2026 (3) TMI 1439 - SC - Indian Laws

PCPNDT search authorisation and record-keeping duties upheld, with illegal raid not enough to quash the statutory complaint.

Under the PCPNDT Act, a search must be authorised by the Appropriate Authority acting collectively, and a direction issued only by an individual member ... Pre- Conception and Pre-Natal Diagnostic Techniques (PCPNDT) - Validity of the search and raid under the PCPNDT Act for want of a collective decision of the District Appropriate Authority under Section 30 - running a racket of illegal sex-determination - Illegal search and admissibility of seized material - Relevancy and admissibility of evidence - Statutory complaint - Cognizance on complaint by Appropriate Authority - Mandatory maintenance of Form F and statutory records. Collective decision of Appropriate Authority - Illegal search - Admissibility of relevant evidence - The search conducted on the direction of the Civil Surgeon alone was vitiated, but that illegality did not by itself require quashing of the complaint or exclusion of the materials seized during the search. - HELD THAT: - The Court held that, in view of the statutory scheme and the ratio of Ravindra Kumar [2024 (9) TMI 1900 - SUPREME COURT], authorization of search under Section 30(1) of the PCPNDT Act had to be the collective decision of the District Appropriate Authority and not the act of its Chairperson acting alone. Since the order directing the raid did not disclose any collective decision of the Authority, the search stood vitiated. Even so, the Court held that illegality of search does not automatically render the seized material unusable; relevant material gathered in such search can still be acted upon, subject to the rules of relevancy and admissibility. As the complaint was not liable to fail solely on the ground of the invalid search, quashing was refused, leaving all objections as to reliability and admissibility open for trial. [Paras 45, 50, 57] Though the search was illegal for want of a collective decision of the Appropriate Authority, the complaint was not quashed because the seized material was not liable to be discarded outright. Statutory complaint under the PCPNDT Act - Effect of discharge in police case - Mandatory record-keeping contravention - HELD THAT:- The Court held that cognizance of offences under the PCPNDT Act can be taken only on a complaint by the Appropriate Authority or an authorised officer, and not on the basis of the police case. The police itself had recorded that, though sex determination was not found against the appellant, discrepancies in maintenance of records attracted the separate complaint mechanism under the Act. The proviso to Section 4(3), read with Rules 9 and 10, makes complete maintenance of prescribed records by the person conducting ultrasonography mandatory, and deficiency or inaccuracy therein constitutes contravention unless the contrary is proved. Therefore, discharge in the police proceedings was of no consequence to the independent statutory complaint. [Paras 54] The complaint by the Appropriate Authority remained maintainable notwithstanding the appellant's discharge in the related police case. Rule 18A(2)(ii) - Investigating machinery - Advisory Committee composition - HELD THAT: - The Court rejected the contention that the proceedings stood vitiated because Dr. Saryu Sharma was part of the raiding exercise and also associated with the Advisory Committee. It held that Rule 18A(2)(ii) applies only to a person who is part of the investigating machinery in cases under the PCPNDT Act, and Dr. Saryu Sharma was not shown to be such a person. The Court further observed that Rule 18A forms part of a general code of conduct and, at the highest, its breach may render a proceeding irregular and not illegal; in the present case, however, no violation was made out at all. [Paras 55] No contravention of Rule 18A(2)(ii) was established, and the challenge founded on the alleged dual role failed. Final Conclusion: The appeal was dismissed. While the Court held that the raid was vitiated because it was not authorised by the District Appropriate Authority collectively, it declined to quash the complaint, holding that the seized material could still be considered subject to relevancy and admissibility, and that all merits were left open for trial. Issues: (i) Whether the search and raid under the PCPNDT Act were invalid for want of a collective decision of the District Appropriate Authority under Section 30; (ii) Whether the criminal complaint and summons could be quashed because the appellant had earlier been discharged in the police case arising from the same incident; (iii) Whether the complaint was vitiated by alleged irregularity in the advisory committee process and by non-compliance with record-keeping requirements under the PCPNDT Act and Rules.Issue (i): Whether the search and raid under the PCPNDT Act were invalid for want of a collective decision of the District Appropriate Authority under Section 30.Analysis: The legal framework under Section 30 requires the decision to search to be that of the appropriate authority, not of an individual member acting alone. The communication directing the raid was issued by the Chairperson-cum-Civil Surgeon, and no material showed a collective decision of the full authority. The search was therefore contrary to the statutory scheme and was legally infirm. However, illegality of the search did not automatically obliterate the materials gathered during it.Conclusion: The raid and search were held to be illegal, but the seized material was not excluded solely on that ground.Issue (ii): Whether the criminal complaint and summons could be quashed because the appellant had earlier been discharged in the police case arising from the same incident.Analysis: Cognizance under the PCPNDT Act is controlled by Section 28 and lies on a complaint by the appropriate authority or an authorised officer. A police discharge in the FIR case did not bar an independent statutory complaint. The Court further held that maintenance of complete records in Form F, as mandated by the Act and Rules, is central to enforcement and that alleged deficiencies in such records could sustain complaint proceedings. The matter was not fit for quashing at the threshold.Conclusion: The prior discharge did not render the complaint non-maintainable, and the summons could not be quashed on that basis.Issue (iii): Whether the complaint was vitiated by alleged irregularity in the advisory committee process and by non-compliance with record-keeping requirements under the PCPNDT Act and Rules.Analysis: Rule 18A is a code of conduct for appropriate authorities, and the alleged presence of a person associated with the raid in the advisory committee did not show that the proceedings were invalid, especially when the person was not part of the investigating machinery. The statutory scheme under Sections 4, 5, 6, 23 and the Rules makes accurate maintenance of Form F and related records mandatory, and deficiencies in such records may amount to contravention. On the pleaded facts, the allegations disclosed a triable case rather than a ground for quashing.Conclusion: No vitiating illegality was established in the advisory committee process, and the record-keeping allegations supported continuation of the prosecution.Final Conclusion: The challenge to the complaint proceedings failed, the illegality in the raid did not warrant quashing, and the criminal prosecution was permitted to proceed in accordance with law.Ratio Decidendi: A search under the PCPNDT Act must be authorised by the appropriate authority as a collective body, but even if the search is illegal, the material seized may still be relied upon subject to admissibility, and an earlier discharge in a police case does not bar a statutory complaint under the Act.