Prosecution under PC & PNDT Act requires proof of complainant’s authorization and compliance with statutory search-seizure procedures.

The accused operated the Krishna Maternity and Sonography Clinic at Sihor, Bhavnagar.

On February 11, 2008, a Block Health Officer and Executive Magistrate conducted a raid, alleging that Accused No. 1 (Dr. Bharatkumar Purohit) performed sonography without qualification and maintained posters indicating sex determination.

It was further alleged that mandatory Forms ‘F’ and ‘G’ were incomplete and the PC PNDT Act was not displayed legibly.

A complaint was filed on February 15, 2008, leading to a trial where the Judicial Magistrate convicted the accused under Section 23(1) of the PC PNDT Act and Section 6 of the Indian Medical Degrees Act.

On appeal, the Additional Sessions Judge, Bhavnagar, reversed the conviction and acquitted the accused on December 13, 2017.

The present appeal was preferred by the Authority against said acquittal.

1. Whether the complainant established that they were the "Appropriate Authority" as defined under Section 2(a) and authorized to file a complaint under Section 28 of the PC PNDT Act.

2. Whether the search and seizure procedures conducted at the clinic complied with the mandatory requirements of Section 30 of the Act and Rule 12 of the PC PNDT Rules, 1996.

3. Whether there was sufficient evidence to prove that the accused used the sonography machine for unauthorized purposes or failed to maintain statutory records.

4. Whether the High Court should interfere with an order of acquittal in the absence of manifest illegality or perversity.

The court primarily applied Sections 17, 17A, 28, and 30 of the Pre-Conception and Pre-Natal Diagnostic Techniques (PC PNDT) Act, 1994, which govern the appointment of Appropriate Authorities, their powers of search and seizure, and the procedure for taking cognizance of offences.

It further relied on Rule 12 of the PC PNDT Rules, 1996, which mandates that search and seizure be conducted by authorized officers in the presence of independent witnesses and that seizure lists be prepared in duplicate.

Regarding the scope of appellate review, the court applied principles from Chandrappa v. State of Karnataka, emphasizing that in acquittal appeals, a "double presumption" of innocence exists, and findings should not be disturbed if the trial court’s view is reasonable.

The Court observed that the prosecution failed to produce any notification or documentary evidence proving the complainant was the "Appropriate Authority" authorized to take cognizance under Section 28 or conduct search and seizure under Section 30.

Furthermore, the search procedure violated Rule 12; the seizure list (Exh. 33) was not prepared in duplicate, and there was no evidence that a copy was served upon Accused No. 2, the owner of the sonography machine.

Regarding the substantive allegations, the key witness (the patient, Kavuben) testified that she visited for liver pain and denied being examined via sonography for sex determination.

The court noted that the prosecution failed to produce the allegedly deficient Forms ‘F’ and ‘G’ and that none of the panch witnesses witnessed the machine being used on any patient.

Consequently, the search was deemed illegal, and the prosecution’s case lacked the evidentiary weight required to overcome the presumption of innocence.

The Court reaffirmed that if two reasonable conclusions are possible, the appellate court must defer to the finding of acquittal.

The Criminal Appeal was dismissed, and the acquittal of the respondents was confirmed.

The Court ordered the Record Proceedings to be remitted to the trial court forthwith.