Section 30. Power to search and seize records, etc
1 [(1) If the Appropriate Authority has reason to believe that an offence under this Act has been 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, subject to such rules as may be prescribed, enter and search at all reasonable times with such assistance, if any, as such Authority or officer considers necessary, 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 this Act.]
(2) The provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974) relating to searches and seizures shall, so far as may be, apply to every search or seizure made under this Act.
How courts have applied section 30
- The power to search and seize under Section 30 vests solely in the multi-member District Appropriate Authority, or an officer authorised by it; action by a single member or subordinate is illegal.1,2,3
- The condition precedent for a Section 30 search is the Appropriate Authority's 'reason to believe' an offence has been or is being committed, tested objectively on the material before it.4,5
- Evidence seized during an illegal search is not automatically excluded and can be relied upon if relevant and admissible.1,6
- Cognizance of an offence under the Act requires a complaint by the Appropriate Authority or a person authorised by it; a police report is not sufficient.7,2
- An indefinite sealing of a seized machine after acquittal, with no statutory basis for continued preservation, is unjustified.8
- An order releasing seized ultrasound machines on superdari affects a valuable right and is revisable.9
Read the full overviewShow less· 3 paragraphs
The judgements here predominantly concern challenges to searches, seizures, and sealing actions taken under Section 30 of the PCPNDT Act, 1994, and the consequent criminal or disciplinary proceedings. A recurring question is whether the authority that acted had the lawful power to do so under the Section. Courts in these orders hold that the power to search and seize vests solely in the multi-member District Appropriate Authority constituted under Section 17, or an officer authorised in that behalf, and that a search authorised or conducted by a single member or a subordinate official without a decision of the Authority is illegal. Several judgements also stress that the condition precedent for action under Section 30(1) is that the Authority must have 'reason to believe' that an offence has been or is being committed, a belief that must have a rational basis, though it need not be recorded in writing.1,2,3,5,4
The 'reason to believe' standard is tested objectively, namely, whether a reasonable person in the circumstances would be propelled to act; it is not a procedural roadblock. However, where no material recording the Authority's reason to believe was placed before the court, the search, seizure and sealing were held contrary to the mandate of Section 30. An illegal search, however, does not automatically render seized evidence inadmissible; such evidence can be relied upon if it is relevant and proved, a position applied both by the Supreme Court and a High Court. Non-compliance with Section 30 and Rule 12 of the 1996 Rules at inspection does not by itself make seized records inadmissible if they are otherwise relevant and proved. Separately, some orders address the fate of seized property: indefinite sealing of a seized sonography machine was not justified after acquittal when there was no statutory basis for its continued preservation, and the release of ultrasound machines on superdari was treated as affecting a valuable right, making a revision maintainable.4,5,1,6,8,9
Several judgements link the validity of the search and seizure to the competence to institute prosecution. Cognizance under the Act can be taken only on a complaint by the Appropriate Authority or a person authorised by it, not merely on a police report. The Supreme Court held that a prior discharge order in a related police investigation does not bar the Appropriate Authority from instituting independent complaint proceedings. Where a transaction involves both PCPNDT contraventions and distinct general penal offences, police retain jurisdiction over the general penal aspects while the Appropriate Authority investigates the special law components. A raid authorised and a complaint filed by the Deputy Civil Surgeon alone, without any resolution of the Appropriate Authority, was illegal and led to the quashing of the FIR and subsequent proceedings.7,2,1
By court
Outcomes
Judgements applying section 30
The Supreme Court dismissed an appeal seeking to quash a criminal complaint under the PCPNDT Act. The Court held that while a search conducted by a single authority member was illegal under Section 30, the seized evidence remained admissible.
The Court held that despite offences under the PC & PNDT Act being cognizable, the Appropriate Authority is the sole investigating body, and police cannot register an FIR or file a chargesheet for such offences.
The Supreme Court dismissed criminal appeals filed by the District Appropriate Authority challenging a Gujarat High Court order directing the unsealing of a sonography machine.
Pre Conception and Pre-natal Diagnostic Techniques (Prohibition of Sex Selection) Act, 1994 – ss. 30(1), 17, 2(a) – 'has reason to believe' – Search and seizure of a Genetic Clinic: the condition precedent for search is that the multi-member Appropriate Authority must have reason to believe that an offence under the…
AllowedOpenRevision petition by an ultrasound clinic operator convicted for record-keeping violations under the PCPNDT Act. The High Court held Form F non-maintenance violated Section 29 and Rule 9(4), that improperly conducted search did not vitiate seized documents' admissibility, and dismissed the revision, upholding…
DismissedOpenPetition to quash an FIR under the PC-PNDT Act alleging illegal sex-determination ultrasound during a decoy raid. The Court held proceedings were vitiated as the raid and complaint were not authorised by the District Appropriate Authority, quashing the FIR and all consequential proceedings.
AllowedOpen
Show 6 more
Criminal Petition under Section 482 CrPC — quashing of proceedings in C.C.No.2095/2022 (offences under Sections 23, 23(1), 23(2), 20(1), 20(2), 20(3), 28 and 30 of the Pre-Conception and Pre-Natal Diagnostic Techniques (Prohibition of Sex Selection) Act, 1994) — petitioner, a radiologist, arraigned as accused No.3…
AllowedOpenThe High Court quashed an appellate authority's order dismissing a challenge against a PCPNDT Act seizure because it failed to consider the petitioner's argument regarding Rule 12 non-compliance, noting inconsistent rulings on identical grounds. The matter was remanded for a fresh hearing within two weeks.
DisposedOpenWrit petition challenging dismissal of appeal regarding ultrasound center seizure. Court quashed the order for not considering argument on Rule 12 violation despite identical facts in another appeal. Matter remanded to pass fresh order hearing all grievances within two weeks.
DisposedOpenPetitioner challenged a Sessions Court revision reversing release of his ultrasound machines on superdari in a PCPNDT Act prosecution. The High Court held such an order is not interlocutory and revisable, found no infirmity in the impugned order, and dismissed the petition while directing expeditious trial.
DismissedOpenPCPNDT Act, 1994 — Sealing of sonography machine — Power to seal under S.30 vests solely in the 'Appropriate Authority' appointed under S.17, or an officer authorised in that behalf, and only upon 'reason to believe' that an offence under the Act has been or is being committed — Per Union OM dated 12.02.2007 and State…
DisposedOpenAnticipatory bail; A.B.A. No. 568 of 2024; Jharkhand High Court Ranchi; Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi; Dr. Sanjay Kumar Choudhary; Telaiya P.S. Case No. 169 of 2023; Koderma CJM; Section 406 IPC; PCPNDT Act 1994 Section 25, Sections 29/30; Rule 9 and Rule 11 PCPNDT Rules 1996; ultrasound records; Form F;
AllowedOpen
Gayatri Nanjundappa @ Dr. Gayatri Singh vs the State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another
Outcome: DismissedPCPNDT Act 1994 prosecution; cognizance under Section 28(1)(a) on complaint by officer authorised by the Appropriate Authority (Section 17(3)); District Magistrate authorization dated 18.08.2008 of Additional Chief Medical Officer, Lucknow to file complaint; single-member authorization objection;
DismissedOpenGayatri Nanjundappa @ Dr. Gayatri Singh vs the State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another
Outcome: DismissedPCPNDT Act 1994 prosecution; cognizance under Section 28(1)(a) on complaint by officer authorised by the Appropriate Authority (Section 17(3)); District Magistrate authorization dated 18.08.2008 of Additional Chief Medical Officer, Lucknow to file complaint; single-member authorization objection;
DismissedOpenPCPNDT Act 1994 — legality of search and seizure under Section 30 ('reason to believe'); suspension under Section 20(3) 'public interest'; cancellation without Section 20(2) show cause notice and without Advisory Committee recommendation (Sections 17(4)(d), 17(4)(i));
AllowedOpenPCPNDT Act 1994 — legality of search and seizure under Section 30 ('reason to believe'); suspension under Section 20(3) 'public interest'; cancellation without Section 20(2) show cause notice and without Advisory Committee recommendation (Sections 17(4)(d), 17(4)(i));
AllowedOpenPCPNDT Act 1994 — legality of search and seizure under Section 30 ('reason to believe'); suspension under Section 20(3) 'public interest'; cancellation without Section 20(2) show cause notice and without Advisory Committee recommendation (Sections 17(4)(d), 17(4)(i));
AllowedOpenDistrict Appropriate Authority Under the Pndt Act and Chief District Health Officer versus Jashmina Dilip Devda & Anr.
Outcome: DismissedInterpretation of Sections 20(1), (2) & (3) of the PC&PNDT Act, 1994 read with Section 17; cancellation versus suspension of registration of genetic clinics; notice and hearing requirements under s.20(1)-(2); independent public-interest suspension power under s.20(3) requiring reasons recorded in writing;
DismissedOpen
Show 4 more
The High Court considered a criminal revision against convictions under the PCPNDT Act for failure to maintain records. It held that while the complainant was authorized, the clinic owner could not be criminally liable as the qualified operator had ceased duties, and procedural lapses in seizure mandated acquittal.
DisposedOpenThe High Court of Judicature at Bombay dismissed an appeal challenging an acquittal under the Pre-conception and Pre-natal Diagnostic Techniques Act. The court held that due to a lack of independent witnesses for seizure, absence of a Panchanama, and other procedural defects, the evidence was insufficient for…
DismissedOpenSwapnil Madhavrao Mane Vs the State of Maharashtra through Department of Health Service and Others
Outcome: DisposedPetitioner challenged seizure of sonography machines lacking recorded reasonable belief. Court quashed action and directed release.
DisposedOpenPetition seeking quashing of an FIR under the PNDT Act alleging illegal sex determination detected through a decoy patient. The court rejected all grounds: police may investigate PNDT offences, the Fatehabad team's involvement was not barred for want of territorial jurisdiction, and the FIR was validly lodged.
DismissedOpen