Supreme Court Upholds Legitimacy of Evidence Seized in Illegal Raid under PCPNDT Act, Despite the illegality of the raid conducted solely by the Chairperson, the Supreme Court allows the prosecution to proceed based on the evidence seized, emphasizing relevance and admissibility.
In a significant ruling, the Supreme Court of India has decided that evidence seized during an illegal raid, conducted without a collective decision by the District Appropriate Authority under the Pre-Conception and Pre-Natal Diagnostic Techniques (Prohibition of Sex Selection) Act, 1994 (PCPNDT Act), can still be used in prosecution, provided it meets the criteria of relevance and admissibility. This judgment came in the case of Dr. Naresh Kumar Garg v. State of Haryana, where the appellant, a radiologist, was accused of non-compliance with mandatory documentation under the PCPNDT Act.
The Supreme Court, comprising Justices Manoj Misra and Ujjal Bhuyan, underscored the social imperative of the PCPNDT Act aimed at curbing female foeticide and ensuring compliance with prescribed procedures for prenatal diagnostic techniques. The bench ruled that while the raid conducted by the Chairperson of the District Appropriate Authority was illegal for lacking a collective decision, the seized materials could still be used subject to legal scrutiny.
Dr. Naresh Kumar Garg challenged the validity of the complaint lodged against him, arguing that the raid was unauthorized, as it was ordered solely by the Chairperson without the involvement of other members of the District Appropriate Authority, thus violating Section 30 of the PCPNDT Act. The Supreme Court acknowledged this procedural flaw but referenced past judgments, emphasizing that illegal searches do not automatically invalidate the evidence collected if it is otherwise relevant and admissible.
The Court also dismissed Dr. Garg's contention that the subsequent criminal complaint was untenable following his discharge in an earlier police investigation. The judgment clarified that under Section 28 of the PCPNDT Act, cognizance of offences could only be taken on a complaint by the appropriate authority, rendering police discharge orders irrelevant to the prosecution under this Act.
This decision reaffirms the stringent adherence to the PCPNDT Act's provisions, emphasizing the mandatory maintenance of records as a crucial mechanism to prevent misuse of prenatal diagnostic techniques. The ruling reflects the judiciary's commitment to upholding the integrity of social welfare legislation aimed at eradicating gender-based discrimination and protecting the rights of the girl child.
Bottom Line:
Raid conducted solely by the Chairperson of District Appropriate Authority without collective decision of the Authority is illegal; however, evidence seized during such raid can still be acted upon, subject to relevancy and admissibility.
Statutory provision(s): Sections 4, 5, 6, 23, 28, 29, 30 of the Pre-Conception and Pre-Natal Diagnostic Techniques (Prohibition of Sex Selection) Act, 1994; Rules 9, 10, 18A of PCPNDT Rules
Dr.Naresh Kumar Garg v. State of Haryana, (SC) : Law Finder Doc id # 2857077
