Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query.....!
Scanned Judgements…!
Checking relevance for ITC Limited VS State Of Karnataka...
ITC Limited VS State Of Karnataka - 2025 0 Supreme(SC) 1682 : Under the Legal Metrology Act, 2009, and the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, the procedure for seizure of material objects includes: (1) A search must generally be preceded by a warrant, with reasons to believe in the necessity of the search being recorded in detail; (2) In cases where a warrant cannot be obtained due to exigent circumstances, Section 165 Cr.P.C. may apply, but even then, reasons for the imminent necessity of the search must be recorded with full particulars; (3) The authority conducting the search must demonstrate a rational nexus between the articles seized and the contemplated violation under applicable law; (4) Seizure requires application of mind based on relevant information—either from third parties or personal knowledge—and cannot be based on mere suspicion or subjective satisfaction; (5) Reasons for seizure must be recorded and must reflect due application of mind to the materials available; (6) The procedure must strictly comply with statutory mandates, including Section 100(4) Cr.P.C., which applies even during warrantless searches; (7) The presence of independent witnesses is mandatory in initial proceedings; (8) Any procedural violation renders subsequent actions unsustainable, regardless of whether actual prejudice occurred.Checking relevance for Union of India VS Mohanlal...
Union of India VS Mohanlal - 2016 3 Supreme 455 : Under the NDPS Act, 1985 – Section 52-A(1) and Standing Order No. 1/89, the procedure for seizure of contraband includes the following steps: (1) Seizure of contraband must be followed by an application for drawing of samples; (2) The application must be made to the Magistrate, who is required to allow it and carry out the sampling and certification within a reasonable time; (3) There is no mandatory requirement to take samples at the time of seizure; (4) The absence of a uniform procedure across States and Central agencies has created confusion, and the Central Government and High Courts have been directed to ensure proper implementation of these procedures.Checking relevance for State of Haryana VS Mai Ram son of Mam Chand...
Checking relevance for Bharat Aambale VS State Of Chhattisgarh...
Bharat Aambale VS State Of Chhattisgarh - 2025 2 Supreme 78 : Under Section 52A of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, the procedure for seizure and disposal of material objects (specifically narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances) involves the following steps: (1) The seized substance must be forwarded to an officer empowered under Section 53 of the NDPS Act; (2) That officer must prepare a detailed inventory including quality, quantity, mode of packing, numbering, and identifying marks; (3) An application must be made to a Magistrate for certification of the inventory''''s correctness, taking photographs in the Magistrate’s presence, and drawing representative samples from the substance in the Magistrate’s presence; (4) The Magistrate must certify the correctness of the inventory, photographs, and list of samples drawn. Only documents so certified by the Magistrate constitute primary evidence in trial. The process also mandates that inventorying, photographing, and sampling should take place as far as possible in the presence of the accused, though not necessarily at the exact spot of seizure. Any deviation or non-compliance with this procedure may lead to adverse inference, but does not automatically vitiate the trial if other evidence inspires confidence. Destruction or disposal of seized substances can only occur after obtaining a formal order from the Magistrate under Section 52A.Checking relevance for Gene Campaign VS Union of India...
Gene Campaign VS Union of India - Supreme Court (2024) : Under Section 10(1)(c) of the EPA, 1986, authorized officers have the power to conduct a search of any building in which they have reason to believe that an offence under the Act or its rules has been or is being or is about to be committed. In such circumstances, they may seize any equipment, industrial plant, record, register, document, or other material object if they have reason to believe that it may furnish evidence of the commission of an offence punishable under the Act or the rules made thereunder, or that such seizure is necessary to prevent or mitigate environmental pollution. This procedure includes: (1) having reasonable grounds to suspect an offence; (2) conducting a search of the premises; and (3) seizing material objects only if they are relevant as evidence or essential for preventing environmental harm.Checking relevance for Rini Johar VS State of M. P. ...
Rini Johar VS State of M. P. - 2016 4 Supreme 397 : The procedures for seizure of material objects in criminal investigations under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, are governed by Section 41-A and Section 41-C, as interpreted by the Supreme Court in D.K. Basu case (1997) 1 SCC 416. These procedures mandate that arrest and seizure must be conducted in accordance with statutory rules and Supreme Court guidelines. Specifically, the seizure must be carried out in a manner that respects the dignity and liberty of the individual, and must not involve humiliation or inhumane treatment. The case emphasizes that failure to follow these procedures—such as not issuing a notice prior to arrest, conducting arrest without proper authorization, or transporting the arrested person in degrading conditions (e.g., in a disabled compartment without food, water, or medical care)—constitutes a gross violation of the law. The seizure must be lawful, documented, and subject to immediate production before a Magistrate. Violations of these procedures attract public law remedies, including compensation, and may lead to quashing of proceedings.
