In a significant ruling concerning the Pre-Conception and Pre-Natal Diagnostic Techniques (Prohibition of Sex Selection) Act, 1994 (PCPNDT Act), the Supreme Court of India has held that evidence collected during an illegally authorized search is still admissible in court, subject to the rules of relevancy. A bench comprising Justice Manoj Misra and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan dismissed an appeal filed by a radiologist seeking the quashing of a criminal complaint pending before a Gurugram Magistrate.
The core legal issue addressed by the Court was whether a criminal complaint initiated under the PCPNDT Act could be quashed if the underlying search was authorized by a single member of the District Appropriate Authority instead of the collective body, and whether a prior discharge in a police FIR barred the statutory complaint.
Background of the Case
The appellant, Dr. Naresh Kumar Garg, is a radiologist who worked at Vatika Medicare in Gurugram. On September 17, 2015, the Civil Surgeon of Gurugram, acting as the Chairman of the District Appropriate Authority, ordered a sting operation based on a complaint alleging that one Dr. Abdul Kadir was running an illegal sex-determination racket.
A decoy pregnant patient was sent with a shadow witness. After allegedly demanding and accepting Rs. 25,000, Dr. Kadir took the decoy patient to Vatika Medicare, where Dr. Garg conducted an ultrasound. The raiding team intervened and found that Dr. Garg had allegedly failed to sign the mandatory “Form F” and had not made the required register entries.
An FIR (No. 336 of 2015) was registered. However, the police later filed a discharge application, stating that while there were discrepancies in the records, they found no evidence that the appellant had disclosed the sex of the foetus. The trial court discharged the appellant on October 28, 2015.
Subsequently, the District Advisory Committee recommended initiating a statutory complaint, and the District Appropriate Authority authorized a Deputy Civil Surgeon to file it. The complaint was formally lodged on September 18, 2018, summoning the appellant under various provisions of the PCPNDT Act. After the High Court of Punjab and Haryana dismissed his quashing petition in July 2024, the appellant approached the Supreme Court.
Arguments of the Parties
Senior Counsel Mr. Bhalla, representing the appellant, argued that the search was illegal and void as it was ordered by a single member of the District Appropriate Authority. He heavily relied on the recent Supreme Court judgment in Ravinder Kumar Vs. State of Haryana, which held that an order for a sting operation must be a collective decision of the appropriate authority, not an individual member. The appellant also argued that the statutory complaint was not maintainable on the same facts for which he had already been discharged in the FIR case.
Conversely, the Additional Advocate General (AAG) for the State of Haryana, Mr. Neeraj, argued that the raid uncovered incomplete and deficient forms, which constitute grave statutory contraventions under the PCPNDT Act. Relying on Federation of Obstetrics and Gynaecological Societies of India (FOGSI) Vs. Union of India, the AAG argued that a police discharge has no bearing on the independent statutory power of the District Appropriate Authority to file a complaint for non-maintenance of records.
Court’s Analysis
The Supreme Court analyzed the statutory framework of the PCPNDT Act, observing its objective to arrest the declining sex ratio and prevent female foeticide.
Addressing the legality of the search, the Court agreed with the appellant that the raid was legally flawed. Citing Ravinder Kumar, the Court noted that the search order was issued solely by the Civil Surgeon without associating the other two members of the District Appropriate Authority. The Court observed, “If that be the position, then the ratio in Ravindra Kumar would be applicable to this case as well on the basis of which the search carried out by the District Appropriate Authority, Gurugram at Vatika Medicare i.e. the premises where the appellant worked, would be illegal.”
However, the Court made a crucial distinction regarding the evidence obtained from this flawed search. The bench held:
“While there is infraction of Section 30 of the PCPNDT Act qua the search… we are however of the view that the evidence collected in the course of the search in the form of the seized record etc cannot be discarded altogether, like the baby with the bath water. 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.”
To support this established legal doctrine, the Court cited past constitutional and larger bench decisions, including Radha Kishan Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh, R.M. Malkani Vs. State of Maharashtra, and Pooran Mal Vs. Director of Inspector (Investigation), New Delhi, which affirm that Indian law permits relevancy as the primary test for admissibility, regardless of illegal search methods.
Regarding the appellant’s prior discharge in the police case, the Court found it to be of “no consequence.” The Court noted that under Section 28(1) of the PCPNDT Act, cognizance can only be taken upon a complaint by the Appropriate Authority, not a police report. Furthermore, citing FOGSI, the Court reiterated that “complete contents of Form F are mandatory,” and the burden lies on the person conducting the ultrasonography to prove they maintained accurate records.
Decision
The Supreme Court concluded that the trial must proceed to determine whether the appellant failed to maintain the records as required by the PCPNDT Act.
“Whether or not he has maintained the record as required under the law in addition to non-disclosure of the sex of the foetus is a matter for trial. Therefore, it is not a case where the trial should be nipped in the bud,” the Court observed.
The Court dismissed the criminal appeal, refusing to quash the pending complaint, but clarified that all contentions regarding the reliability and admissibility of evidence remain open for the trial court to decide.
Case Details:
- Case Title: Dr. Naresh Kumar Garg vs. State of Haryana and Ors.
- Citation: 2026 INSC 176
