Valid search authorisation under the PCPNDT Act requires collective action by the Appropriate Authority; individual authorization is invalid.

A search and seizure under Section 30(1) of the Pre-Conception and Pre-natal Diagnostic Techniques Act must be authorised by the Appropriate Authority itself on formation of the requisite reason to believe; the power is a safeguard against arbitrary action and cannot be exercised by the Chairman or another individual member acting alone. Urgency does not dispense with collective decision-making by the Authority. Because the search here was authorised only by the Civil Surgeon in his individual capacity, the search was illegal, and the FIR and complaint based entirely on the seized material, without independent supporting evidence, could not be sustained.

---

---

Issues: Whether a search and seizure under Section 30(1) of the Pre-Conception and Pre-natal Diagnostic Techniques (Prohibition of Sex Selection) Act, 1994 could be authorised by the Chairman of the Appropriate Authority acting alone, and whether a prosecution founded solely on such search material was liable to be quashed.

Analysis: The statutory scheme requires the Appropriate Authority itself to form the requisite reason to believe that an offence under the Act has been or is being committed before authorising search and seizure. The power under Section 30(1) is drastic and operates as a safeguard against arbitrary action, so the decision cannot rest on an individual member, including the Chairman acting alone. The existence of urgency does not dispense with the collective decision of the Authority. Since the search in question was authorised only by the Civil Surgeon in his individual capacity and not by the duly constituted Appropriate Authority, the search was illegal. The FIR and complaint were founded entirely on the material recovered in that search, and no independent material connected the accused with the alleged offence.

Conclusion: The search and seizure were vitiated for want of a valid decision of the Appropriate Authority, and the prosecution based on that illegal search could not be sustained. The quashing of the FIR and complaint was justified.

---