
    2009 Act, held that Section 100 Cr.P.C would apply only in respect
    of closed premises; and since, the business premises were open,
    the pre-requisites under Section 100 Cr.P.C were not required to be
    followed. It is, therefore, necessary to examine the scope of “place
    of inspection” as defined and applied under the 2009 Act.
13. Section 2(n) of the 2009 Act defines the term “premises” and reads
    as follows:
            (n) “premises” includes—
            (i) a place where any business, industry, production or
            transaction is carried on by a person, whether by himself
            or through an agent, by whatever name called, including
            the person who carries on the business in such premises,
            (ii) a warehouse, godown or other place where any weight
            or measure or other goods are stored or exhibited,
            (iii) a place where any books of account or other
            documents pertaining to any trade or transaction are kept,
            (iv) a dwelling house, if any part thereof is used for the
            purpose of carrying on any business, industry, production
            or trade,
            (v) a vehicle or vessel or any other mobile device, with the
            help of which any transaction or business is carried on;
778                                                        [2025] 9 S.C.R.

                          Supreme Court Reports


       13.1. The word “premises” is exhaustive and includes not only a place
             where goods are traded or manufactured but also where they
             are stored. It also includes the place where books of accounts
             or other documents are kept, a dwelling house if any part of it
             is used for business, industry, production, or trade, and even
             a vehicle used in the course of business activity.
14. Section 15 contemplates three different actions, namely, search,
    inspection, and seizure. The provision authorises an officer entering
    the premises to conduct a search for the recovery or discovery of
    any concealed material used or proposed to be used in contravention
    of the Act and, during such search, to inspect such materials. If
    the officer has reason to believe that the material may be used as
    evidence, he is empowered to seize it. The language of Section 15(1)
    makes it clear that the officer must have reason to believe that an
    offence has been committed or is likely to be committed and that
    materials or evidence relevant thereto are available in the premises.
    These pre-requisites under Section 15(1) are common to inspection,
    search and seizure. Significantly, Section 15(1)(b) stipulates that,
    before seizure, the officer must have reason to believe that such
    materials, goods, records, or documents may furnish evidence
    indicating that an offence under the Act has been committed or is
    likely to be committed with regard to goods already traded or likely
    to be traded. The definition of “premises” and the phrase “intended
    to take place” further reinforce that the procedure prescribed under
    the Cr.P.C. must be followed even with respect to goods stored in
    warehouses or godowns, irrespective of whether open or closed.
15. Chapter VII of the Criminal Procedure Code deals with summons
    and searches. Part A concerns summon to produce, Part B relates
    to search warrants, Part C lays down general provisions applicable
    to searches, and Part D contains miscellaneous matters. Section
    93 Cr.P.C. empowers a Court to issue a search warrant in three
    circumstances: (i)where the Court has reason to believe that a
    person to whom a summons or order under Section 91 Cr.P.C. has
    been or might be issued, or to whom a requisition under Section
    92 has been or might be addressed, would not comply with such
    summons, order, or requisition; (ii)where the thing for which search is
    to be made is not known to the Court to be in the possession of any
    person; and (iii)where a general search or inspection is considered
    necessary by the Court. A warrant may specify the particular place
[2025] 9 S.C.R.                                                        779

                    ITC Limited v. State of Karnataka & Anr.


     or part of a place to be searched or inspected, and only such place
     as is mentioned in the warrant can be entered. Section 93(1)(c)
     read with sub-section (2) uses the expression “search or inspect”,
     thereby signifying that a warrant is mandatory for both search and
     inspection, and that the Court must record reasons to believe the
     necessity of issuing such warrant. Sections 94 and 95, in turn, deal
     with warrants in respect of stolen property, objectionable articles,
     and forfeited publications.
     15.1. Part C commencing with Section 99 provides that the provisions
           in Sections 38, 70, 72,74, 77, 78 and 79, shall, as far as may
           be, apply to search warrants issued under Sections 93, 94, 95
           and 97. These provisions relate to aid in execution of warrants
           of arrest, issuance, purpose, endorsement, authorization,
           and execution both within and outside India. Section 100(1)
           prescribes that where a place required to be searched or
           inspected is closed, the person in charge, upon production of
           the warrant, must allow ingress and afford all facilities for the
           search. Section 100(2) states that, in case of non-cooperation,
           the procedure under Section 47(2) (relating to authority to
           break open the premises) shall be followed. Section 100(4)
           mandates that, before making a search under this Chapter,
           the person conducting the search shall call upon two or more
           independent and respectable inhabitants of the locality (or
           other localities, if necessary) to witness the search. If they
           refuse, they may be compelled, and if they still fail or refuse,
           they are liable to prosecution under Section 187 IPC. Section
           100(5) further requires that persons witnessing the search and
           seizure must sign the mahazar, and a copy of such mahazar
           shall be delivered to the occupant.
     15.2. Part D begins with Section 102, which deals with seizure by
           a police officer of goods alleged or suspected to be stolen,
           or goods found under circumstances creating suspicion of
           commission of an offence. Section 102(3) requires that such
           seizure be immediately reported to the Magistrate having
           jurisdiction. If the seized goods cannot be transported to Court,
           or where there is difficulty in securing proper accommodation
           for custody, or where they are no longer necessary for
           investigation, they may be handed over to a person upon such
           person executing a bond to produce them before the Court
780                                                         [2025] 9 S.C.R.

                        Supreme Court Reports


           as and when required or under further orders. It is pertinent
           to note here that goods seized under Section 102 refers to
           goods recovered or seized during a causal recovery or general
           search, such as stolen goods or goods found accidentally, which
           the officer believes to be involved in some offence. It does
           not include goods seized under Sections 100(4) and 100(5)
           pursuant to a search or inspection conducted under Section
           93 Cr.P.C. Section 102 thus addresses a distinct situation
           of seizure during a general search, not during a search or
           inspection under Section 15 of the 2009 Act. A plain reading
           of Section 15 of the 2009 Act, along with Sections 93 and 100
           (4) - (5) Cr.P.C leads to the irresistible conclusion that, in the
           absence of a search, there cannot be any seizure.
16. The respondents have consistently pleaded before both the writ
    Court and the Appellate Court that the search and seizure were
    carried out in accordance with Section 15 of the 2009 Act. Their
    present attempt to contend that there was no search but merely an
    inspection cannot aid their case, since the pre-requisites under both
    Section 15 of the 2009 Act as well as Section 93 Cr.P.C must be
    satisfied in either event. The expression ‘closed premises’ denotes
    premises, where access is locked or otherwise unavailable to the
    public except with the permission of the occupant, and cannot be
    construed narrowly to exclude open-air premises, if such access is
    not generally available to unauthorised persons. A distinction must
    be drawn between premises where the public has access for a
    limited purpose and premises that are truly public. In the case of a
    warehouse or godown, access is granted only to those who have
    some business connection with the owner. Even in trading premises,
    entry is subject to restrictions. Therefore, merely because a place
    is open at the time of visit does not mean that the requirements
    under Section 15 of the 2009 Act or the Cr.P.C. can be bypassed.
    Any officer intending to conduct a search or inspection and effect a
    seizure must necessarily follow the prescribed procedure and cannot
    forcibly enter premises without warrant or reasons duly recorded.
    These safeguards, embodied both in the special enactment and the
    Cr.P.C., are designed to prevent arbitrary action and to uphold the
    guarantee of due process.
17. Section 165 Cr.P.C. deals with circumstances and pre-requisites for
    searches without warrant. As a general rule, every search must be
[2025] 9 S.C.R.                                                       781

                    ITC Limited v. State of Karnataka & Anr.


     preceded by a warrant and reasons to believe must be recorded.
     Section 165 applies where, due to exigent circumstances, it is
     not possible to obtain a search warrant. In such cases, the officer
     may, after recording his reasons in writing and specifying, as far
     as possible, the thing for which the search is to be made, conduct
     or cause a search of the place. Section 165(4) provides that the
     general provisions relating to searches contained in Section 100
     also apply to searches under Section 165. It is therefore clear that
     even under Section 165, the existence of reasons to believe that an
     imminent search is necessary, must be recorded, with as much detail
     as possible. The mandate of Section 100(4) must also be satisfied
     even in searches under Section 165.
18. It must also be recalled that Section 15(4) of the 2009 Act requires
    compliance with the provisions of the Cr.P.C. relating to search or
    seizure when such actions are taken under the Act. Section 51 of the
    2009 Act, expressly lays down that Section 153 Cr.P.C dealing with
    preventive action of the police, or the provisions of the IPC as they
    then stood, are not applicable to matters under the Legal Metrology
    Act. Therefore, the reference in Section 15(4) of the 2009 Act to the
    provisions of the Cr.P.C. cannot be read to mean that Section 165
    Cr.P.C can be invoked only if an offence has already been registered.
    Section 165 itself, under sub-section (4), makes other provisions
    of the Code applicable, leaving no room for ambiguity. Moreover,
    Section 165 speaks of searches during an investigation; it comes
    into operation once an investigation commences.
     18.1. At this juncture, it will be useful to refer to the judgement of
           this Court in the State of Madhya Pradesh v. Mubarak Ali6,
           wherein the High Court had held that the investigation was
           initiated by the Inspector even before obtaining the mandatory
           prior permission, which was sought only after a lapse of ten
           days. This Court upheld the finding of the High Court and
           categorically held that the requirement of prior permission
           is a condition precedent for a valid investigation and not a
           mere procedural formality that can be cured retrospectively.
           Since the defect went to the root of jurisdiction, the belated
           sanction could not validate the investigation, and the appeal


6   MANU/SC/0038/1959 : AIR 1959 SC 707
782                                                             [2025] 9 S.C.R.

                          Supreme Court Reports


            preferred by the State was accordingly dismissed. While so,
            the Court elucidated the scope of the term “investigation” in
            the following terms:
                “12. In this view no other question arises for
                consideration. But as the learned Counsel appearing
                for the State contended that the observations of the
                learned Judge of the High Court that permission of the
                Magistrate was obtained ten days after the investigation
                was started was wrong, it would be as well that we
                considered the argument briefly. Section 4(1) of the
                Code of Criminal Procedure defines «investigation»
                as to include all the proceedings under that Code for
                the collection of evidence conducted by the police
                officer or other persons other than a Magistrate who is
                authorised by the Magistrate in this behalf. Chapter XIV
                of the Code prescribes the procedure for investigation.
                Investigation starts after the police officer receives
                information in regard to an offence. Under the Code
                «investigation consists generally of the following steps
                : (i) proceeding to the spot; (ii) ascertainment of the
                facts and circumstances of the case; (iii) discovery
                and arrest of the suspected offender; (iv) collection
                of evidence relating to the commission of the offence
                which may consist of (a) the examination of various
                persons (including the accused) and the reduction of
                their statements into writing, if the officer thinks fit, (b)
                the search of places of seizure of things considered
                necessary for the investigation and to be produced
                at the trial; and (v) formation of the opinion as to
                whether on the material collected there is a case to
                place the accused before a Magistrate for trial and
                if so taking the necessary steps for the same by the
                filing of a charge-sheet under s. 173.” - See H. N.
                Rishbud and Inder Singh v. The State of Delhi MANU/
                SC/0049/1954 : 1955CriLJ526 …..”
19. As seen above, Section 15 of the 2009 Act and Section 93 Cr.P.C
    speak about search and inspection. Both provisions treat “search” and
    “inspection” as distinct actions. Inspection refers to the verification of
    the books, records, or documents at the premises of a person, which
    is generally permissible under the respective law upon compliance
[2025] 9 S.C.R.                                                          783

                    ITC Limited v. State of Karnataka & Anr.


     with the prerequisites of authorization, recording of reasons to believe,
     and permission from the competent authority under law. It is made
     to verify compliance with the statute. A search, on the other hand,
     has a wider connotation. It implies the power to look in any place for
     any materials, goods, books, or documents believed to be secreted
     or concealed, which may evidence a violation and may be liable to
     seizure or confiscation. Further, to conduct either a search or an
     inspection, not only is a warrant ordinarily necessary, but there must
     also be reasons to believe that such a search is required.
     19.1. Seizure refers to the act of taking the material object into
           custody for the purpose of investigation or enquiry. Detention
           refers to a situation where the owner, though retaining
           possession of the goods, is restrained from using them. There
           is also a subtle difference where a search followed by seizure
           is effected under a special enactment, which contemplates a
           sequence of mandatory steps. Such proceedings are initiated
           not merely to charge a person with a violation but also to
           prevent further violations, as in the present case.
     19.2. In every search conducted under a special enactment without
           a warrant, the requirement of recording reasons to believe is
           mandatory. The reasons necessitating the search must be
           relevant and must reflect application of mind based on some
           information – either from a third party or personal knowledge –
           and cannot be based on mere presumption or extraneous
           considerations. Such reasons cannot rest on mere suspicion
           or subjective satisfaction; something more substantial is
           required for a prudent person to conclude that a search and/
           or seizure is necessary.
     19.3. Similarly, there must be application of mind before seizing
           goods, materials, or documents during a search. A rational
           nexus must exist between the articles seized and the
           contemplated violation under the applicable provisions. The
           authority effecting the seizure must record reasons for such
           seizure, and those reasons must demonstrate due application
           of mind to the materials available. [See: State of Madhya
           Pradesh v. Mubarak Ali (supra) and Radhika Agarwal v.
           Union of India7.]


7   2025 LiveLaw SC 255
784                                                           [2025] 9 S.C.R.

                             Supreme Court Reports


       19.4. Further, this Court in Narayanappa and others v.
             Commissioner of Income Tax, Bangalore8 while considering
             the expression “reason to believe”, held as follows:
                   “4. The belief must be held in good faith: it cannot
                   be merely a pretence. To put it differently it is open
                   to the Court to examine the question whether the
                   reasons for the belief have a rational connection or
                   a relevant bearing to the formation of the belief and
                   are not extraneous or irrelevant to the purpose of
                   the section. To this limited extent, the action of the
                   Income-tax Officer in starting proceedings under s.
                   34 of the Act is open to challenge in a court of law.”
       19.5. It is also pertinent to mention here that various special
             enactments, such as the Legal Metrology Act, 2009, the Income
             Tax Act, 1961, the Customs Act, 1962, the Central Excise Act,
             1944, the Finance Act, 1994, the Goods and Service Tax Act,
             2017, the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act,
             1985, as well as several repealed indirect Tax Laws of different
             States, contain provisions relating to search and seizure.
             The above list is illustrative and not exhaustive, as there are
             many other enactments with similar provisions. In all such
             enactments, the object of search and seizure is, more often
             than not, to collect evidence relating to an ongoing investigation
             of an offence or violation, and in some cases, to prevent a
             violation. Further, in all these enactments, the procedure
             prescribed under the Cr.P.C, insofar as it is applicable to
             search and seizure, is to be followed. It is also settled law that
             unless the provisions of the Cr.P.C. are explicitly excluded,
             the same shall apply to special enactments as well. [See:
             Ashok Munilal Jain and another v. the Assistant Director,
             Directorate of Enforcement9, and Radhika Agarwal v. Union
             of India (supra)]. Therefore, the ratio laid down by this Court
             in the various judgments could not have been ignored by the
             Division Bench of the High Court.
20. In the present case, the respondent authorities conducted a search
    and inspection on 02.07.2020 during business hours at a commercial


8   MANU/SC/0124/1966: AIR 1967 SC 623
9   (2018) 16 SCC 158
[2025] 9 S.C.R.                                                              785

                    ITC Limited v. State of Karnataka & Anr.


      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.
      20.1. Observance of due process of law and the principles of natural
            justice being intertwined, is a legal necessity to ensure that the
            action of the authorities does not result in manifest arbitrariness
            or abuse and misuse of power by those empowered to conduct
            inspection, search, and/or seizure. When the law prescribes
            a particular procedure to be followed while taking action, the
            same must be strictly adhered to. The Constitutional Bench of
            this Court in State of Punjab v. Baldev Singh and others10,
            categorically held that it is an imperative requirement that an
            empowered officer intending to search a person for possession
            of articles covered by the NDPS Act, must inform such person
            that he has a right to be searched, if he so chooses, before
            a Gazetted Officer or a Magistrate. This safeguard was
            recognised as a substantive right conferred on the accused,
            designed to ensure fairness and transparency, and therefore,
            required to be followed scrupulously. The Court further held
            that the obligation is to inform the accused of his right, though
            not necessarily in writing, and any failure to comply with this
            mandate would vitiate the search as being illegal and contrary
            to law. While considering procedural violations, the Bench
            cautioned as under:
                   “57. On the basis of the reasoning and discussion
                   above, the following conclusions arise:
                   …
                   (4) That there is indeed need to protect society from
                   criminals. The societal intent in safety will suffer if
                   persons who commit crimes are let off because the
                   evidence against them is to be treated as if it does not


10   MANU/SC/0981/1999: AIR 1999 SC 2378
786                                                             [2025] 9 S.C.R.

                              Supreme Court Reports


                   exist. The answer, therefore, is that the investigating
                   agency must follow the procedure as envisaged by
                   the statute scrupulously and the failure to do so must
                   be viewed by the higher authorities seriously inviting
                   action against the concerned official so that the laxity
                   on the part of the investigating authority is curbed. In
                   every case the end result is important but the means
                   to achieve it must remain above board. The remedy
                   cannot be worse than the disease itself. The legitimacy
                   of judicial process may come under cloud if the court
                   is seen to condone acts of lawlessness conducted
                   by the investigating agency during search operations
                   and may also undermine respect for law and may
                   have the effect of unconscionably compromising the
                   administration of justice. That cannot be permitted.
                   An accused is entitled to a fair trial. A conviction
                   resulting from an unfair trial is contrary to our concept
                   of justice. The use of evidence collected in breach
                   of the safeguards provided by Section 50 at the trial,
                   would render the trial unfair.
                   …”
       20.2. In State of Rajasthan v. Rehman11, the question that arose
             for consideration was whether the provisions of Section 165
             Cr.P.C could be invoked in respect of a search conducted by
             an Excise Officer under the Central Excise and Salt Act, 1944.
             The search in that case had been effected without recording
             reasons as mandated under Section 165 Cr.P.C. The Court
             observed that Section 18 of the Act expressly stipulated that
             searches under the Act shall be carried out in accordance with
             the provisions of the Cr.P.C. Consequently, it was held that
             Section 165 Cr.P.C was squarely attracted and that the search,
             having been conducted in violation of the said requirement,
             was illegal. The following paragraphs are apposite:
                   “7. Now we shall look at the provisions of the Criminal
                   Procedure Code to ascertain which of its provisions
                   regulating the mode of search are appropriate to


11   MANU/SC/0181/1959 : AIR 1960 SC 210
[2025] 9 S.C.R.                                                            787

                    ITC Limited v. State of Karnataka & Anr.


                the power conferred on the Deputy Superintendent
                under r. 201 of the Rules. In the Criminal Procedure
                Code there are four groups of sections regulating the
                searches authorised under it. Sections 47, 48, 51 and
                52 appear in Ch. V of the Code which provides for
                the arrest, escape and retaking of persons. Section
                47 provides for the search of a place entered by
                persons sought to be arrested; s. 48 for procedure
                where ingress is not obtainable; and Sections 51
                and 52 for the search of the arrested persons. The
                second group consists of Sections 100, 101, 102
                and 103 of Ch. VII of the Code. Section 100 deals
                with the search for persons wrongfully confined, and
                the other sections are general provisions relating to
                search warrants, duties of persons in charge of closed
                places and the requisitioning of persons to witness
                searches. Section 153 forms the third group and it
                falls under Ch. XIII of the Code which provides for
                the preventive action of the police. Under s. 153, a
                police officer can make a search without a warrant
                for the purpose of inspecting or searching for any
                weights or measures or instruments for weighing
                used or kept within the limits of his station, if he has
                reason to believe that the weights etc. are false. The
                fourth group of sections appear in Ch. XIV which
                provides for searches by a police officer during the
                investigation of a cognizable offence. The power of
                search given under this chapter is incidental to the
                conduct of investigation the police officer is authorized
                by law to make. Under s. 165 four conditions are
                imposed : (i) the police officer must have reasonable
                ground for believing that anything necessary for the
                purposes of an investigation of an offence cannot, in
                his opinion, be obtained otherwise than by making
                a search, without undue delay; (ii) he should record
                in writing the grounds of his belief and specify in
                such writing as far as possible the things for which
                the search is to be made; (ii) he must conduct the
                search, if practicable, in person; and (iv) if it is not
                practicable to make the search himself, he must
788                                                  [2025] 9 S.C.R.

                Supreme Court Reports


       record in writing the reasons for not himself making
       the search and shall authorize a subordinate officer to
       make the search after specifying in writing the place
       to be searched, and, so far as possible, the thing for
       which search is to be made. As search is a process
       exceedingly arbitrary in character, stringent statutory
       conditions are imposed on the exercise of the power.
       A comparative study of the aforesaid provisions with
       the provisions of r. 201 of the Rules indicates that
       searches made by a police officer during the course of
       an investigation of a cognizable offence can properly
       be approximated with the searches to be made by the
       authorized officer under r. 201 of the rules; for, in the
       former case, the police officer makes a search during
       the investigation of a cognizable office and in the latter
       the authorized officer makes the search to ascertain
       whether a person contravened the provisions of the
       Act or the Rules which is an offence. There is also
       no reason why conditions should be imposed in the
       matter of a search by the police officer under s. 165
       of the code, but no such safe-guard need be provided
       in the case of a search by the excises under the
       Rules. We think that the legislature, by stating in s.
       18 of the Act that the searches under the Act and
       the Rules shall be carried out in accordance with the
       provisions of the Code relating to searches, clearly
       indicated that the appropriate provisions of the Code
       shall govern searches authorized under the Act and
       the Rules. We therefore hold that the provisions of
       s. 165 of the Code must be followed in the matter
       of searches under s. 201 of the Rules.
       8. There are no merits in the second contention either.
       The recording of reasons does not confer on the officer
       jurisdiction to make a search, though it is a necessary
       condition for making a search. The jurisdiction or the
       power to make a search is conferred by the statute
       and not derived from the record of reason. That
       apart, s. 18 of the Act in express terms states that
       searches shall be carried out in accordance with
[2025] 9 S.C.R.                                                            789

                    ITC Limited v. State of Karnataka & Anr.


                   the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
                   Section 165 of the Code lays down various steps
                   to be followed in making a search. The recording
                   of reasons is an importing step in the matter of
                   search and to ignore it is to ignore the material part
                   of the provisions governing searches. If that can be
                   ignored, it cannot be said that the search is carried
                   out in accordance with the provisions of the Code
                   of Criminal Procedure: it would be a search made in
                   contravention of the provisions of the Code.
                   9. For the reasons mentioned, we hold that the search
                   made by the Deputy Superintendent in the present
                   case in contravention of the provisions of s. 165 of
                   the Code was illegal.”
      20.3. This Court in Ravinder Kumar v. State of Haryana12, held
            that the very action of search stood vitiated and, accordingly,
            allowed the appeal preferred by the appellant by quashing
            the complaint and FIR registered against him. In that case,
            the search had been conducted in violation of the mandatory
            safeguards prescribed under Section 30(1) of the Pre-
            Conception and Pre-natal Diagnostic Techniques (Prohibition
            of Sex Selection) Act, 1994. It was observed that, apart
            from what was discovered during the illegal search and the
            documents seized in consequence thereof, there was no
            material whatsoever connecting the accused to the offence
            punishable under Section 23 of the 1994 Act. Since the search
            itself was wholly illegal, continuation of prosecution founded
            solely on such an unlawful search was held to be an abuse
            of the process of law. The relevant paragraphs read as under:
                   “12. The question is what meaning can be assigned
                   to the expression “has reason to believe”. Section
                   26 of the Indian Penal Code defines the expression
                   “reason to believe”, which reads thus:
                          26. “Reason to believe”.- A person is said
                          to have “reason to believe” a thing, if he


12   MANU/SC/1006/2024 : AIR 2024 SC 4311
790                                               [2025] 9 S.C.R.

                Supreme Court Reports


            has sufficient cause to believe that thing
            but not otherwise.
       In the case of Aslam Mohammad Merchant v.
       Competent Authority and Ors. MANU/SC/2959/2008 :
       2008:INSC:782 : (2008) 14 SCC 186, this Court had
       an occasion to interpret the same expression. In
       paragraph 41, this Court held thus:
            41. It is now a trite law that whenever a
            statute provides for “reason to believe”,
            either the reasons should appear on the
            face of the notice or they must be available
            on the materials which had been placed
            before him.
       However, interpretation of the expression will depend
       on the context in which it is used in a particular
       legislation. In some statutes like the present one,
       there is a power to initiate action under the statute
       if the authority has reason to believe that certain
       facts exist. The test is whether a reasonable man,
       under the circumstances placed before him, would be
       propelled to take action under the statute. Considering
       the object of the 1994 Act, the expression “reason
       to believe” cannot be construed in a manner which
       would create a procedural roadblock. The reason
       is that once there is any material placed before
       the Appropriate Authority based on which action of
       search is required to be undertaken, if the action is
       delayed, the very object of passing orders of search
       would be frustrated. Therefore, what is needed is
       that the complaint or other material received by
       the appropriate authority or its members should be
       immediately made available to all its members. After
       examining the same, the Appropriate authority must
       expeditiously decide whether there is a reason to
       believe that an offence under the 1994 Act has been
       or is being committed. The Appropriate Authority is
       not required to record reasons for concluding that it
       has reason to believe that an offence under the 1994
[2025] 9 S.C.R.                                                          791

                    ITC Limited v. State of Karnataka & Anr.


                Act has been or is being committed. But, there has
                to be a rational basis to form that belief. However,
                the decision to take action Under Sub-section (1) of
                Section 30 must be of the Appropriate Authority and
                not of its individual members.
                14. Therefore, in the facts of the case, no legal
                decision was made by the Appropriate Authority in
                terms of Sub-section (1) of Section 30 to search for
                the Appellant’s clinic. As stated earlier, Sub-section
                (1) of Section 30 provides a safeguard by laying down
                that only if the Appropriate Authority has reason to
                believe that an offence under the 1994 Act has been
                committed or is being committed that a search can
                be authorized. In this case, there is no decision of
                the Appropriate Authority, and the decision to carry
                out the search is an individual decision of the Civil
                Surgeon, who was the Chairman of the concerned
                Appropriate Authority. Therefore, the action of search
                is itself vitiated.
                16. A perusal of the impugned FIR and impugned
                complaint shows that its foundation is the material
                seized during the raid on 27th April 2017. Except
                for what was found in the search and the seized
                documents, there is nothing to connect the Accused
                with the offence punishable Under Section 23 of
                the 1994 Act. As the search itself is entirely illegal,
                continuing prosecution based on such an illegal
                search will amount to abuse of the process of law.
                The High Court ought to have noticed the illegality
                we have pointed out.”
21. We have already held that Sections 100(4) and 100(5) Cr.P.C are
    applicable to the present case. Accordingly, the presence of two
    respectable independent witnesses from the locality was mandatory.
    It is significant to note that such witnesses may also be drawn
    from a different locality, provided they meet the requirements of
    independence and respectability. In the present case, however, the
    driver of the Assistant Controller – being a party to the inspection –
    acted as a witness, which is in violation of law. Although the
792                                                       [2025] 9 S.C.R.

                         Supreme Court Reports


       respondents claimed that no one from the locality was forthcoming,
       there is nothing on record to indicate who was approached, when
       such request was made, whether a written request was given, and
       what further action was taken. The seizure mahazar also fails to
       support the respondents’ case, as it records none of the claims
       now relied upon in their defence. It is settled law that where the
       initial proceedings are vitiated, all subsequent proceedings are
       unsustainable. Any act in violation of law cannot be brushed aside
       on the ground that no prejudice was caused; every violation of law
       is deemed to cause some prejudice.
22. Further, there is nothing on record to suggest that the goods in the
    container differed from the particulars on the label, either in form,
    quality, or weight. The seizure mahazar only noted that the packages
    lacked clear and conspicuous declarations as required under Rule
    24(a), which mandates that declarations on wholesale packages be
    printed and not affixed by way of a label. It is not disputed by the
    respondents that disclosures were made; their contention is merely
    that they were affixed as labels rather than printed. The appellant
    contended that the goods were stored in CFCs for transportation
    and that a label declaring the particulars required under law was
    duly affixed. The alleged violation was therefore, at best, technical.
    This contention is fortified by the judgment of this Court in State of
    Maharashtra and others v. Raj Marketing and another13, and the
    accompanying clarification notification which explicitly stated that
    there was no bar on affixing labels on wholesale packages. FAQs
    17 and 19 further clarify that storage in containers for transportation
    does not constitute wholesale packaging.
23. In view of the foregoing, 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


13   (2011) 15 SCC 525
[2025] 9 S.C.R.                                                       793

                    ITC Limited v. State of Karnataka & Anr.


     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. On the same day as the inspection,
     search, and seizure, a notice under Section 48 of the 2009 Act was
     issued, specifying a compounding fee for contraventions of Sections
     29, 36(1), and 36(2) of the Act, and Rules 18(2) and 27 of the 2011
     Rules, and directing the appellant to respond within 15 days, failing
     which further legal action would follow. The Single Judge of the
     High Court correctly set aside these notices, but the Division Bench
     erroneously reversed the order. Therefore, the notices/orders issued
     by the respondents, as well as the judgment and order of the Division
     Bench of the High Court deserve to be quashed and are quashed.
     As a consequence, the order of the Single Judge stands restored.
24. Accordingly, the appeal arising out of the judgment in WA No. 572
    of 2020 is allowed. Since the writ appeal judgment has been set
    aside, no further orders are necessary in the appeal filed against
    dismissal of the Review Petition, which is disposed of. There shall
    be no order as to costs.
25. Connected Miscellaneous Application(s), if any, stand disposed of.

     Result of the case: Appeals disposed of.




     †
         Headnotes prepared by: Divya Pandey