Only Chairman Or Any Other Member Of District Appropriate Authority Acting Alone Cannot Authorise Search U/S. 30(1) PCPNDT Act: SC

The Court said that if a single member of the Appropriate Authority authorises a search, it will be completely illegal being contrary to sub-section (1) of Section 30.

The Court was hearing a Criminal Appeal after the High Court declined to quash the complaint and the FIR registered against the Appellant for the offence punishable under Section 23 of the Pre- Conception and Pre-natal Diagnostic Techniques (Prohibition of Sex Selection) Act, 1994.

The bench of Justice Abhay S Oka and Justice Augustine George Masih observed, “…only the Chairman or any other member acting alone cannot authorise search under sub- section (1) of Section 30. It must be a decision of the Appropriate Authority. If a single member of the Appropriate Authority authorises a search, it will be completely illegal being contrary to sub-section (1) of Section 30.”

Brief Facts-

The clinic of the Appellant who is a physician and radiologist was raided following the allegations of involvement in an illegal racket for sex determination and medical termination of pregnancy (MTP). A decoy patient, along with a shadow witness, was used in the investigation which led to the discovery that an ultrasound was conducted at the Appellant's clinic. Cash and a USG report were seized, and an FIR was registered for violations under the PCPNDT Act, 1994. The Appellant’s petition to quash the FIR and complaint was dismissed by the High Court. Hence, the present Appeal.

While explaining the expression “reason to believe” used in the statutes, the Court said, “The test is whether a reasonable man, under the circumstances placed before him, would be propelled to take action under the statute.”

Considering the object of the 1994 Act the Court said that the expression “reason to believe” cannot be construed in a manner which would create a procedural roadblock and the reason is that once there is any material placed before the Appropriate Authority based on which action of search is required to be undertaken, if the action is delayed, the very object of passing orders of search would be frustrated.

“Therefore, what is needed is that the complaint or other material received by the appropriate authority or its members should be immediately made available to all its members. After examining the same, the Appropriate authority must expeditiously decide whether there is a reason to believe that an offence under the 1994 Act has been or is being committed. The Appropriate Authority is not required to record reasons for concluding that it has reason to believe that an offence under the 1994 Act has been or is being committed. But, there has to be a rational basis to form that belief. However, the decision to take action under sub-section (1) of Section 30 must be of the Appropriate Authority and not of its individual members.”, the Court observed.

The Court said that in the present case, no legal decision was made by the Appropriate Authority in terms of sub-section (1) of Section 30 to search for the appellant's clinic.

“As the search itself is entirely illegal, continuing prosecution based on such an illegal search will amount to abuse of the process of law.”, the Court said.

Accordingly, the Court set aside the impugned judgment and quashed the FIR.

Finally, the Court allowed the Appeal.