(A) Legal Metrology Act, 2009 – Section 15 – Legal Metrology (Packaged Commodities) Rules, 2011 – Rules 18(2) and 27 – Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Sections 93, 100 and 165 – Search and seizure – Requirement of prior warrant – As a general rule, every search must be 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 search warrant – General provisions relating to searches contained in Section 100 also apply to searches under Section 165 – Even under Section 165, existence of reasons to believe that an imminent search is necessary, must be recorded, with as much detail as possible – Mandate of Section 100(4) must also be satisfied even in searches under Section 165 – Reference in Section 15(4) of 2009 Act to provisions of 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 – In present case, search was conducted without warrant, and no reasons were recorded either for conducting search or inspection, or for seizure of goods – Search and seizure are clearly vitiated by procedural violations – Besides, presence of two respectable independent witnesses from locality was mandatory – Where 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 – Respondents not only violated Section 15 of 2009 Act, but also failed to comply with Sections 100(4) and 165 Cr.P.C. – Order of Single Judge quashing notices restored. (Paras 17, 20, 21, 23 and 24)

(B) Legal Metrology Act, 2009 – Section 15 – Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Section 93 – Search and seizure – Section 15 of 2009 Act and Section 93 Cr.P.C., both provisions treat “search” and “inspection” as distinct actions – Seizure refers to act of taking material object into custody for the purpose of investigation or enquiry – Detention refers to a situation where owner, though retaining possession of goods, is restrained from using them – There is also subtle difference where 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 – In every search conducted under a special enactment without a warrant, requirement of recording reasons to believe is mandatory – Reasons necessitating search must be relevant and must reflect application of mind based on some information – 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 – Similarly, there must be application of mind before seizing goods, materials, or documents during search – A rational nexus must exist between articles seized and contemplated violation under applicable provisions – Authority effecting seizure must record reasons for such seizure, and those reasons must demonstrate due application of mind to materials available – Observance of due process of law and principles of natural justice being intertwined, is a legal necessity to ensure that action of authorities does not result in manifest arbitrariness or abuse and misuse of power – When law prescribes a particular procedure to be followed while taking action, same must be strictly adhered to. (Paras 19, 19.1, 19.2, 19.3 and 20.1)

Facts of the case:

Principal issue that arises for consideration herein is whether inspection and seizure conducted by Respondent No.2 under Section 15 of Legal Metrology Act, 2009, without obtaining a prior warrant, was unlawful and violative of principles of natural justice, thereby justifying invocation of writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of Constitution.

Findings of Court:

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.

Result : Appeal allowed.