TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Join Channel
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: (i) 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 acting , without a decision of the duly constituted Appropriate Authority. (ii) Whether the FIR and complaint founded entirely on such search and seizure were liable to be quashed.
Issue (i): 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 acting , without a decision of the duly constituted Appropriate Authority.
Analysis: The statutory scheme requires the Appropriate Authority, as constituted under Section 17, to form the requisite belief that an offence has been or is being committed before search is authorised. The power under Section 30(1) is drastic and operates as a safeguard against arbitrary intrusion. The expression "reason to believe" demands a rational basis, but the decision must be that of the Authority itself and not of an individual member. Where the authority is multi-member, a unilateral order by the Chairman, without participation of the other members, does not satisfy the statutory requirement.
Conclusion: The search authorisation was invalid and the action taken under Section 30(1) was vitiated.
Issue (ii): Whether the FIR and complaint founded entirely on such search and seizure were liable to be quashed.
Analysis: The FIR and complaint rested on the material recovered during the impugned raid. Once the search itself was held to be illegal, the foundation of the prosecution disappeared. In the absence of any independent material connecting the accused with the alleged offence, continuation of the proceedings would amount to abuse of process of law.
Conclusion: The FIR and the complaint were liable to be quashed.
Final Conclusion: The appellant succeeded in having the prosecution set aside, as the raid was not authorised in the manner required by law and the ensuing proceedings could not survive on that basis.
Ratio Decidendi: Where a statute vests search power in a multi-member Appropriate Authority, the power must be exercised by the Authority as such and not by a single member acting alone; proceedings founded solely on an illegal search are liable to be quashed.
TaxTMI 
