Legal provisions involved: Sections 4, 5, 6, 23, 28, 29 & 30 of the Pre-Conception and Pre-Natal Diagnostic Techniques (Prohibition of Sex Selection) Act, 1994
Judgement by: Supreme Court of India
Judge/Bench: Justice Manoj Misra and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan
Facts
Dr. Naresh Kumar Garg, a radiologist, was accused of conducting an ultrasound on a decoy patient without maintaining proper records as required under the PCPNDT Act. After a sting operation, an FIR was registered, but the appellant was subsequently discharged. Later, a criminal complaint was filed in 2018.
Key Legal Provisions
Sections 4, 5, 6, 23, 28, 29 & 30 of the Pre-Conception and Pre-Natal Diagnostic Techniques (Prohibition of Sex Selection) Act, 1994
Issues raised
- Whether the raid conducted by a single member of the District Appropriate Authority was legal
- Whether the complaint was maintainable after discharge in the FIR
Arguments of the case
The Appellant argued that the raid was illegal as it was ordered by the Chairman alone without collective decision of the appropriate authority, making all subsequent proceedings void. The Respondent, on the other hand, argued that the Act confers independent powers on the authority to initiate proceedings for statutory contraventions.
Judgement
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, holding that whilst the raid was illegal as it was authorised by the Chairman alone without collective decision of the District Appropriate Authority, evidence obtained from illegal search remains admissible subject to rules of relevancy and admissibility. The Court emphasised that non-maintenance of mandatory records in Form F is not a minor procedural lapse but a grave statutory contravention.
Click here to VIEW the full judgement
