Case at a Glance
A Gurugram radiologist was summoned under the Pre-Conception and Pre-Natal Diagnostic Techniques (PCPNDT) Act after a 2015 decoy raid on a diagnostic centre. He argued the raid was illegal because only the Chairperson, not the full Appropriate Authority, had ordered it, and that his discharge in the police case ended the matter. The Supreme Court agreed the search was vitiated, but held that evidence collected in an illegal search is not automatically inadmissible, and that a PCPNDT complaint by the Appropriate Authority is independent of the police case. The complaint was allowed to proceed to trial.
On 17 September 2015, the Civil Surgeon of Gurugram, as Chairperson of the District Appropriate Authority, directed a raid on a diagnostic centre where the appellant worked as a radiologist. The operation, using a decoy patient and a shadow witness, was aimed at another doctor suspected of sex determination, from whom ₹25,000 was recovered. An FIR was registered, but on 28 October 2015 the police sought the appellant’s discharge and the trial court granted it.
Separately, the District Advisory Committee recommended a complaint in December 2015, authorisation was issued on 17 September 2018, and a complaint under the PCPNDT Act and Rules 9 and 10 was filed on 18 September 2018. On 12 September 2022, the Judicial Magistrate, Gurugram summoned the appellant under Section 3 of the Act. The Punjab and Haryana High Court refused to quash the complaint on 24 July 2024, and the doctor appealed.
The Key Question Before the Court
Should a PCPNDT complaint against a radiologist be quashed because the raid was ordered by the Chairperson alone and he had already been discharged in the police case?
Separating an Illegal Search From the Evidence It Produced
Justice Ujjal Bhuyan, writing for the Bench, accepted the first part of the appellant’s argument. Following Ravindra Kumar v. State of Haryana, (2024) 09 SC CK 0032, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 2495, the Court held that a search ordered by a single member of the Appropriate Authority, rather than the Authority itself, is not valid under Section 30(1), and the search here was therefore vitiated.
But that did not end the case. Relying on Radha Kishan v. State of U.P. AIR 1963 SC 822, R.M. Malkani v. State of Maharashtra, (1972) 09 SC CK 0057 (1973) 1 SCC 471, Magraj Patodia v. R.K. Birla, (1970) 09 SC CK 0022 AIR 1971 SC 1295 and the Constitution Bench in Pooran Mal v. Director of Inspection (Investigation), (1973) 12 SC CK 0022 (1974) 1 SCC 345, the Court held that evidence obtained through an illegal search is not automatically discarded; relevance and proof govern admissibility. Under Section 28(1), cognizance of PCPNDT offences rests on a complaint by the Appropriate Authority, so the police discharge had no bearing. Citing Federation of Obstetrics and Gynaecological Societies of India v. Union of India (2019) 6 SCC 283, the Court reiterated that Form F record-keeping is mandatory. The alleged irregularity in the Advisory Committee’s composition did not violate Rule 18A(2)(ii), which in any case is directory. Whether records were properly kept and whether sex was disclosed were matters for trial.
What the Court Actually Held
- A search under the PCPNDT Act ordered by the Chairperson alone, rather than the Appropriate Authority, is vitiated.
- Evidence collected in an illegal search is not automatically inadmissible; its admissibility depends on relevance and proof at trial.
- A complaint by the Appropriate Authority under Section 28(1) is independent of the police case, so the doctor’s discharge in the FIR did not bar it.
- The complaint was not quashed; all contentions on reliability and admissibility were kept open, and the appeal was dismissed with no order as to costs.
Why This Judgment Matters
- It keeps the PCPNDT enforcement machinery effective even where procedural lapses occur during raids.
- It clarifies, for the PCPNDT context, the long-standing Indian rule that illegally obtained evidence may still be admissible.
- It reminds diagnostic centres and radiologists that Form F records are mandatory and will be scrutinised at trial.
What Should Advocates Take Away From the Judgment?
For Doctors and Clinics
- Maintain complete Form F and other statutory records for every pre-natal scan.
- A defective raid order may not save you if the records themselves are deficient.
- A discharge in a police FIR does not end exposure to a complaint by the Appropriate Authority.
For Counsel
- Distinguish between the legality of a search and the admissibility of what it yields; cite Pooran Mal and this judgment.
- Check that the search decision was taken by the Appropriate Authority collectively, as required by Ravindra Kumar.
- Challenges based on Advisory Committee composition under Rule 18A face the Court’s view that the Rule is directory.
Key Takeaways
- An illegal PCPNDT search does not by itself wipe out the evidence.
- PCPNDT prosecutions run on a complaint by the Appropriate Authority, not on the police case.
- Form F record-keeping is mandatory.
- Disputed facts about records and disclosure of sex are for trial, not quashing.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the PCPNDT Act?
The Pre-Conception and Pre-Natal Diagnostic Techniques (Prohibition of Sex Selection) Act, 1994 bans sex selection and regulates diagnostic techniques to prevent sex determination of the foetus.
If the raid was illegal, why was the case not quashed?
Because, as the Court held relying on Pooran Mal and other cases, evidence from an illegal search is not automatically inadmissible; it can be tested at trial for relevance and genuineness.
Does discharge in the police case help the doctor?
No. Under Section 28(1) of the Act, courts take cognizance on a complaint by the Appropriate Authority, which is independent of the police case.
Conclusion
The judgment strikes a careful balance. It insists that raids under the PCPNDT Act be authorised properly, but refuses to let that lapse alone defeat a prosecution aimed at one of the most serious social harms the law addresses. The doctor will have the opportunity to contest the evidence at trial.
Practical takeaway: In PCPNDT matters, a quashing petition built only on a defective search order is unlikely to succeed after Dr. Naresh Kumar Garg v. State of Haryana, (2026) 02 SC CK 1795 (2026 INSC 176); the real contest is at trial.
Read the full judgment on CourtKutchehry: View judgment →
For more judgments, legal opinions and case analysis, visit courtkutchehry.com