2024 (9) TMI 1900 - SC - Indian Laws

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 ... Power to authorise search under Section 30(1) of the Pre-Conception and Pre-natal Diagnostic Techniques (Prohibition of Sex Selection) Act, 1994 - Search authorisation by multi-member Appropriate Authority - Mandatory procedure - Reason to believe - Abuse of process - Illegal search vitiating prosecution. Search authorisation by multi-member Appropriate Authority - Reason to believe - HELD THAT: - The Court held that Section 30(1) is a drastic provision and its safeguard lies in the requirement that the Appropriate Authority must have reason to believe that an offence under the Act has been or is being committed before search is authorised. In the case of a district authority constituted as a multi-member body, the decision must be that of the Authority itself and not of any individual member. Though reasons need not be formally recorded, there must be a rational basis for the belief, and the material must be made available to all members so that the Authority may take an expeditious decision. The plea of urgency could not justify unilateral action by the Civil Surgeon, since even without a physical meeting the other members could have been consulted. As the order appointing the raiding team was admittedly issued only by the Chairman, there was no legal decision of the Appropriate Authority to authorise the search. [Paras 11, 12, 13, 14] The search authorisation was illegal as it was not founded on a decision of the duly constituted Appropriate Authority. Illegal search vitiating prosecution - Abuse of process - HELD THAT: - The Court found that the FIR and the complaint were founded on the material recovered during the raid, and apart from what was found in the search and seizure, there was nothing connecting the accused with the alleged offence. Once the search itself stood vitiated for want of lawful authorisation, continuation of the criminal proceedings on the basis of such material would amount to an abuse of process. On that basis, the High Court ought to have quashed both proceedings. [Paras 14, 16, 17] The FIR and the complaint were quashed as they rested entirely on material obtained through an illegal search. Final Conclusion: The Supreme Court held that the raid was not authorised by the duly constituted Appropriate Authority as required by the 1994 Act, but only by its Chairman acting alone. Since the FIR and complaint were founded on the material seized in that illegal search, both were quashed. 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.