Case Note & Summary
The appellant, a medical practitioner, was accused of conducting illegal sex determination of a foetus using ultrasound at his clinic, Divine Diagnostic Centre, Gurugram. A raid was conducted on 27th April 2017 by a team of four officers based on a complaint against one Dhanpati, who was allegedly running a racket of sex determination and medical termination of pregnancy. A decoy patient was used, and after the procedure, the police seized cash and an ultrasound report signed by the appellant. An FIR was registered under Section 23 of the Pre-Conception and Pre-natal Diagnostic Techniques (Prohibition of Sex Selection) Act, 1994, followed by a complaint by the District Appropriate Authority under Section 28(1) of the Act. The appellant filed a petition for quashing the FIR and complaint before the High Court, which was dismissed. The appellant then appealed to the Supreme Court. The core legal issue was whether the search and seizure under Section 30(1) of the Act was valid when the order authorising the raid was signed only by the Civil Surgeon, who was the Chairperson of the Appropriate Authority, and not by the other two members of the multi-member body. The appellant argued that the Appropriate Authority under Section 17 is a multi-member body consisting of three members, and the authorisation by only one member rendered the search illegal. The State contended that the defect was curable and that the subsequent complaint by the Appropriate Authority validated the proceedings. The Supreme Court examined the provisions of Sections 17, 23, 28, and 30 of the Act. It held that the condition precedent for search under Section 30(1) is that the Appropriate Authority must have reason to believe an offence has been committed. The Appropriate Authority, as defined under Section 2(a) and appointed under Section 17, is a multi-member body. In this case, the order authorising the raid was signed only by the Civil Surgeon, who was the Chairperson, and not by the other two members. The Court noted that the notification dated 7th November 2013 constituted the Appropriate Authority for each district consisting of the Civil Surgeon, District Programme Officer, and District Attorney. Since the authorisation was not by the Appropriate Authority as a body, the search was illegal. The Court rejected the State's argument that the defect was curable, holding that an illegal search cannot be validated by a subsequent complaint. Consequently, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the impugned judgment of the High Court, and quashed the FIR and complaint against the appellant.
Headnote
A) Criminal Procedure - Search and Seizure - Illegal Search - Pre-Conception and Pre-natal Diagnostic Techniques (Prohibition of Sex Selection) Act, 1994, Section 30(1) - The condition precedent for search under Section 30(1) is that the Appropriate Authority must have reason to believe an offence has been or is being committed. The Appropriate Authority under Section 17 is a multi-member body. In this case, the order authorising the raid was signed only by the Civil Surgeon (Chairperson) and not by the other two members. Held that the search was illegal as it was not conducted by the Appropriate Authority or officers authorised by the Appropriate Authority, rendering the entire proceedings invalid (Paras 10-13). B) Criminal Procedure - Cognizance of Offences - Complaint by Appropriate Authority - Pre-Conception and Pre-natal Diagnostic Techniques (Prohibition of Sex Selection) Act, 1994, Section 28(1) - The complaint filed by the District Appropriate Authority under Section 28(1) cannot cure the illegality of the search conducted without proper authorisation. The subsequent filing of the complaint does not validate the illegal search (Para 13).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the search and seizure conducted under Section 30(1) of the Pre-Conception and Pre-natal Diagnostic Techniques (Prohibition of Sex Selection) Act, 1994 is valid when the order authorising the raid was signed only by the Chairperson of the Appropriate Authority and not by the other members of the multi-member body.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the impugned judgment of the High Court, and quashed the FIR and complaint against the appellant.
Law Points
- Search and seizure under Section 30(1) of the Pre-Conception and Pre-natal Diagnostic Techniques (Prohibition of Sex Selection) Act
- 1994 must be conducted by the Appropriate Authority or officers authorised by the Appropriate Authority
- which is a multi-member body
- authorisation by only the Chairperson (Civil Surgeon) without concurrence of other members is illegal and vitiates the proceedings.
