Kiran Raj

The Supreme Court Division Bench of Justices Manoj Misra and Ujjal Bhuyan held on February 23 that an illegality in search and seizure, arising from want of proper collective authorization under the PCPNDT Act, does not automatically invalidate the evidence or materials gathered during such a search. The Court clarified that while the search may be illegal, evidence collected in its course remains open to being acted upon, subject to the rule of relevancy and the test of admissibility. The case arose from a sting operation conducted against a radiologist accused of carrying out an ultrasound procedure without maintaining mandatory statutory records, where the raid had been authorized by a single member of the District Appropriate Authority rather than the Authority collectively.

The appeal arose from a judgment of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana dismissing a petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking quashing of a complaint instituted under the Pre-Conception and Pre-Natal Diagnostic Techniques (Prohibition of Sex Selection) Act, 1994 and the summoning order passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Gurugram. The appellant, a radiologist, was alleged to have conducted an ultrasound on a decoy pregnant woman during a raid conducted on 17.09.2015 pursuant to a complaint regarding illegal sex determination.

Also Read: Employees' Compensation Act | Statutory Penalty For Employer's Default In Timely Payment Of Compensation Not Transferable To Insurer; Supreme Court

During the raid, Rs. 25,000 was recovered from a co-accused, and deficiencies were allegedly found in the maintenance of statutory records, including non-signing of Form F and absence of entries in the register. An FIR was registered, but the appellant was discharged by the Magistrate upon a police application stating no incriminating material linked him to sex determination. Subsequently, on the recommendation of the District Advisory Committee, a statutory complaint was filed by the District Appropriate Authority under Sections 4, 5, 6 and 29 of the Act read with Rules 9 and 10, punishable under Section 23. The High Court declined to quash the complaint, leading to the present appeal.

The Court examined the statutory framework of the PCPNDT Act and recorded that “the PCPNDT Act is a social welfare legislation… to prohibit sex selection leading to female foeticide in India.” It noted that under the proviso to Section 4(3), “it is mandatory for the person conducting ultrasonography on a pregnant woman to keep the complete record… and any deficiency or inaccuracy found therein shall amount to contravention of Sections 5 or 6.”

Referring to Ravinder Kumar v. State of Haryana, 2024 SCC Online SC 2495, the Court observed that “the decision to authorize a search under sub-section (1) of Section 30 must be that of the appropriate authority collectively.” It recorded that if a single member authorizes a search, “it will be illegal being contrary to sub-section (1) of Section 30.” On facts, the Court found that the raid order was issued by the Civil Surgeon alone and that “there was no meeting of mind of the members of the District Appropriate Authority.” Accordingly, “the search carried out… would be illegal.”

However, the Court clarified that “while the search may be illegal, the materials or evidence gathered or collected in the course of such search can still be acted or relied upon subject to the rule of relevancy and the test of admissibility.” Relying on precedent, Pooran Mal Vs. Director of Inspector (Investigation), (1974) 1 SCC 345 it recorded that “even if evidence is illegally obtained, it is admissible,” and that “unless there is an express or necessarily implied prohibition in law, evidence obtained as a result of illegal search or seizure is not liable to be shut out.”

On the effect of discharge in the FIR case, the Court stated that “discharge of the appellant in the police case would be of no consequence,” noting that cognizance under the Act can only be taken upon a complaint by the Appropriate Authority under Section 28(1). It further recorded that “non-maintenance of the record in the prescribed form would be an offence under the PCPNDT Act and the Rules.” The Court concluded that “it is not a case where the trial should be nipped in the bud.”

Also Read: Right To Effective Representation Under Article 22(5) Cannot Be Time-Barred By Rigid Timelines In NSA Detention Grounds: Manipur High Court

The Court held that “the criminal complaint bearing No. COMA/116/2018 pending before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Gurugram cannot be quashed. No interference is called for in the impugned judgment and order of the High Court.”

“we have not expressed any opinion on merit of the allegations and all contentions qua reliability and admissibility of evidence are kept open.” Subject to these observations, “the criminal appeal is dismissed” and “there shall be no order as to cost.”

Advocates Representing the Parties

For the Petitioners: Mr. Rajive Bhalla, Sr. Adv. Mr. Yajur Bhalla, Adv. Mr. Yash, Adv. Mr. Amijot Bir Singh, Adv. Mr. Ashutosh Tiwari, Adv. Ms. Gauri Bedi, Adv. Mr. Divyansh Misra, Adv. Ms. Neha Verma, Adv. Mr. Shubham Bhalla, AOR.

For the Respondents: Mr. Neeraj, A.A.G. Mr. Samar Vijay Singh, AOR Mr. Piyush Beriwal, Adv. Ms. Jyotsna Vyas, Adv. Ms. Sabarni Som, Adv. Mr. Yash Tyagi, Adv. Ms. Amisha Dash, Adv. Mr. Eashwar, Adv. Mr. Ashutosh Mishra, Adv. Mr Abhishek Kumar Suman, Adv. Mr Nikhil Kumar Chaubey, Adv.

Case Title: Dr. Naresh Kumar Garg v. State of Haryana and Ors.
Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 176
Case Number: Criminal Appeal arising out of SLP (Criminal) No. 5915 of 2025
Bench: Justice Manoj Misra and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan