Collective authorisation for PCPNDT searches is mandatory, but illegally seized material is not automatically excluded from evidence.

Search under Section 30 of the PCPNDT Act required collective authorisation by the appropriate authority; a decision taken by the Chairperson alone was therefore unlawful, but the seized material was not automatically excluded and could still be considered for relevancy and admissibility. A prior discharge in the FIR-based police case did not bar an independent complaint under Section 28, and the complaint and summoning order were not quashed on that basis. Alleged irregularities concerning the advisory committee and record-keeping under the Act and Rules were treated as matters for trial, not grounds to terminate the prosecution at the threshold. The complaint proceedings were held maintainable and allowed to continue.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the search and raid under Section 30 of the Pre-Conception and Pre-Natal Diagnostic Techniques (Prohibition of Sex Selection) Act, 1994 was vitiated because the decision was taken by the Chairperson alone and not by the District Appropriate Authority collectively; (ii) Whether the complaint and summoning order were liable to be quashed because the appellant had earlier been discharged in the police case arising from the same incident; and (iii) Whether the alleged irregularity regarding the advisory committee and the record-keeping requirements under the PCPNDT Act and Rules barred continuation of the complaint proceedings.

Issue (i): Whether the search and raid under Section 30 of the Pre-Conception and Pre-Natal Diagnostic Techniques (Prohibition of Sex Selection) Act, 1994 was vitiated because the decision was taken by the Chairperson alone and not by the District Appropriate Authority collectively.

Analysis: The statutory scheme treats the appropriate authority as a collective body for purposes of authorising search under Section 30. The communication directing the raid showed action by the Civil Surgeon acting alone and did not disclose any collective decision of the authority. On that footing, the search was contrary to Section 30. At the same time, the illegality of the search did not require the seized material to be discarded altogether. The evidence gathered in the course of the search could still be considered subject to relevancy and admissibility.

Conclusion: The search was illegal for want of collective authorisation, but the seized material was not rendered wholly unusable and the challenge to the proceedings did not succeed on that ground.

Issue (ii): Whether the complaint and summoning order were liable to be quashed because the appellant had earlier been discharged in the police case arising from the same incident.

Analysis: A discharge in the police case did not affect the independent complaint jurisdiction under Section 28 of the PCPNDT Act, which permits cognizance only on a complaint by the appropriate authority or an authorised officer. The earlier police discharge was based on investigation in the FIR case and did not conclude the statutory complaint proceedings. The complaint was also supported by the statutory scheme requiring proper records, including Form F, and by the limitation framework under Section 468(2)(c) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 as applied to the offence alleged. The alleged contraventions of Sections 4, 5, 6 and 29 of the PCPNDT Act and Rules 9 and 10 of the PCPNDT Rules were matters for trial and not for quashing at the threshold.

Conclusion: The prior discharge in the police case did not bar the complaint or the summoning order, and quashing was not warranted.

Issue (iii): Whether the alleged irregularity regarding the advisory committee and the record-keeping requirements under the PCPNDT Act and Rules barred continuation of the complaint proceedings.

Analysis: Rule 18A of the PCPNDT Rules operates as a code of conduct for appropriate authorities. The objection that a person connected with the raid was later associated with the advisory committee did not, on the facts, vitiate the complaint. The rule against including a person who is part of the investigating machinery did not apply on the materials accepted by the Court. Separately, the Act and Rules require strict maintenance of records, and deficiency in such records may amount to contravention of the Act. The allegations of non-maintenance or deficient maintenance of mandatory records were therefore not matters to be short-circuited in proceedings under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

Conclusion: The alleged advisory committee irregularity did not invalidate the prosecution, and the record-keeping allegations had to be tested in trial.

Final Conclusion: The complaint proceedings were held to be maintainable, the challenge to quashing failed, and the prosecution was allowed to continue, with the Court leaving questions relating to reliability and admissibility of evidence open.

Ratio Decidendi: A search under Section 30 of the PCPNDT Act must be authorised by the appropriate authority as a collective decision, but even if the search is illegal, material seized during that search is not automatically excluded and may still be relied upon subject to the rules of relevancy and admissibility; a prior discharge in an FIR-based police case does not bar an independent complaint under Section 28 of the Act.

---