The Supreme Court dismissed an appeal by the District Appropriate Authority challenging the Gujarat High Court’s order directing the unsealing of a sonography machine seized during proceedings under the Pre-Conception and Pre-Natal Diagnostic Techniques (PC & PNDT) Act, 1994. The Court held that retaining the machine in a sealed condition for nearly 16 years without any justifiable reason was unreasonable, especially after the respondent had been acquitted by both the Trial and Appellate Courts.
Background:
The case arose from a sting operation conducted on 26 May 2009 by the District Appropriate Authority, Ahmedabad, in which respondent Dr. Kaushik Babulal Shah allegedly revealed the sex of a foetus for monetary consideration in violation of the PC & PNDT Act. A complaint was filed the next day and a sonography machine was seized and sealed. The Form ‘F’, which is mandatory under the Act, was found to be incomplete.
Dr. Shah challenged the sealing before the Gujarat High Court. Though a single judge initially allowed the unsealing, the Division Bench reversed this and directed the Metropolitan Magistrate to expedite the trial. On 4 December 2012, the Magistrate acquitted Dr. Shah of all charges. This acquittal was upheld by the Sessions Court on 23 August 2012.
Subsequently, the High Court, by order dated 1 October 2012, allowed the unsealing of the machine. A recall application was dismissed on 22 October 2012. The Appropriate Authority then approached the Supreme Court challenging these orders.
Arguments:
The appellant contended that under Section 29 of the PC & PNDT Act, records and materials must be preserved until all criminal proceedings are fully disposed of. It was argued that the High Court failed to consider that an appeal against the acquittal was still pending.
On the other hand, the respondent argued that since the acquittal had already been confirmed by both the Trial and Appellate Courts, the proceedings under the Act were concluded. The High Court’s direction to unseal the machine was justified and included safeguards for data retrieval by the Authority.
Court’s Analysis:
A Bench comprising Justice Bela M. Trivedi and Justice Prasanna B. Varale noted that the sonography machine had been sealed since 2009, and continuing to keep it sealed without valid justification would render it “useless or worthless.”
The Court reviewed Sections 29 and 30 of the PC & PNDT Act, 1994, and observed:
“In Section 29(1) there is no prescription of a specified period for which such record needs to be preserved. The words used… are either ‘two years’ or ‘as may be prescribed’, and in Section 29(2) the words used are ‘at all reasonable times’.”
The Court found no evidence of any government notification prescribing a specific preservation period. It emphasised that the interest of the Authority was already safeguarded by the High Court’s direction allowing for data retrieval in the presence of engineers and the respondent.
Referring to Ashok Kumar v. State of Bihar, (2001) 9 SCC 718, the Court reiterated that keeping property in court custody indefinitely serves no purpose and discretion under Section 451 CrPC allows courts to order appropriate disposal of case property.
Decision:
The Supreme Court held:
“No justifiable reason worth consideration is coming forward from the appellant authority to keep the sonography machine in a sealed condition for an indefinite period till the conclusion of the proceedings.”
Accordingly, the appeals were dismissed as devoid of merit, and the Court declined to interfere with the Gujarat High Court’s orders. The question of law, if any, was left open.
