The main legal point established in the judgment is that search and seizure conducted under the Legal Metrology Act must adhere to the procedural requirements, including recording the grounds of belief and complying with the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

JUDGMENT

Hemant Chandangoudar, J. - Petitioner is a private sector company engaged in the business of fast moving consumer goods, Hotels, Paperboards and Packaging, Agri Business and information technology. Petitioner also specializes in the business of a wide range of stationery items including exercise books/note books, pen pencil etc., under its popular brand Classmate .

2. Petitioner states that, on 2.07.2020, Respondent No.2 without any warrant or prior notice or without any reasonable basis or reasons to believe inspected the premises of the petitioner and seized 7,600 prepackaged wholesale packages of exercise books alleging that the labels affixed on the said wholesale packages are in violation of Rule 24(a) of the Legal Metrology (Packaged Commodities) Rules, 2011 (hereinafter referred to as `Rules ) and further the wholesale packages do not bear declarations as required under the Rules.

3. Petitioner further states that the wholesale packages containing classmate exercise books were seized by drawing up of panchanama in the presence of one pancha who happens to be driver of Assistant Controller of Legal Metrology Inspection Squad 2, Ali Askar Road, Bengaluru. Petitioner further states that notice dated 2.07.2020 was issued under Section 48 of the Legal Metrology Act, 2009 (for short Act ) for compounding of the offence punishable under Section 36 of the Act. Petitioner s grievance is that search and seizure conducted by Respondent No.2 is in violation of Section 15(4) of the Act. Hence, this writ petition.

4. Sri Sajjan Poovayya, learned Senior counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that when the search and seizure is to be conducted without undue delay and obtaining a warrant by the 2nd respondent, it should be preceded by recording in writing his grounds of belief and specifying in such writing for carrying out search and seizure without obtaining warrant from the jurisdictional Magistrate. In the present case, without recording in writing his grounds of belief, Respondent No.2 has searched the premises and seized the exercise books without a warrant and the same is contrary to Section 15(4) of the Act. He further submits that the search and seizure of exercise books should be made in the presence of two independent and respected witnesses of the locality as required under Sub Section (4) of Section 100 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

5. Learned Senior counsel also submits that the co-ordinate Bench of this Court in W.P.No.30523/2012 while examining similar issue involved in this writ petition has held that the search and seizure conducted without recording in writing his grounds of belief in the absence of warrant is one without jurisdiction .

6. Learned Senior counsel has also relied on the clarification issued by the Government of India dated 12.01.2007 wherein, it is clarified that there is no bar on affixing a label containing all the declarations required under the Rules.

7. So far as question maintainability of writ petition of this writ petition without exhausting alternative of appeal provided under Section 50 of the Act, he has relied upon the decision of Apex Court in the case of M.P.State Agro Industries Development Corporation Limited & Another Vs. Jahan Khan, (2007) 10 SCC 88 and also the decision of the co-ordinate Bench of this Court rendered in W.P.No.30523/2012 wherein it is held that in the absence of warrant, search and seizure conducted without recording in writing his grounds of belief is one without jurisdiction .

8. Learned counsel for the Respondents submits that this writ petition without exhausting the alternative remedy of appeal provided under Section 50 of the Act is not maintainable. He submits that the search and seizure of the exercise books are in conformity with the requirements of the Act. However, it is conceded that the similar issue was examined by the co-ordinate Bench of this Court in W.P.No.30523/2014 and it was held that the search and seizure conducted by the comp