Pre-Conception and Pre-natal Diagnostic Tehniques (Prohibition of Sex Selection) Act, 1994
Sections 23, 28 & 30—Sex determination—Search and seizure—High Court declined to quash both the complaint and FIR—Appeal—Allegation against appellant and co-accused was of indulging in the illegal activity of sex determination of a foetus by using ultrasound—Decision to take action under sub-section (1) of Section 30 of the Act must be of the Appropriate Authority and not of its individual members—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—Decision to carry out the search is an individual decision of the Civil Surgeon, who was the Chairman of the concerned Appropriate Authority—Action of search is itself vitiated—Except for what was found in the search and the seized documents, there is nothing to connect the accused with the offence punishable under Section 23 of the Act—As the search itself is entirely illegal, continuing prosecution based on such an illegal search will amount to abuse of the process of law—High Court ought to have notice such illegality—Complaint and FIR stands quashed—Appeal allowed.
[Paras 13 to 17]
Words and Phrases
Reason to believe—Meaning under Pre-Conception and Pre-natal Diagnostic Tehniques (Prohibition of Sex Selection) Act—Considering the object of the PN&PDT Act, the expression “reason to believe” cannot be construed in a manner which would create a procedural roadblock—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 objection of passing orders of search would be frustrated.
[Para 12]