https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=788684 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. en-us Mon, 23 Feb 2026 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 24 Mar 2026 18:31:51 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=788684 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. Case-Laws Indian Laws Mon, 23 Feb 2026 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=788684