Pre-Conception and Pre-Natal Diagnostic Techniques (Prohibition of Sex Selection) Act, 1994 — Section 30(1) — Search and seizure — Decision to authorize search must be of the ‘Appropriate Authority’ collectively — Search ordered by Chairperson alone — Illegal — Applicability of precedent. (Paras 41–45, 50) The communication/order dated 17.09.2015 directing raid was issued by the Civil Surgeon acting as Chairperson of the District Appropriate Authority without evidence of collective decision by all members. Applying the ratio in Ravindra Kumar v. State of Haryana, the Court held that authorization of search under Section 30(1) must be by the Appropriate Authority as a body; unilateral decision by Chairperson vitiates the search. Ratio Decidendi: Authorization of search under Section 30(1) of the PCPNDT Act must emanate from the Appropriate Authority collectively; a unilateral decision of the Chairperson renders the search illegal.

advocatemmmohan

Pre-Conception and Pre-Natal Diagnostic Techniques (Prohibition of Sex Selection) Act, 1994 — Section 30(1) — Search and seizure — Decision to authorize search must be of the ‘Appropriate Authority’ collectively — Search ordered by Chairperson alone — Illegal — Applicability of precedent. (Paras 41–45, 50)

The communication/order dated 17.09.2015 directing raid was issued by the Civil Surgeon acting as Chairperson of the District Appropriate Authority without evidence of collective decision by all members. Applying the ratio in Ravindra Kumar v. State of Haryana, the Court held that authorization of search under Section 30(1) must be by the Appropriate Authority as a body; unilateral decision by Chairperson vitiates the search.

Ratio Decidendi: Authorization of search under Section 30(1) of the PCPNDT Act must emanate from the Appropriate Authority collectively; a unilateral decision of the Chairperson renders the search illegal.

---

Criminal Evidence — Effect of illegal search — Admissibility of evidence seized — Relevancy test — Evidence not automatically excluded — Subject to admissibility and fairness. (Paras 50–53)

Despite holding the search illegal, the Court held that materials seized cannot be discarded altogether. Relying on Radha Kishan v. State of Uttar Pradesh, R.M. Malkani v. State of Maharashtra and the Constitution Bench decision in Pooran Mal v. Director of Inspection, it was reiterated that illegality of search does not per se render seized material inadmissible; relevancy is the governing test, subject to judicial discretion to prevent unfairness.

Ratio Decidendi: Evidence obtained through an illegal search is not per se inadmissible; unless expressly barred by statute, relevant material may be relied upon subject to admissibility and fairness.

---

PCPNDT Act — Sections 4(3), 5, 6, 23, 29 — Maintenance of Form F and records — Mandatory nature — Non-maintenance amounts to contravention — Burden on practitioner. (Paras 21, 39–40, 54, 56)

The Court reiterated that maintenance of complete record in Form F is mandatory and any deficiency constitutes contravention of Sections 5 or 6 unless proved otherwise by the practitioner. Reliance was placed on Federation of Obstetrics and Gynaecological Societies of India v. Union of India, holding that non-maintenance of record is not a clerical lapse but the “springboard” for commission of the offence.

Ratio Decidendi: Complete and accurate maintenance of Form F and statutory records is mandatory under the PCPNDT regime; deficiency therein prima facie constitutes contravention attracting penal consequences under Section 23.

---

PCPNDT Act — Section 28 — Cognizance only on complaint by Appropriate Authority — Police discharge in FIR case — No bar to statutory complaint. (Paras 54)

The appellant had been discharged in a police case arising from FIR. The Court held that offences under the PCPNDT Act are cognizable only upon complaint by the Appropriate Authority under Section 28. Police discharge does not preclude initiation of independent complaint proceedings by the statutory authority.

Ratio Decidendi: Discharge in a police-registered FIR does not bar prosecution under the PCPNDT Act, which mandates cognizance only upon complaint by the Appropriate Authority.

---

PCPNDT Rules — Rule 18A(2)(ii) — Membership of Advisory Committee — Alleged conflict of interest — Scope — Directory nature of code of conduct. (Paras 55)

The contention that a member of the raiding team was also part of the Advisory Committee was rejected. Rule 18A(2)(ii) applies only to persons forming part of the “investigating machinery”. The concerned individual was not part of such machinery. Moreover, the provisions under Rule 18A form part of a general code of conduct and are directory.

Ratio Decidendi: Rule 18A(2)(ii) prohibits inclusion in the Advisory Committee only of persons forming part of the investigating machinery; incidental participation in raid does not ipso facto attract disqualification.

---

Exercise of inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC — Quashing of complaint — Scope — Social welfare legislation — Trial not to be stifled at threshold where prima facie contravention alleged. (Paras 56–57)

The Court emphasized the object of the PCPNDT Act in combating female foeticide and held that where prima facie non-maintenance of statutory records is alleged, the prosecution should not be quashed at inception. Issues of admissibility, reliability and defence are matters for trial.

Ratio Decidendi: In prosecutions under the PCPNDT Act involving alleged statutory record violations, quashing at threshold is unwarranted where prima facie material exists; disputed factual issues must be adjudicated at trial.

---

Final Order

The criminal complaint No. COMA/116/2018 pending before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Gurugram upheld. Appeal dismissed. Observations confined to adjudication of quashing; merits left open. No order as to costs. (Paras 57–58)**