Naresh Kumar Garg vs. The State Of Haryana

2026 INSC 176

REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. OF 2026
(ARISING OUT OF SLP (CRIMINAL) NO. 5915 OF 2025)



DR. NARESH KUMAR GARG APPELLANT(S)

VERSUS


STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS. RESPONDENT(S)


J U D G M E N T

UJJAL BHUYAN, J.
Leave granted.
2. This appeal by special leave is directed against
the judgment and order dated 24.07.2024 passed by the
High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh (briefly
‘the High Court’ hereinafter) in CRM-M No. 52858 of 2022
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by
BORRA LM VALLI
( Naresh Kumar Garg Vs. State of Haryana ).
Date: 2026.02.23
14:47:11 IST
Reason:



3. It may be mentioned that appellant as the
petitioner had filed a petition under Section 482 of the Code
of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (briefly ‘the Cr.P.C.’ hereinafter)
for quashing of the complaint bearing No. COMA/116/2018
dated 19.09.2018 filed under various provisions of the Pre-
Conception and Pre-Natal Diagnostic Techniques (Prohibition
of Sex Selection) Act, 1994 (briefly, ‘the PCPNDT Act’
hereinafter) as well as the summoning order dated 12.09.2022
passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Gurugram.
However, vide the impugned judgment and order dated
24.07.2024, the High Court dismissed the aforesaid petition.
4. At the outset, a brief recital of the relevant facts
would be in order.
5. It is stated that appellant is a qualified radiologist
by profession.
5.1. On 17.09.2015, Chairman, District Appropriate
Authority-cum-Civil Surgeon, Gurugram, Dr. Pushpa
Bishnoi received a complaint from a lady named Smt. Rajni
to the effect that she knew a person called Dr. Abdul Kadir
of Geetanjali Hospital in Badshahpur who was allegedly
2




running a racket of illegal sex-determination. On receipt of
such a complaint, the Chairman constituted a three-
member team alongwith support staff to conduct a raid and
investigate the complaint against the said Dr. Abdul Kadir.
5.2. A pregnant lady named Smt. Suman had come to
the Civil Hospital, Gurugram for her routine checkup on
17.09.2015. Dr. Saryu Sharma, who was a member of the
team constituted by the Chairman, approached her and
apprised her about the complaint against Dr. Abdul Kadir.
Dr. Sharma requested her if she could help the authority by
becoming a decoy patient in the proposed raid. The lady
Smt. Suman agreed to the proposal and gave her written
consent to become a decoy patient.
5.3. Thereafter, shadow witness Rajni was asked to
call Dr. Abdul Kadir and to ask him for sex-determination of
her relative i.e. the decoy patient Smt. Suman. Dr. Kadir was
informed that Smt. Suman was pregnant and that she
wanted to know the sex of her foetus. Dr. Abdul Kadir agreed
to the proposal but demanded Rs. 25,000.00 for carrying out
sex-determination of the foetus and thereafter to disclose
the same. Shadow witness Rajni agreed to pay the same.
3




5.4. Dr. Saryu Sharma gave Rs. 25,000.00 (Rs. 1,000
into 25 notes) to shadow witness Rajni whereafter Smt.
Suman accompanied by shadow witness Rajni went to
Sector 56, Gurugram (near Badshahpur) to meet Dr. Abdul
Kadir, who came after some time in his vehicle. Dr. Kadir
asked the two of them to sit in his vehicle whereafter he was
paid Rs. 25,000.00. He started driving his vehicle towards
Vatika Medicare in Sector 45, Gurugram. After talking with
someone over phone, he told the two of them that he had a
word with one Dr. Naresh Garg, a radiologist, at Vatika
Medicare who would conduct the ultrasound on the patient
in order to determine the sex of her foetus. Dr. Kadir
informed the two ladies that Dr. Naresh Garg would neither
ask the patient to sign any document nor would he sign
Form F. Dr. Kadir further clarified that Dr. Naresh Garg
would not make any entry of the patient in the register and
that he would provide the patient the ultrasound report
without putting his signature within a day or two.
5.5. It may be mentioned that the team constituted by
the Chairman was following the vehicle of Dr. Abdul Kadir.
When Dr. Kadir and the two ladies reached Vatika Medicare,
4




he asked the patient to go to the room of the ultrasonologist
to get her ultrasound done. It is the case of the complainant
that the ultrasound on patient Suman was conducted by Dr.
Naresh Garg himself. Dr. Garg neither signed Form F nor
did he ask Smt. Suman to sign any document. He also did
not sign the ultrasound report.
5.6. It was at this stage that the team members
constituted by the Chairman alongwith other officials and
police personnel confronted Dr. Abdul Kadir and recovered
Rs. 25,000.00 from his right pocket. The numbers of these
notes matched the numbers of the notes given by the team
to the decoy patient. The team also confronted Dr. Naresh
Garg and on checking all records found that Form F had not
been signed by Dr. Naresh Garg. There was no entry of the
name of the decoy patient Smt. Suman in any register
maintained in the hospital.
6. Dr. Saryu Sharma gave first information to the
police at the spot on the basis of which FIR No. 336 of 2015
dated 17.09.2015 was registered by the police of Police
Station Sector 40, Gurugram.
5




6.1. On conclusion of investigation, police filed a
discharge application dated 28.10.2015 before the trial
court stating that there was no incriminating material
against the appellant. By order of the same date i.e.
28.10.2015, trial court allowed the application filed by the
police and discharged the appellant.
7. District Advisory Committee adopted resolution
dated 17.12.2015 recommending lodging of a complaint
against the appellant Dr. Abdul Kadir, the appellant, and
Vatika Medicare. Ultimately one Dr. Chitranjan, Deputy
Civil Surgeon, was authorized by the District Appropriate
Authority to lodge a complaint against the appellant under
the PCPNDT Act vide the authorization letter dated
17.09.2018.
7.1. Pursuant thereto, a complaint bearing No.
COMA/116/2018 was lodged against the appellant and Dr.
Abdul Kadir under various provisions of the PCPNDT Act as
well as under Rules 9 and 10 of the Pre-Conception and Pre-
Natal Diagnostic Techniques (Prohibition of Sex Selection)
Rules, 1996 (briefly, ‘the PCPNDT Rules’ hereinafter). As
6




there was delay in lodging of the complaint, an application
for condonation of delay was also filed.
7.2. By order dated 18.09.2018, the trial court allowed
the application for condonation of delay. Thereafter the trial
court i.e. Judicial Magistrate First Class, Gurugam vide
order dated 12.09.2022 summoned the accused persons i.e.
Dr. Abdul Kadir and Dr. Naresh Garg under Section 3 of the
PCPNDT Act for 30.11.2022.
8. Aggrieved thereby, appellant filed a petition
before the High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for
quashing of the complaint dated 18.09.2018, the
summoning order dated 12.09.2022 and all consequential
proceedings, which was registered as CRM-M-52858/2022.
By the impugned judgment and order dated 24.07.2024, the
High Court dismissed the said petition holding that there
was no merit therein.
9. Aggrieved thereby, the related special leave
petition was filed.
10. This Court vide the order dated 15.04.2025 had
issued notice and in the meanwhile directed stay of
7




proceedings of complaint case bearing No. COMA/116/2018
pending before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, (Judicial
Magistrate First Class) Gurugram, Haryana.
11. Learned senior counsel for the appellant
Mr. Bhalla submits that appellant is a doctor who works as
an employee in a diagnostic center at Gurugram. He is being
wrongly and illegally prosecuted for the offences under
Sections 23 and 29 of the PCPNDT Act, Sections 4, 5 and 6
thereof added later on. According to him, appellant is a
victim of an illegal raid/sting operation which led to
registration of an FIR in which appellant was discharged. It
is unfortunate that after his discharge, the District
Appropriate Authority, Gurugram lodged the related
complaint in which appellant was summoned.
11.1. It is submitted that nothing has been recovered
from the appellant. Witnesses had deposed both in the
complaint proceedings as well as before the police that
appellant did not disclose the sex of the foetus. On the other
hand, an amount of Rs. 25,000.00 was recovered from Dr.
Abdul Kadir. The only surviving allegation against the
8




appellant is that he did not fill in the requisite forms and
registers.
11.2. Referring to the order dated 17.09.2015 directing
conduct of a sting operation, learned senior counsel submits
that the said order was not a legally valid order in as much
as the same was passed by a solitary member of the District
Appropriate Authority. In this connection, reference has
been made to a judgment of this Court reported in Ravinder
1
Kumar Vs. State of Haryana wherein it has been held that
an order passed by a single member of the District
Appropriate Authority directing conduct of a sting operation
is illegal and void and renders the entire proceedings null
and void. Learned senior counsel asserts that the order
dated 17.09.2015 which led to the sting operation which
further led to registration of FIR and lodging of complaint
against the appellant amongst others was not passed by the
District Appropriate Authority but by a single member of the
said authority. Therefore, in view of Section 30 of the
PCPNDT Act and the judgment of this Court in Ravinder

1
2024 SCC Online SC 2495
9




Kumar, the said order dated 17.09.2015 has no legal
significance; as a result, the resultant sting operation, the
documents collected pursuant thereto, the complaint and
the order of summoning by the trial court are illegal and
void; thus liable to be set aside.
11.3. Learned senior counsel asserts that facts in
Ravinder Kumar are identical to the facts in the appellant’s
case in as much as the sting operation was ordered by a
single member of the District Appropriate Authority. That
being so, the decision of this Court in Ravinder Kumar is
squarely applicable to the facts of the present case.
Consequently, the sting operation directed by order dated
17.09.2015 would be a nullity; hence the complaint and the
summoning order are liable to be quashed as being wholly
untenable in law as well as on facts.
11.4. Learned senior counsel submits that the District
Appropriate Authority is defined under Section 2(a) of the
PCPNDT Act. It is appointed and notified under Section 17.
The notification constituting the District Appropriate
Authority in the present case was issued on 07.11.2013 and
comprises of the following members:
10




(i) Civil Surgeon;
(ii) District Programme Officer, Women and Child
Development Department; and
(iii) District Attorney.
11.5. The power to conduct search and seizure is
contained in Section 30 of the aforesaid Act. The order to
conduct search and seizure is required to be passed by the
District Appropriate Authority i.e. by all the three members.
In so far the present case is concerned, the order to conduct
the raid was admittedly passed only by the Civil Surgeon on
17.09.2015 without associating the other two members viz.
the District Programme Officer of the Women and Child
Development Department and the District Attorney.
11.6. In so far FIR No. 0336 dated 17.09.2015 is
concerned, learned senior counsel submits that the said FIR
was registered against Dr. Abdul Kadir and the appellant
pursuant to the raid. However, the appellant was discharged
by the trial court vide the order dated 28.10.2015 pursuant
to an application dated 28.10.2015 of the prosecution on the
ground that police could not find any connection between
11




the appellant and Dr. Abdul Kadir who is now facing
prosecution in the criminal case arising out of the FIR
registered under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860
(IPC).
11.7. It was only after the discharge of the appellant
that the complaint was filed. Learned senior counsel
submits that the subsequent complaint is not maintainable
in as much as the complaint is based on the same set of
facts on which the appellant was earlier discharged.
11.8. Mr. Bhalla, learned senior counsel, submits that
appellant was discharged because both the witnesses had
denied that he had informed them about the sex of the
foetus. That apart, one of the witnesses Smt. Rajni denied
her presence at Vatika Hospital; rather, she stated that she
was present at Medanta Hospital. That apart, respondents
have failed to establish beyond a reasonable doubt any
relationship between the parties. Further, it was the case of
the respondents that appellant had allegedly committed the
offence on the instructions of Dr. Abdul Kadir. However, no
evidence was tendered to prove the relationship.
12




11.9. Learned senior counsel submits that the raiding
party comprised of Dr. Saryu Sharma (Deputy Civil Surgeon,
Gurugram), Shri Shyam Sundar (Secretary, Red Cross,
Gurugram) and Shri Amandeep Chauhan (Drugs Control
Officer). Thereafter, the District Advisory Committee was
formed in which one of the members of the raiding party i.e.
Shri Shyam Sundar was made a member of the District
Advisory Committee vide the resolution dated 27.12.2015.
This is contrary to Rule 18A(2)(ii) of the PCPNDT Rules
which prohibits a member of the investigating authority in
becoming a part of the District Advisory Committee.
11.10. Much emphasis has been laid by learned senior
counsel for the appellant on the fact that it was only after
the discharge of the appellant in the criminal case based on
the FIR, that the complaint was filed. Such a complaint is
not maintainable. That apart, court proceedings have
revealed that both the witnesses i.e. the pregnant lady
Suman and the shadow witness Rajni have categorically
denied that Dr. Naresh Kumar Garg, the appellant, had ever
informed them about the sex of the foetus. Appellant was
summoned and made party to the complaint despite having
13




been discharged in the criminal case arising out of FIR No.
336 of 2015 which pertained to the same incident and
identical evidence. Therefore, the contention is that the
complaint and all proceedings arising therefrom should be
quashed as otherwise the appellant would have to suffer the
ordeal of a criminal trial which is based on identical evidence
as in the criminal case arising out of the related FIR in which
the appellant was discharged.
11.11. Based on the aforesaid submissions, learned
senior counsel for the appellant submits that the present
appeal should be allowed in the interest of justice.
12. Per contra , Mr. Neeraj, learned Additional
Advocate General appearing for the respondents submits
that the impugned judgment is a well-reasoned one. The
present appeal is wholly misconceived. It is totally devoid of
merit. It seeks to unsettle the well-reasoned judgment of the
High Court. Therefore, the appeal should be dismissed.
12.1. Learned Additional Advocate General thereafter
gave a brief narration of the facts. He submitted that on
17.09.2015, acting upon information indicative of illegal pre-
14




natal sex determination, the district authority conducted a raid
in the clinic of the appellant. The raiding team seized the
ultrasound machine, documents, incomplete and deficient
forms and entries, unregistered referrals and records that
were prima-facie in violation of Rules 9 and 10 of the
PCPNDT Rules. He then referred to the provisions of Rules
9 and 10.
12.2. An FIR was initially registered and based upon
police investigation, appellant was discharged in that
proceeding on 28.10.2015.
12.3. Asserting that PCPNDT Act confers independent
powers upon the District Appropriate Authority to initiate
proceedings upon examination of the records and statutory
contravention, learned Additional Advocate General submits
that the District Advisory Committee met on 17.12.2015 and
examined the materials whereafter it recommended filing of
complaint. The District Appropriate Authority authorized
initiation of complaint proceedings by issuing a formal
authorization to the Deputy Civil Surgeon under Rule 18A
of the PCPNDT Rules on 17.09.2018.
15




12.4. Submitting that no case for interference by this
Court in the complaint proceedings have been made out,
learned Additional Advocate General submits that appellant
has failed to establish that the complaint discloses no
offence and that the prosecution is manifestly absurd or that
the action is barred by law. It is contended that the raid was
carried out on 17.09.2015 by a duly constituted
enforcement team, supervised by the District Appropriate
Authority and documented contemporaneously. The mere
allegation that the authorization letter did not contain all
signatures is insufficient to quash a complaint. The
presumption of validity of the raid stood reinforced by
subsequent ratification through the District Advisory
Committee proceedings, the decision of the District
Appropriate Authority and Rule 18A of the PCPNDT Rules.
No mala fide or perversity has been demonstrated by the
appellant.
12.5. Adverting to Section 17(4)(c) of the PCPNDT Act,
learned Additional Advocate General submits that the said
provision expressly empowers the appropriate authority to
take immediate action if the circumstances so warrant. The
16




Chairperson upon receiving credible information acted
promptly to prevent destruction and manipulation of record.
The subsequent discovery of Form F entries fully validates
the need for urgency.
12.6. Referring to the decision of this Court in
Federation of Obstetrics and Gynaecological Societies of India
2
(FOGSI) Vs. Union of India , learned Additional Advocate
General submits that there is clear violation of Rules 9 and
10 of the PCPNDT Rules in this case. Such violations by the
appellant are not minor procedural lapses but grave
statutory contraventions that strike at the very heart of the
PCPNDT Act. He has also referred to Rule 18A of the
PCPNDT Rules which empowers the appropriate authority
to delegate its functions to subordinate authority.
Accordingly, the District Appropriate Authority delegated to
the Deputy Civil Surgeon the authority to file the complaint.
Contention of the appellant that the District Appropriate
Authority as a whole must physically authorize filing of
complaint is untenable.

2
(2019) 6 SCC 283
17




12.7. Further submission is that the argument of the
appellant that the District Advisory Committee also
comprised of an individual who was a member of the raiding
party, thus vitiating proceedings of the District Advisory
Committee, is irrelevant. Even assuming irregularity, which
is not conceded, such irregularity in the composition of an
advisory body cannot vitiate a prosecution initiated
independently by the District Appropriate Authority.
However, he has clarified that this submission of the
appellant is factually incorrect. The allegation that one
Shyam Sunder was a member of the District Advisory
Committee who also participated in the raid is factually
incorrect. The said individual was not a member of any
investigating agency. He was a civilian volunteer associated
with the Red Cross assisting the district authorities in social
welfare enforcements. He had neither any formal
investigative powers nor was he part of the police machinery.
Rule 18A(2)(ii) of the PCPNDT Rules applies only to persons
from the investigating machinery meaning police or
statutory enforcement bodies. Even assuming an
irregularity in the composition of the District Advisory
18




Committee, such irregularity cannot invalidate an entire
prosecution based on a statutory complaint. The role of the
District Advisory Committee is purely advisory; its views are
not binding and the independent decision of the District
Appropriate Authority to lodge complaint is unaffected.
12.8. Learned counsel for the respondents also refuted
the submission made on behalf of the appellant regarding
violation of Section 30(2) of the PCPNDT Act. He submits
that there has been substantial compliance to Section 30(2)
of the aforesaid Act. A search which is otherwise valid,
cannot be invalidated on a hyper technical ground.
12.9. That apart, the complaint was lodged well within
limitation. Though the FIR was registered on 17.09.2015,
police filed final report on 15.11.2015. Thereafter District
Advisory Committee in its meeting held on 17.12.2015
recommended initiation of complaint proceedings. The
District Appropriate Authority, Gurugram formally
authorized Dr. Chitranjan on 17.09.2018 to lodge the
complaint which was duly instituted on 18.09.2018.
Learned Additional Advocate General submits that
limitation would run from the date of recommendation of the
19




District Advisory Committee or authorization of the District
Appropriate Authority and not from the date of registration
of FIR. Since the offence carries a punishment of three years,
complaint falls squarely within the ambit of Section 468(2)(c)
Cr.P.C.
12.10. Finally, learned Additional Advocate
General submits that the discharge granted on 28.10.2015
pertained to police investigation following lodging of FIR.
However, the PCPNDT Act mandates that the court should
take cognizance only upon a complaint filed by the
appropriate authority. A police discharge order would have
no bearing on the independent statutory power of the
District Appropriate Authority.
12.11. Learned Additional Advocate General has drawn
the attention of the Court to the object of the legislation. He
submits that female foeticide is a matter of national concern.
Social welfare statutes, like the PCPNDT Act, must be
implemented with all seriousness. This Court has time and
again directed the States to ensure strict compliance with
the statute. Quashing of a complaint proceeding at the
threshold on hyper technical grounds would send a contrary
20




signal and weaken enforcement at the grass root. Considering
all these factors, the appeal should be dismissed, he submits.
13. Submissions made by learned counsel for the
parties have received the due consideration of the Court.
14. At the outset, let us advert to the relevant
provisions of the PCPNDT Act and the PCPNDT Rules.
15. The Pre-Conception and Pre-Natal Diagnostic
Techniques (Prohibition of Sex Selection) Act, 1994 (already
referred to as ‘the PCPNDT Act’ hereinabove) is a social
welfare legislation. It is a law enacted to prohibit sex
selection leading to female foeticide in India. It, inter alia,
aims to arrest the declining sex ratio in India. The objectives
of the PCPNDT Act declare that the said Act provides for
prohibition of sex selection, before or after conception, and
for regulation of pre-natal diagnostic techniques to prevent
their misuse for sex determination leading to female
foeticide and for matters connected therewith or incidental
thereto. The PCPNDT Act, inter alia , provides for:
21




(i) prohibition of the misuse of pre-natal diagnostic
techniques for determination of the sex of the foetus,
leading to female foeticide;
(ii) prohibition of advertisement of pre-natal diagnostic
techniques for detection or determination of sex;
(iii) permission and regulation of the use of pre-natal
diagnostic techniques for the purpose of detection of
specific genetic abnormalities or disorders;
(iv) permitting the use of such techniques only under
certain conditions by the registered institutions; and
(v) punishment for violation of the provisions of the
Act.
16. Preamble to the PCPNDT Act says that it is an Act
to provide for the prohibition of sex selection, before or after
conception, and for regulation of pre-natal diagnostic techniques for
the purposes of detecting genetic abnormalities or metabolic disorders
or chromosomal abnormalities or certain congenital
malformations or sex linked disorders and for the prevention
of their misuse for sex determination leading to female
22




foeticide and for matters connected therewith or incidental
thereto.
17. In Federation of Obstetrics and Gynaecological
Societies of India (FOGSI) , this Court was examining the
challenge to the constitutional validity of certain provisions
of the PCPNDT Act. It was in that context that this Court
observed that it is a social welfare legislation which was
conceived in the light of the skewed sex ratio in India and to
avoid the consequences of the same. A skewed sex ratio is
likely to lead to greater incidences of violence against women
and increase in practices of trafficking, bride-buying etc. It
is an effort to save the girl child. The focus of the PCPNDT
Act is to protect the right to life of the girl child under Article
21 of the Constitution of India.
18. Discrimination against women, more particularly
against the girl child, is widely prevalent across several parts
of the country. Female foeticide is a crude manifestation of
such a social malady. It is with a view to prevent such crime
and to aligning with the global perspective for a discrimination free
world, that the aforesaid legislation has been enacted in India.
23




19. As per Section 2(a), ‘appropriate authority’
has been defined to mean the authority appointed under
Section 17.
20. Section 3A prohibits sex selection. It says that no
person, including a specialist or a team of specialists in the
field of infertility, shall conduct or cause to be conducted or
aid in conducting by himself or by any other person, sex
selection on a woman or a man or on both or on any tissue,
embryo, conceptus, fluid or gametes derived from either or
both of them. Section 3B prohibits sale of ultrasound
machines, etc. to persons, laboratories, clinics, etc. which
are not registered under the PCPNDT Act.
21. Regulation of pre-natal diagnostic techniques is
laid down in Section 4. It basically prohibits conducting pre-
natal diagnostic techniques for sex determination, only
permitting the use of such techniques for detection of
abnormalities mentioned in sub-section (2) and subject to
fulfillment of the conditions as provided in sub-section (3).
Section 4 being exhaustive, is extracted in its entirety
hereunder:
24




4. Regulation of pre-natal diagnostic techniques .— On
and from the commencement of this Act,—
(1) no place including a registered Genetic
Counselling Centre or Genetic Laboratory or Genetic
Clinic shall be used or caused to be used by any person for
conducting pre-natal diagnostic techniques except for the
purposes specified in clause (2) and after satisfying
any of the conditions specified in clause (3);
(2) no pre-natal diagnostic techniques shall be
conducted except for the purposes of detection of any
of the following abnormalities, namely:—
(i) chromosomal abnormalities;
(ii) genetic metabolic diseases;
(iii) haemoglobinopathies;
(iv) sex-linked genetic diseases;
(v) congenital anomalies;
(vi) any other abnormalities or diseases as may be
specified by the Central Supervisory Board;
(3) no pre-natal diagnostic techniques shall be used
or conducted unless the person qualified to do so is
satisfied for reasons to be recorded in writing that
any of the following conditions are fulfilled,
namely:—
(i) age of the pregnant woman is above thirty-five
years;
25




(ii) the pregnant woman has undergone two or more
spontaneous abortions or foetal loss;
(iii) the pregnant woman had been exposed to
potentially teratogenic agents such as drugs,
radiation, infection or chemicals;
(iv) the pregnant woman or her spouse has a family
history of mental retardation or physical deformities
such as spasticity or any other genetic disease;
(v) any other condition as may be specified by the
Board:
Provided that the person conducting
ultrasonography on a pregnant woman shall keep
complete record thereof in the clinic in such
manner, as may be prescribed, and any
deficiency or inaccuracy found therein shall
amount to contravention of the provisions of
Section 5 or Section 6 unless contrary is proved
by the person conducting such ultrasonography;
(4) no person including a relative or husband of the
pregnant woman shall seek or encourage the
conduct of any pre-natal diagnostic techniques on
her except for the purposes specified in clause (2).
(5) no person including a relative or husband of a
woman shall seek or encourage the conduct of any
sex selection technique on her or him or both.
21.1. Thus, in terms of the proviso to sub-section (3)
of Section 4, it is mandatory for the person conducting
26




ultrasonography on a pregnant woman to keep the complete
record relating to the ultrasonography in the clinic in such
manner as may be prescribed and any deficiency or
inaccuracy found in the maintenance of such record shall
amount to contravention of Sections 5 or 6. However, the
burden is on the person conducting such ultrasonography
to prove the contrary.
22. Section 5 deals with written consent of pregnant
woman for conducting pre-natal diagnostic procedure which
is provided for in sub-section (1). Sub-section (2) bars all
persons including the person conducting pre-natal
diagnostic procedures from communicating to the pregnant
woman or her relatives or any other person the sex of the
foetus by words, signs or in any other manner.
23. Section 6 makes it categorically clear that
determination of sex is completely prohibited. It says that no
genetic counselling centre or genetic laboratory or genetic
clinic or person shall conduct or cause to be conducted any
pre-natal diagnostic technique including ultrasonography
for the purpose of determining the sex of the foetus; and no
person shall, by whatever means, cause or allow to be
27




caused selection of sex before or after conception. Infact, sex
determination of a foetus is completely prohibited under Section 6,
which reads thus:
6. Determination of sex prohibited.— On and from
the commencement of this Act,—
(a) no Genetic Counselling Centre or Genetic Laboratory or
Genetic Clinic shall conduct or cause to be conducted in its
Centre, Laboratory or Clinic, pre-natal diagnostic techniques
including ultrasonography, for the purpose of determining the
sex of a foetus;
(b) no person shall conduct or cause to be conducted any pre-
natal diagnostic techniques including ultrasonography for the
purpose of determining the sex of a foetus;
(c) no person shall, by whatever means, cause or
allow to be caused selection of sex before or after
conception.
24. ‘Appropriate authority’ and ‘advisory committee’
are dealt with in Section 17. Sub-section (1) says that the
Central Government shall appoint, by notification in the
official gazette, one or more appropriate authorities for each
of the Union Territories for the purposes of the PCPNDT Act.
As per sub-section (2), the State Government shall appoint,
by notification in the official gazette, one or more appropriate
authorities for the whole or part of the State for the purposes
28




of the PCPNDT Act having regard to the intensity of the
problem of pre-natal sex determination leading to female
foeticide. Sub-section (4) mentions the various functions
that may be performed by the ‘appropriate authority’. Sub-
section (4) of Section 17 reads thus:
17. Appropriate Authority and Advisory Committee-


(4) The Appropriate Authority shall have the following
functions, namely:—
(a) to grant, suspend or cancel registration of a
Genetic Counselling Centre, Genetic Laboratory or
Genetic Clinic;
(b) to enforce standards prescribed for the Genetic
Counselling Centre, Genetic Laboratory and Genetic
Clinic;
(c) to investigate complaints of breach of the
provisions of this Act or the Rules made thereunder
and take immediate action; and,
(d) to seek and consider the advise of the Advisory
Committee, constituted under sub-section (5), on
application for registration and on complaints for
suspension or cancellation of registration;
(e) to take appropriate legal action against the use of
any sex selection technique by any person at any
29




place, suo motu or brought to its notice and also to
initiate independent investigations in such matter;
(f) to create public awareness against the practice of
sex selection or pre-natal determination of sex;
(g) to supervise the implementation of the provisions
of the Act and Rules;
(h) to recommend to the Board and State Boards
modifications required in the rules in accordance
with changes in technology or social conditions;
(i) to take action on the recommendations of the
Advisory Committee made after investigation of
complaint for suspension or cancellation of
registration.
24.1. As per sub-section (5), the Central Government or
the State Government, as the case may be, shall constitute
an advisory committee for each appropriate authority to aid
and advise the appropriate authority in the discharge of its
functions and shall appoint one of the members of the
advisory committee to be its Chairman. Composition of
advisory committee is provided for in sub-section (6).
24.2. From a close reading of sub-section (4), more
particularly clause (e) thereof, it is evident that the
appropriate authority has been mandated to take appropriate
legal action against the use of any sex selection technique by
30




any person at any place suo moto or brought to its notice and
also to initiate an independent investigation in such matter.
25. Power of appropriate authority is dealt with in Section
17A. Amongst other things, the appropriate authority shall have the
power to issue search warrant for any place suspected to be
indulging in sex selection techniques or pre-natal sex
determination. Section 17A reads as under:
17A. Powers of Appropriate Authorities .— The
Appropriate Authority shall have the powers in respect of
the following matters, namely:—
(a) summoning of any person who is in possession of any
information relating to violation of the provisions of this Act
or the Rules made thereunder;
(b) production of any document or material object relating
to clause (a);
(c) issuing search warrant for any place suspected to be
indulging in sex selection techniques or pre-natal sex
determination; and
(d) any other matter which may be prescribed.

26. Section 23 deals with offences and penalties.
Section 23 reads as under:
23. Offences and penalties .—(1) Any medical geneticist,
gynaecologist, registered medical practitioner or any person
31




who owns a Genetic Counselling Centre, a Genetic
Laboratory or a Genetic Clinic or is employed in such a
Centre, Laboratory or Clinic and renders his professional
or technical services to or at such a Centre, Laboratory or
Clinic, whether on an honorary basis or otherwise, and who
contravenes any of the provisions of this Act or Rules made
thereunder shall be punishable with imprisonment for a
term which may extend to three years and with fine which
may extend to ten thousand rupees and on any subsequent
conviction, with imprisonment which may extend to five
years and with fine which may extend to fifty thousand
rupees.
(2) The name of the registered medical practitioner shall be
reported by the Appropriate Authority to the State Medical
Council concerned for taking necessary action including
suspension of the registration if the charges are framed by
the court and till the case is disposed of and on conviction
for removal of his name from the register of the Council for
a period of five years for the first offence and permanently
for the subsequent offence.
(3) Any person who seeks the aid of any Genetic Counselling Centre,
Genetic Laboratory, Genetic Clinic or ultrasound clinic or imaging
clinic or of a medical geneticist, gynaecologist, sonologist or imaging
specialist or registered medical practitioner or any other
person for sex selection or for conducting pre-natal
diagnostic techniques on any pregnant women for the
purposes other than those specified in sub-section (2) of
Section 4, he shall be punishable with imprisonment for a
term which may extend to three years and with fine which
32




may extend to fifty thousand rupees for the first offence and
for any subsequent offence with imprisonment which may
extend to five years and with fine which may extend to one
lakh rupees.
(4) For the removal of doubts, it is hereby provided that the
provisions of sub-section (3) shall not apply to the woman
who was compelled to undergo such diagnostic techniques
or such selection.

27. As per Section 24, a court shall presume unless
the contrary is proved that the pregnant woman was
compelled by her husband or by any other relative, as the
case may be, to undergo pre-natal diagnostic technique for
the purposes other than those specified in sub-section (2) of
Section 4 (which permits such techniques only for the
purposes of detection of certain abnormalities mentioned
therein); such person shall be liable for abetment of the
offence under sub-section (3) of Section 23 and shall be
punished for the offence specified under Section 23.
28. Cognizance of offences is dealt with in Section 28
which reads as under:
28. Cognizance of offences .—(1) No court shall take
cognizance of an offence under this Act except on a
complaint made by—
33




(a) the Appropriate Authority concerned, or any officer
authorised in this behalf by the Central Government or
the State Government, as the case may be, or the
Appropriate Authority; or
(b) a person who has given notice of not less
than fifteen days in the manner prescribed, to the
Appropriate Authority, of the alleged offence and of his
intention to make a complaint to the court.
Explanation.—For the purpose of this clause, “person”
includes a social organisation.
(2) No court other than that of a Metropolitan Magistrate or
a Judicial Magistrate of the First Class shall try any offence
punishable under this Act.
(3) Where a complaint has been made under clause (b) of
sub-section (1), the court may, on demand by such person,
direct the Appropriate Authority to make available copies of
the relevant records in its possession to such person.

28.1. Section 28 is a procedural provision which places
clear limitations on the taking of cognizance by criminal
courts, thereby ensuring that prosecutions under this
specialized social welfare legislation are instituted in a
controlled and legally structured manner. Sub-section (1),
more particularly clause (a) thereof, mandates that no court
shall take cognizance of an offence under the PCPNDT Act
except on a complaint made by the appropriate authority or
34




by any officer authorized in this behalf by the Central
Government or by the State Government or by the
appropriate authority itself.
29. While Section 29 deals with maintenance of
records, Section 30 provides for the power of search and
seizure of records, etc. Sub-section (1) of Section 29
mandates that all records, charts, forms, reports, consent
letters and all other documents required to be maintained
under the PCPNDT Act and the PCPNDT Rules shall be
preserved for a period of two years or for such period as may
be prescribed. Sub-section (2) says that all such records
shall, at all reasonable times, be made available for
inspection to the appropriate authority or to any other
person authorized by the appropriate authority in this
behalf.
29.1. Section 30(1) makes it clear that if the
appropriate authority has reason to believe that an offence
under the PCPNDT Act has been committed or is being
committed at any genetic counselling centre, genetic
laboratory, genetic clinic or any other place, such authority
or any officer authorised in this behalf may enter and search
35




at all reasonable times such genetic counselling centre,
genetic laboratory, genetic clinic or any other place and
examine any record, register, document, book, pamphlet,
advertisement or any other material object found therein
and seize and seal the same if such authority or officer has
reason to believe that it may furnish evidence of the
commission of an offence punishable under the PCPNDT
Act. Sub-section (2) clarifies that provisions of CrPC relating
to searches and seizures shall apply to every search or
seizure made under the PCPNDT Act, as far as may be.
30. Section 32 is the rule making provision.
31. In exercise of the powers conferred by Section 32 of
the PCPNDT Act, the Central Government has made the Pre-
Conception and Pre-Natal Diagnostic Techniques (Prohibition
of Sex Selection) Rules, 1996 (already referred to as ‘the
PCPNDT Rules’ hereinabove).
32. Rule 9 deals with maintenance and preservation
of records. As per sub-rule (1), every genetic counselling
centre, genetic laboratory, genetic clinic including a mobile
genetic clinic, ultrasound clinic and imaging centre shall
36




maintain a register showing, in serial order, the names and
addresses of the men or women given genetic counselling,
subjected to pre-natal diagnostic procedures or pre-natal
diagnostic tests, the names of their spouses or fathers and
the date on which they first reported for such counselling,
procedure or test. Sub-rule (4) says that the record to be
maintained by every genetic clinic including a mobile genetic
clinic in respect of each man or woman subjected to any
pre-natal diagnostic procedure/ technique/test shall be as
specified in Form F.
32.1. In terms of sub-rule (6), all case related records,
forms of consent, laboratory results, microscopic pictures,
sonographic plates or slides, recommendations and letters
shall be preserved by the genetic counselling centre, genetic
laboratory, genetic clinic, ultrasound clinic or imaging
centre for a period of two years from the date of completion
of counselling, pre-natal diagnostic procedure or pre-natal
diagnostic test, as the case may be. In the event of any legal
proceedings, the records shall be preserved till the final
disposal of legal proceedings or till the expiry of the said
period of two years, whichever is later.
37




32.2. In case such centres or laboratory or clinics
maintain records on computer or other electronic
equipment, sub-rule (7) provides that a printed copy of the
record shall be taken and preserved after authentication by
a person responsible for such record.
32.3. Sub-rule (8) requires every such centre, laboratory and
clinic to send a complete report in respect of all pre-conception or
pregnancy related procedures/techniques/tests conducted by
th
them in respect of each month by 5 day of the following
month to the concerned appropriate authority.
33. Thus, under Rule 9, it is mandatory for every
ultrasound clinic amongst others to maintain a detailed
register in terms of Form F of the woman undergoing any
pre-natal diagnostic procedure or pre-natal diagnostic test.
Not only that, such clinic etc are required to submit a
complete report regarding such procedures or tests
conducted by it to the concerned appropriate authority.
34. Rule 10 deals with conditions for conducting pre-natal
diagnostic procedures. Sub-rule (1) mandates obtaining of a written
consent in the manner provided in Form G and in a language
38




the person undergoing such procedure understands, before
conducting such a procedure. Sub-rule (1A) mandates that
any person conducting ultrasonography/image scanning on
a pregnant woman shall give a declaration on each report on
ultrasonography/ image scanning that he has neither
detected nor disclosed the sex of the foetus of the pregnant
woman to anybody. Likewise, the pregnant woman shall
before undergoing ultrasonography/image scanning shall
declare that she does not want to know the sex of her foetus.
35. Facilities for inspection are dealt with in Rule 11. Sub-rule
(1) provides that every such centre, laboratory, clinic, nursing home,
hospital, etc. where any of the machines or equipments capable of
performing any procedure, technique or test capable of pre-natal
determination of sex or selection of sex before or after conception is
used, shall afford all reasonable facilities for inspection of the place,
equipment and records to the appropriate authority or to
any other person authorized by the appropriate authority
in this behalf, amongst others, for detection of misuse of
such facilities or for selection of sex before or after
conception or for detection/disclosure of sex of the foetus or
39




for detection of cases of violation of the provisions of the
PCPNDT Act in any other manner.
35.1. Sub-rule (2) empowers the appropriate authority
or the officer authorized by it to seal and seize any
ultrasound machine, scanner or any other equipment
capable of detecting the sex of foetus, used by any
organization if the organization has not got itself registered
under the PCPNDT Act. Such machines shall be confiscated
and further action shall be taken as per provisions of Section
23 of the PCPNDT Act.
36. Procedure for search and seizure is laid down in
Rule 12. As per sub-rule (1), the appropriate authority or
any officer authorized in this behalf may enter and search
at all reasonable times any such centre, laboratory or clinic
in the presence of two or more independent witnesses for the
purposes of search and examination of any record, register,
document, book, pamphlet, advertisement or any other
material object found therein and seal and seize the same if
there is reason to believe that it may furnish evidence of
commission of an offence punishable under the PCPNDT
Act. Explanation 1 clarifies that such laboratory, clinic or
40




centre would include an ultrasound centre/imaging centre
/nursing home/hospital/institute or any other place by
whatever name called where any of the machines or
equipments capable of selection of sex before or after
conception or performing any procedure, technique or test
for pre-natal detection of sex of foetus is used. As per
Explanation 2, ‘material object’ would include records,
machines and equipments; and Explanation 3 clarifies that
‘seize’ and ‘seizure’ would include ‘seal’ and ‘sealing’
respectively.
37. While Rule 18 lays down the code of conduct to
be observed by persons working at genetic counselling
centres, genetic laboratories, genetic clinics etc., Rule 18A
lays down the code of conduct to be observed by appropriate
authorities. Sub-rule (1) of Rule 18A reads as under:
18A. Code of Conduct to be observed by Appropriate
Authorities .—(1) All the Appropriate Authorities including
the State, District and Sub-district notified under the Act,
, shall observe the following general code of
inter-alia
conduct, namely:—
(i) maintain dignity, and integrity at all times;
41




(ii) observe and implement the provisions of the Act and
Rules in a balanced and standardised manner in the
course of their work;
(iii) conduct their work in a just manner without any
bias or a perceived presumption of guilt;
(iv) refrain from making any comments which demean
individuals on the basis of gender, race, religion;
(v) delegate his or her powers by administrative order
to any authorized officer in his or her absence and
preserve the order of authorization as documentary
proof for further action.

37.1 Thus, Rule 18A (1)(v) says that all the appropriate
authorities including the State, District and Sub-district
shall delegate his or her powers by administrative order to
any authorized officer in his or her absence and preserve the
order of authorisation as documentary proof for further
action.
37.2. Sub-rule (2)(ii) places a duty on all the
appropriate authorities to ensure that a person who is a part
of the investigating machinery in cases under the PCPNDT
Act is not nominated or appointed as a member of the
advisory committee.
42




37.3. As per sub-rule (3), all the appropriate authorities
including the State, District and Sub-district shall observe
certain conduct for processing of complaint and
investigation, such as, maintaining of appropriate diaries in
support of registration of complaints etc. Those authorities
shall not involve police for investigating cases under the
PCPNDT Act as far as possible, as the cases under the
PCPNDT Act are tried as complaint cases under the Cr.PC.
38. We may also refer to Form F before we wind up
our reference to the relevant provisions of the statute. Form
F, which is relatable to the proviso to Section 4(3), Rule 9(4)
and Rule 10(1A), is as under:
Form F
[See Proviso to Section 4(3), Rule 9(4) and Rule 10(1-A)]
FORM FOR MAINTENANCE OF RECORD IN CASE OF
PRE-NATAL DIAGNOSTIC TEST/ PROCEDURE BY
GENETIC CLINIC/ ULTRASOUND CLINIC/ IMAGING
CENTRE
Section A: To be filled in for all Diagnostic Procedures/Tests
1. Name and complete address of Genetic Clinic/
Ultrasound Clinic/ Imaging centre:………………………
2. Registration No. (Under PC & PNDT Act, 1994)
……………………………………
3. Patient's name………………………. Age …………
43




4. Total Number of living children: ……………………..
(a) Number of living sons with age of each living son
(in years or months): ………………………………………
(b) Number of living daughters with age of each living
daughter(in years or months):………………………………...
5. Husband's /Wife's/ Father's / Mother's Name:
……………………………………
6. Full postal address of the patient with Contact
Number, if any…………………………
7.(a) Referred by (Full name and address of Doctor(s)/
Genetic Counseling Centre):………………
( Referral slips to be preserved carefully with Form F )
(b) Self-Referral by Gynaecologist/Radiologist/
Registered Medical Practitioner conducting the
diagnostic procedures:………………………… ……
(Referral note with indications and case papers of the
patient to be preserved with Form F)
Self-referral does not mean a client coming to a
clinic and requesting for the test or the relative/s
requesting for the test of a pregnant woman
8. Last menstrual period or weeks of pregnancy:
……………………………………
Section B : To be filled in for performing non-invasive
diagnostic Procedures/ Tests only
9. Name of the doctor performing the procedure/s:
…………………………………
10. Indication/s for diagnosis procedure ………………
(specify with reference to the request made in the
referral slip or in a self -referral note)
44




(Ultrasonography prenatal diagnosis during
pregnancy should only be performed when
indicated. The following is the representative list of
indications for ultrasound during pregnancy. (Put
a “Tick” against the appropriate indication/s
for ultrasound)
i. To diagnose intra-uterine and/or ectopic pregnancy
and confirm viability.
ii. Estimation of gestational age (dating).
iii. Detection of number of fetuses and their
chorionicity.
iv. Suspected pregnancy with IUCD in-situ or suspected
pregnancy following contraceptive failure/MTP
failure.
v. Vaginal bleeding/leaking.
vi. Follow-up of cases of abortion.
vii. Assessment of cervical canal and diameter of
internal os.
viii. Discrepancy between uterine size and period of
amenorrhea.
ix. Any suspected adenexal or uterine pathology/abnormality.
x. Detection of chromosomal abnormalities, fetal
structural defects and other abnormalities and
their follow-up.
xi. To evaluate fetal presentation and position.
xii. Assessment of liquor amnii.
xiii. Preterm labor / preterm premature rupture of
membranes.
45




xiv. Evaluation of placental position, thickness, grading and
abnormalities (placenta praevia, retro-placental
hemorrhage, abnormal adherence, etc.).
xv. Evaluation of umbilical cord−presentation,
insertion, nuchal encirclement, number of
vessels and presence of true knot.
xvi. Evaluation of previous Caesarean Section scars.
xvii. Evaluation of fetal growth parameters, fetal
weight and fetal well being.
xviii. Color flow mapping and duplex Doppler studies.
xix. Ultrasound guided procedures such as medical
termination of pregnancy, external cephalic
version, etc. and their follow-up.
xx. Adjunct to diagnostic and therapeutic invasive
interventions such as chorionic villus sampling
(CVS), amniocenteses, fetal blood sampling, fetal
skin biopsy, amnio-infusion, intrauterine infusion,
placement of shunts, etc.
xxi. Observation of intra-partum events.
xxii. Medical/surgical conditions complicating pregnancy.
xxiii. Research/scientific studies in recognised institutions.

11. Procedures carried out (Non-Invasive) (Put a “Tick”
on the appropriate procedure)
i. Ultrasound
( Important Note : Ultrasound is not indicated/
advised/ performed to determine the sex of fetus
except for diagnosis of sex-linked diseases such as
Duchene Muscular Dystrophy, Hemophilia A & B
etc.)
46




ii. Any other (specify) ………
12. Date on which declaration of pregnant woman/
person was obtained:……………………
13. Date on which procedures carried out: …………
14. Result of the non-invasive procedure carried out
(report in brief of the test including ultrasound carried
…………………………………………………………..
out)
15. The result of pre-natal diagnostic procedures was
conveyed to …………on…………
16. Any indication for MTP as per the abnormality
detected in the diagnostic procedures/ tests…………

Date: (………………………………………….)
Place: Name, Signature and Registration
Number with Seal of the
Gynaecologist/Radiologist/
Registered Medical Practitioner
performing Diagnostic Procedure/s
Section C: To be filled for performing invasive
Procedures/Tests only
17. Name of the doctor/s performing the procedure/s:
…………………………………
18. History of genetic/medical disease in the family
(specify):……………………… Basis of diagnosis (“Tick” on
appropriate basis of diagnosis):

47




19. Indication/s for the diagnosis procedure (“Tick” on
appropriate indication/s):
A. Previous child/children with:

B. Advanced maternal age (35 years)
C. Mother/father/sibling has genetic disease (specify)
D. Other (specify) …………………………………………
20. Date on which consent of pregnant woman / person
was obtained in Form G prescribed in PC & PNDT
Act, 1994:…………………………………………………
21. Invasive procedures carried out (“Tick” on
appropriate indication/s)

22. Any complication/s of invasive procedure (specify)…
23. Additional tests recommended (Please mention if
applicable)

24. Result of the Procedures/ Tests carried out (report
in brief of the invasive tests/ procedures carried
out)……………………………………………………………
25. Date on which procedures carried out:…………………
48




26. The result of pre-natal diagnostic procedures was
conveyed to …………on…………
27. Any indication for MTP as per the
abnormality detected in the diagnostic
procedures/tests…………………………………………

Section D: Declaration
DECLARATION OF THE PERSON UNDERGOING PRE-
NATAL DIAGNOSTIC TEST/ PROCEDURE
I, Mrs./Mr. ………………………… declare that by
undergoing ……………………… Prenatal Diagnostic Test/
Procedure. I do not want to know the sex of my foetus.

In Case of thumb Impression:
Identified by (Name) ……………………Age:…… Sex:……
Relation ( if any ):………. Address & Contact No.:…………..
Signature of a person attesting thumb impression:………
Date:…………
DECLARATION OF DOCTOR/PERSON CONDUCTING
PRE-NATAL DIAGNOSTIC PROCEDURE/TEST
49




I, ……………… (name of the person conducting
ultrasonography/image scanning) declare that while
conducting ultrasonography/image scanning on Ms./ Mr.
……………… (name of the pregnant woman or the person
undergoing pre-natal diagnostic procedure/ test), I have
neither detected nor disclosed the sex of her fetus to
anybody in any manner.
Signature:………………………
Date:………… (…………………………………….)
Name in Capitals, Registration
Number with Seal of the
Gynaecologist/ Radiologist/
Registered Medical Practitioner
Conducting Diagnostic procedure

39. Thus, Form F, which is statutory in character, is
detailed and exhaustive providing for recording of the entire
spectrum of information necessary and relatable to all such
pre-natal diagnostic procedures and tests.
40. Form F in its entirety have been held to be
mandatory by this Court in Federation of Obstetrics and
Gynaecological Societies of India (FOGSI) . This Court has
held that non-maintenance of record is the springboard for
commission of the offence of foeticide. Therefore, it can not
50




be brushed aside merely as clerical error. This Court held
thus:
98. Non-maintenance of record is springboard for
commission of offence of foeticide, not just a clerical
error. In order to effectively implement the various
provisions of the Act, the detailed forms in which
records have to be maintained have been provided for
by the Rules. These Rules are necessary for the
implementation of the Act and improper maintenance
of such record amounts to violation of provisions of
Sections 5 and 6 of the Act, by virtue of proviso to
Section 4(3) of the Act. In addition, any breach of the
provisions of the Act or its Rules would attract
cancellation or suspension of registration of Genetic
Counselling Centre, Genetic Laboratory or Genetic
Clinic, by the appropriate authority as provided under
Section 20 of the Act.
99. There is no substance in the submission that
provision of Section 4(3) be read down. By virtue of
the proviso to Section 4(3), a person conducting
ultrasonography on a pregnant woman, is required
to keep complete record of the same in the prescribed
manner and any deficiency or inaccuracy in the
same amounts to contravention of Section 5 or
Section 6 of the Act, unless the contrary is proved by
the person conducting the said ultrasonography. The
aforementioned proviso to Section 4(3) reflects the
importance of records in such cases, as they are
51




often the only source to ensure that an
establishment is not engaged in sex determination.
100. Section 23 of the Act, which provides for
penalties of offences, acts in aid of the other sections
of the Act is quite reasonable. It provides for
punishment for any medical geneticist, gynaecologist,
registered medical practitioner or a person who owns
a Genetic Counselling Centre, a Genetic Clinic or a
Genetic Laboratory, and renders his professional or
technical services to or at the said place, whether on
honorarium basis or otherwise and contravenes any
provisions of the Act, or the Rules under it.
101. Therefore, dilution of the provisions of the Act
or the Rules would only defeat the purpose of the Act
to prevent female foeticide, and relegate the right to
life of the girl child under Article 21 of the
Constitution, to a mere formality.
102. In view of the above, no case is made out for
striking down the proviso to Section 4(3), provisions
of Sections 23(1), 23(2) or to read down Section 20 or
30 of the Act. Complete contents of Form F are held
to be mandatory. Thus, the writ petition is dismissed.
No costs.

41. Let us now deal with the judgment of this Court
in Ravindra Kumar heavily relied upon by learned senior
counsel for the appellant. That was a case where the
quashing petition filed by the appellant for quashing the FIR
52




and the complaint was rejected by the High Court against
which the related appeal was filed. The specific challenge in
that case was that the search and seizure carried out was
that of the Chairman of the District Appropriate Authority
and not by the appropriate authority. After referring to
Sections 17, 23, 26, 28 and 30 of the PCPNDT Act, a two
Judge Bench of this Court held that the appropriate
authority is not required to record reasons for concluding
that it has reason to believe that an offence under the
PCPNDT Act has been or is being committed but there has
to be a rational basis to form that belief. Importantly, the
Bench held that the decision to take action under sub-
section (1) of Section 30 must be of the appropriate authority
and not of its individual members. In the facts of that case,
it was found that under the notification dated 07.11.2013,
the appropriate authority for the concerned District i.e.
Gurugram consisted of the Civil Surgeon, the District
Programme Officer of the Women and Child Development
Department and the District Attorney, the Civil Surgeon
being the Chairman of the appropriate authority. Looking at
the object of sub-section (1) of Section 30 which the Bench
53




observed was a very drastic provision granting power to the
appropriate authority or any officer authorised by it to enter
a genetic laboratory, a genetic clinic or any other place to
examine the record found therein, to seize the same, even to
seal the same and the express language used therein, it has
been held that only the Chairman or any other member
acting alone cannot authorize a search under sub-section
(1) of Section 30; it must be a decision of the appropriate
authority. If a single member of the appropriate authority
authorizes a search, it will be completely illegal being
contrary to sub-section (1) of Section 30. In that case, it was
found from the affidavit filed by the Chairman that the
decision to conduct the search by appointing three officers
was only his decision taken in his capacity as the Chairman
of the appropriate authority; the other two members of the
appropriate authority were not party to the said decision. In
the facts of that case, it has been held that 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
which vitiated the search. Thereafter, on a perusal of the FIR
and the complaint, the Bench concluded that these were
54




based entirely on the materials seized during the search.
Except for what was found in the search and the seized
documents, there was nothing to connect the appellant
accused with the offence under Section 23 of the PCPNDT
Act. After holding that as the search itself was illegal,
continuing prosecution based on such an illegal search
would amount to an abuse of the process of law, this Court
quashed the FIR and the complaint.
41.1. Thus, the ratio in Ravindra Kumar , which is a
two-Judge Bench decision of this Court, is that the decision
to authorize a search under sub-section (1) of Section 30
must be that of the appropriate authority collectively. If a
single member of the appropriate authority, and that
includes the Chairperson, authorizes a search, it will be
illegal being contrary to sub-section (1) of Section 30. Such
a decision would vitiate the search rendering the same
illegal. This is the ratio in Ravindra Kumar . The relief granted
or the final directions issued are on the facts of the case and
are not part of the ratio decidendi .
55




42. Having noticed the statutory framework and the
two decisions of this Court, let us now revert back to the
facts of the present case.
43. Government of Haryana in the Health Department had
issued a notification dated 17.11.2013 exercising powers conferred by
Section 17(3)(b) of the PCPNDT Act and in supersession of the
previous notification dated 04.03.2009 appointing
appropriate authority for the districts. The appropriate
authority for each of the districts comprised of the following:
(i) Civil Surgeon – Chairperson;
(ii) District Programme Officer, Women and Child
Development Department-Member; and
(iii) District Attorney-Member.

44. A perusal of the communication/order dated
17.09.2015 (Annexure P-2 to the SLP paperbook) would
show that it was a directive of the Civil Surgeon acting as
the District Appropriate Authority, Gurugram, directing Shri
Amandeep Singh Chauhan, District Child Officer and Shri
Shyam Sunder of the District Red Cross Society, Gurugram
56




to conduct raid under the PCPNDT Act and to register the
FIR.
45. From a careful reading of the communication/
order dated 17.09.2015, it is true that it was issued by
the Civil Surgeon, acting as the District Appropriate
Authority, Gurugram. No doubt, the Civil Surgeon is the
Chairperson of the District Appropriate Authority but this
communication/order does not indicate any decision being
taken collectively by the District Appropriate Authority to
conduct raid in the premises of the appellant. Nothing has
been placed on record by the respondents to show that there
was any meeting of mind of the members of the District
Appropriate Authority on the basis of which the Chairperson
had issued the communication/order dated 17.09.2015. 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 matter
would not stop at that.
57




46. We have already noted that on the basis of the
search itself, FIR was lodged against the appellant and Dr.
Abdul Kadir being FIR No. 336 of 2015. Following
investigation, the police filed an application before the
learned Judicial Magistrate First Class on 28.10.2015 for
discharge of the accused appellant. In the application, it was
mentioned that appellant had conducted ultrasound on the
decoy pregnant woman but had not done sex determination.
Police noted that on examination of the record, some
differences had been found though no secret talk between
the appellant and Dr. Kadir was found. It was mentioned
that for differences in the maintenance of record, there are
separate provisions in the PCPNDT Act for filing a complaint
case through the District Appropriate Authority. However, it
was recorded that during investigation, it was found that Dr.
Abdul Kadir had fraudulently taken money for the sex
determination of the foetus of the pregnant woman from the
shadow witness. Therefore, a case under Section 420 IPC
and Section 23(3) of the PCPNDT Act was made out qua Dr.
Abdul Kadir. In these circumstances, the investigating
58




authority i.e. the police sought for the discharge of the
appellant.
46.1. Learned Magistrate accepted the said application
and discharged the appellant and also released him from
custody v ide the order dated 28.10.2015.
47. The District Advisory Committee held a meeting
on 17.12.2015 wherein a decision was taken that a
complaint case be filed against Dr. Abdul Kadir, Dr. Naresh
Garg (appellant) and Vatika Medicare for contravention of
the provisions of the PCPNDT Act.
48. Pursuant thereto, complaint was filed by the
District Appropriate Authority, Gurugram through Dr.
Chitranjan, Deputy Civil Surgeon-cum-Nodal Officer on
18.09.2018 under Sections 4, 5, 6 and 29 of the PCPNDT
Act read with Rules 9 and 10 of the PCPNDT Rules, all
punishable under Section 23 of the aforesaid Act which was
registered as COMA/47/591/2018. As already noted supra,
the raid on the premises where the appellant worked for gain
was carried out on 17.09.2015 which led to seizure of record
etc. Section 23 of the PCPNDT Act says that for the
59




contravention of any of the provisions of the PCPNDT Act or
the PCPNDT Rules, the maximum sentence is upto three
years and with fine. Section 468(2)(c) CrPC has prescribed a
period of limitation of three years for a competent court to
take cognizance of an offence which is punishable with
imprisonment for a term exceeding one year but not
exceeding three years. Therefore, the limitation in this case
was of three years. Since there was a delay of one day in the
filing of the complaint, an application for condonation of
delay was also filed for condoning the said delay. The
learned Magistrate by order dated 18.09.2018 condoned the
delay. Thereafter, the learned Magistrate passed an order
dated 12.09.2022 issuing summons to the accused persons
under Section 23 of the PCPNDT Act by taking the view that
there are sufficient grounds for proceeding against the two
accused persons including the appellant.
49. Repelling the challenge made by the appellant,
the High Court vide the impugned judgment and order held
that the District Appropriate Authority had implemented the
recommendation of the District Advisory Committee under
Section 17 of the PCPNDT Act whereafter the District Appropriate
60




Authority exercising power under Rule 18A of the PCPNDT Rules
had authorized Dr. Chitranjan, Deputy Civil Surgeon for
filing of the complaint. High Court has held that the
procedure adopted cannot be said to be in contravention of
the PCPNDT Act as per authorization given to Dr. Chitranjan
on 17.09.2018.
50. While there is infraction of Section 30 of the
PCPNDT Act qua the search carried out by the respondents
on Vatika Medicare in as much as it was an individual
decision of the Chairperson instead of being the collective
decision of the District Appropriate Authority which has
vitiated the search, and in this connection we are bound by
the ratio laid down by the Coordinate Bench in Ravindra
Kumar ; 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. We are
61




fortified in adopting such a view by several decisions of this
Court a couple of which are by Benches of larger strength.
3
51. In Radha Kishan Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh , a
three-Judge Bench of this Court in the context of search
operations in the premises of the appellant under Section
103 and 165 of the old Cr.P.C. which accidently led to
discovery of a large number of letters and postcards, held
that even if it is assumed that the search was illegal, the
seizure of the articles is not vitiated. Of course, because of
the illegality of the search, the court may be inclined to
examine carefully the evidence regarding the seizure. This
Court held thus:
5. ………So far as the alleged illegality of the search is
concerned it is sufficient to say that even assuming
that the search was illegal the seizure of the articles is
not vitiated. It may be that where the provisions of
Sections 103 and 165 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure are contravened the search could be
resisted by the person whose premises are sought to
be searched. It may also be that because of the
illegality of the search the court may be inclined to
examine carefully the evidence regarding the seizure.
But beyond these two consequences no further

3
AIR 1963 SC 822
62




consequence ensues. The High Court has chosen to
accept the evidence of the prosecution with regard to
the fact of seizure and that being a question to be
decided only by the court of fact, this Court would not
re-examine the evidence for satisfying itself as to the
correctness or otherwise of the conclusions reached
by the High Court…………………………………………….

4
52. R.M. Malkani Vs. State of Maharashtra is a two-
Judge Bench decision of this Court. In that case, this Court
was examining admissibility of tape recorded conversation. In
that context, this Court held that tape recorded conversation
is admissible provided, firstly, the conversation is relevant to
the matter in issue; secondly, there is identification of the
voice; and thirdly, the accuracy of the tape recorded
conversation is proved. Rejecting the contention of the
appellant that the tape recorded conversation was obtained by
illegal means, this Court held that even if evidence is illegally
obtained, it is admissible. However, by expressing a word of
caution, this Court observed that the Judge has a discretion
to disallow evidence in a criminal case if the strict rules of
admissibility would operate unfairly against the accused.

4
1973 (1) SCC 471
63




This Court referred to with approval its earlier decision in
5
Magraj Patodia Vs. R.K. Birla which held that a document
which was procured by improper or even by illegal means
could not bar its admissibility provided its relevance and
genuineness were proved. Referring to English decisions,
this Court held that as long as evidence is not tainted by an
inadmissible confession of guilt evidence even if it is illegally
obtained is admissible.
53. A Constitution Bench of this Court in Pooran Mal
6
Vs. Director of Inspector (Investigation), New Delhi was
examining a challenge to search and seizure of certain
premises under Section 132 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 on
the ground that the authorisation for the search as also the
search and seizure were illegal. After referring to various
provisions of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, this Court
opined that it had permitted relevancy as the only test of
admissibility of evidence; the Indian Evidence Act or any
other similar law in force does not exclude relevant evidence
on the ground that it was obtained under an illegal search

5
AIR 1971 SC 1295
6
(1974) 1 SCC 345
64




or seizure. Elaborating further, this Court held that courts
have a discretion to admit evidence obtained as a result of
illegal search. 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. Finally,
the Constitution Bench concluded as under:
25. In that view, even assuming, as was done by the
High Court, that the search and seizure were in
contravention of the provisions of Section 132 of the
Income Tax Act, still the material seized was liable to
be used subject to law before the Income tax
authorities against the person from whose custody it
was seized and, therefore, no Writ of Prohibition in
restraint of such use could be granted. It must be,
therefore, held that the High Court was right in
dismissing the two writ petitions. The appeals must
also fail and are dismissed with costs.

54. Before finally concluding our discussion, we may
also deal with two more submissions advanced by learned
senior counsel for the appellant. Submission of Mr. Bhalla,
learned senior counsel, is that though FIR No. 336 dated
17.09.2015 was registered against Dr. Abdul Kadir and the
appellant following the illegal raid, the appellant was
discharged by the learned Magistrate on the basis of an
65




application filed by the police itself. The contention is that
after discharge of the appellant, the criminal complaint is
not maintainable since it is based on the same set of facts.
We are afraid such a submission cannot be accepted.
Section 28(1) of the PCPNDT Act, which we have already
taken note of supra, specifically says that no court shall take
cognizance of an offence under the PCPNDT Act except on a
complaint made by the appropriate authority or by any
officer authorized by the appropriate authority etc. Further,
as per Rule 18A (3) (iv) of the PCPNDT Rules, the appropriate
authority should not involve police for investigating cases
under the PCPNDT Act as the cases under this Act are tried
as complaint cases under the CrPC. In any case, the police
in the discharge application mentioned that appellant had
infact conducted ultrasound on the decoy pregnant woman
but had not carried out sex determination. However, police
investigation revealed discrepancies in the maintenance of
record for which it was pointed out that there are provisions
in the PCPNDT Act for filing of a complaint case. We have
already noted that as per the proviso to sub-section (3) of
Section 4 of the PCPNDT Act, it is the duty of the person
66




conducting ultrasonography on a pregnant woman to keep
complete record thereof in the clinic in such manner as may
be prescribed and any deficiency or inaccuracy found
therein shall amount to contravention of Sections 5 or 6 of
the PCPNDT Act. Burden is on the person conducting such
ultrasonography to prove to the contrary. Similarly, Rule
9(1) read with Rule 9(4) and Rule 10(1A) of the PCPNDT
Rules mandate the person conducting ultrasonography on a
pregnant woman to maintain the complete record of such
procedure in the prescribed format, the failure of which
would be construed to be an offence under Section 23 of the
PCPNDT Act. That apart, this Court has held that complete
contents of Form F are mandatory. Therefore, discharge of
the appellant in the police case would be of no consequence.

55. It is also the submission of learned senior counsel
for the appellant that the raiding party comprised of Dr.
Saryu Sharma, Deputy Civil Surgeon, Gurugram who was
also made a member of the District Advisory Committee. It
is the contention of the appellant that such duality of role
assigned to Dr. Saryu Sharma is illegal which not only
vitiated the raid but also the decision to file the criminal
67




complaint. Such a submission has no basis at all. Rule 18A
lays down certain guidelines in the form of code of conduct
to be observed by the appropriate authorities. As per Rule
18A(2)(ii), all appropriate authorities shall ensure that a person
who is part of the investigating machinery in cases under the
PCPNDT Act shall not be nominated or appointed as a member
of the advisory committee. Thus, Rule 18A(2)(ii) is applicable
only to a person who is part of the investigating machinery
in cases under the PCPNDT Act. Dr. Saryu Sharma was
never a part of any investigating machinery. Therefore, there
is no contravention of Rule 18A(2)(ii) of the PCPNDT Rules.
In any case, going by language of Rule 18A, those guidelines
can only be termed as directory being part of the general code
of conduct to be observed by appropriate authorities,
violation of which may render a proceeding irregular but not
illegal. However, as we have seen in this case, there is no
violation of Rule 18A(2)(ii) inasmuch as Dr. Saryu Sharma
was not a part of any investigating machinery.
56. Discrimination against the girl child and by
extension women is still prevalent in several parts of the
country. Crude and ugly manifestation of such social
68




malady is in the form of female foeticide. The first step
towards commission of such an offence is in the sex
determination of the foetus. Therefore, the Parliament has
stepped in not only outlawing sex determination and
selection but also prohibiting all related pre-conception and
pre-natal techniques and procedures, making it mandatory
to maintain the relevant record in the prescribed format.
Non-maintenance of the record in the prescribed form would
be an offence under the PCPNDT Act and the Rules. In so
far the present case is concerned, prima facie it has come on
record that appellant had conducted ultrasonography on the
pregnant woman. 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.
57. Thus, having regard to the discussions made above
and for the reasons recorded, the criminal complaint bearing
No. COMA/116/2018 pending before the Judicial Magistrate
First Class, Gurugram cannot be quashed. Therefore, no
interference is called for in the impugned judgment and order
69




of the High Court. However, we make it clear that we have not
expressed any opinion on merit of the allegations and all
contentions reliability and admissibility of evidence are
qua
kept open.
58. Subject to the above, the criminal appeal is dismissed.
However, there shall be no order as to cost.


……………………………J.
[MANOJ MISRA]



……………………………J.
[UJJAL BHUYAN]
NEW DELHI;
FEBRUARY 23, 2026.
70