Legal Metrology Seizure Valid Without Search Warrant | HC

Case Details: State of Karnataka vs. ITC Ltd. (2026) 43 Centax 322 (Kar.)

Judiciary and Counsel Details

• • Satish Chandra Sharma & S. Vishwajith Shetty, JJ.
  • Shri S.S. Mahendra, AGA, for the Appellant.
  • S/Shri Sajan Poovayya, Senior Counsel for Mrinal Shankar, Advs, for the Respondent.

Facts of the Case

The company was engaged in the business of fast-moving consumer goods and stationery and operated a warehouse that was open for trading. The Legal Metrology Officer, acting on reasons to believe that the provisions of the Legal Metrology Act, 2009 had been contravened, inspected the warehouse and seized 7,600 pre-packaged wholesale packages of exercise books for alleged labelling contraventions. A panchanama and notices, including a compounding notice, were issued on the same day. The Single Judge held that the seizure was invalid for want of a search warrant and non-compliance with the prescribed search formalities. An appeal was filed before the High Court.

High Court Held

The High Court held that section 15 of the Legal Metrology Act, 2009 permits a Legal Metrology Officer to enter, inspect and seize goods where the statutory conditions are satisfied and the officer has reasons to believe that the Act has been contravened. It further held that ‘search’ and ‘seizure’ are distinct processes and that obtaining a search warrant is not mandatory for effecting a seizure under section 15. Accordingly, the seizure and the consequential notices could not be invalidated merely on the ground of absence of a search warrant or non-compliance with the prescribed search formalities. The order of the Single Judge was therefore set aside.

List of Cases Cited

• • Reliance Retail Limited v. State of Karnataka — Writ Petition No. 30523/2012, decided on 14.11.2019 — Distinguished [Paras 7, 16]
  • Studds Accessories Limited v. State of Karnataka — Writ Petition No. 4502/2020, decided on 1.12.2020 — Distinguished [Paras 7, 16]
  • Havels India Ltd. v. Controller Department — 2018 SCC OnLine Bom 955 — Distinguished [Paras 7, 18]
  • M.P. State Agro Industries Development Corporation Limited v. Jahan Khan — (2007) 10 SCC 88 — Referred [Paras 7, 19]
  • U.P. State Sugar Corporation Limited v. Kamal Swaroop Tondon — (2008) 2 SCC 41 — Referred [Paras 7, 19]
  • Whirlpool Corporation v. Registrar of Trademarks — (1998) 8 SCC 1 — Referred [Paras 7, 19]
  • State of Maharashtra v. Raj Marketing — 2011 (272) E.L.T. 8 (S.C.) — Referred [Paras 7]
  • State of Rajasthan v. Rehman — (1960) 1 SCR 991 — Distinguished [Paras 7, 21]
  • V. Laxmaiah v. Assistant Commercial — 1990 SCC OnLine 685 — Distinguished [Paras 7, 22]
  • Commissioner v. Ramkishan Shrikishan Jhaver — (1968) 1 SCR 148 — Distinguished [Paras 7, 23]
  • Mukhtiar Singh v. State through District Drug Inspector, Narnaul — 2003 SCC OnLine P&H 344 — Distinguished [Paras 7, 24]
  • State of Madhya Pradesh v. Ramprakash — 1988 SCC OnLine MP 171 — Referred [Para 7]

List of Cases Reviewed

• • ITC Limited v. State of Karnataka — W.P.No.8954/2020, dated 4.9.2020 — Reversed [Para 25]