Defective search authorisation does not automatically vitiate prosecution under the PC&PNDT Act.

M/s Shri Balaji Imaging & Pathology Centre Pvt. Ltd., Bahadurgarh, was registered under the PC&PNDT Act for conducting ultrasound examinations.

On 20 January 2014, an inspection team constituted by the District Appropriate Authority inspected the Centre pursuant to secret information and allegedly found deficiencies in the maintenance of statutory registers, Form-Fs, referral slips and ultrasound records, including missing signatures, incomplete patient particulars, absence of required declarations and discrepancies regarding the doctors who conducted certain ultrasounds.

The ultrasound machine and original records were seized, and an FIR was registered. The Centre’s registration was subsequently suspended.

A criminal complaint under Section 28 of the PC&PNDT Act was filed against, inter alia, Renu Deswal, the Centre’s Director, and Dr. Vinit Gupta.

The petitioners invoked Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking quashing of the complaint, summoning order and consequential proceedings.

The Court applied Sections 17, 17A, 23, 28, 29 and 30 of the PC&PNDT Act, read with Rules 9, 10 and 12 of the PC&PNDT Rules, 1996.

Section 28(1)(a) permits cognizance on a complaint by the Appropriate Authority or by an officer authorised by the Central Government, State Government or the Appropriate Authority.

Sections 17 and 17A vest enforcement, investigation, document-production and search-related functions in the Appropriate Authority, which, when constituted as a multi-member body, must ordinarily act collectively.

Section 30 regulates search and seizure, but illegality in the manner of search does not automatically render all material collected inadmissible or require quashing of the complaint.

Sections 4(3), 23 and 29, together with Rule 9, make accurate and complete maintenance and preservation of Form-Fs and related records substantive statutory safeguards, not mere clerical formalities.

Rule 12 contemplates independent witnesses during search and seizure, although their non-joining is not by itself fatal to the prosecution.

The Court relied on State of M.P. v. Manvinder Singh Gill concerning authorised complainants; Dr. Preetinder Kaur v. State of Punjab concerning authorisation and ratification; Ravinder Kumar v. State of Haryana concerning collective decision-making by a multi-member Appropriate Authority; Dr. Naresh Kumar Garg v. State of Haryana concerning the distinction between illegal search and evidentiary consequences; Federation of Obstetrics and Gynaecological Societies of India v. Union of India concerning mandatory Form-F requirements; and State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal and Rajiv Thapar v. Madan Lal Kapoor concerning the limited scope of interference under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

The Court held that Section 28(1)(a) does not require the complaint to bear the signatures of every member of the District Appropriate Authority; the material question was whether the complainant had been duly authorised.

The State had specifically asserted that the District Appropriate Authority had deliberated upon the matter and authorised Dr. Raj Karan to institute the complaint, and the petitioners produced no contrary material.

This disputed question could not be conclusively decided in proceedings under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

Regarding the search, the Court accepted that Ravinder Kumar requires a collective decision of a multi-member Appropriate Authority, but held that Dr. Naresh Kumar Garg distinguishes the legality of a search from the evidentiary value of material collected.

The complaint relied not merely on physical seizure but also on alleged deficiencies in statutory records, Form-Fs, referral slips and ultrasound reports; hence, the alleged defect in authorisation did not automatically destroy the prosecution.

The absence of independent witnesses raised matters of evidentiary appreciation, particularly since the respondents stated that local persons had been requested to join but declined.

The alleged record deficiencies were specific and, if proved, could attract the statutory provisions; their characterisation as clerical or technical defects required evidence at trial.

Dr. Gupta’s resignation did not conclusively answer the allegations because the prosecution relied on ultrasound reports dated after his alleged resignation which allegedly identified him as the doctor who conducted the examinations.

Whether he actually rendered professional services after resignation was a factual question unsuitable for determination under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

Since the allegations, taken at face value, disclosed a prima facie case and were neither absurd nor inherently improbable, the Bhajan Lal threshold for quashing was not satisfied.

It held that the complaint could not be quashed merely because it was instituted through an officer, where the State asserted his authorisation; the alleged irregularity in the inspection/search and non-joining of independent witnesses required examination at trial; the record-related allegations disclosed prima facie offences; and Dr. Vinit Gupta’s alleged resignation was not a conclusive defence at the threshold.

Both petitions, CRM-M-5955-2022 and CRM-M-65066-2023, were dismissed, and the trial Court was directed to proceed with the complaint in accordance with law without being influenced by the observations made in the judgment.

Pending applications, if any, were disposed of, and a copy of the order was directed to be placed on the connected case file.