LexRAVINDER KUMAR versus STATE OF HARYANA
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2024] 9 S.C.R. 397 : 2024 INSC 684 Ravinder Kumar v. State of Haryana (Criminal Appeal No. 3747 of 2024) 12 September 2024 [Abhay S. Oka* and Augustine George Masih, JJ.] Issue for Consideration FIR under Section 23 of the Pre Conception and Pre-natal Diagnostic Techniques (Prohibition of Sex Selection) Act, 1994 and a complaint under Section 28(1) was filed against the appellant and co-accused persons. The allegation was of indulging in the illegal activity of sex determination using ultrasound. In the facts of the case, when there was no legal decision by the Appropriate Authority in terms of sub-section (1) of Section 30 to search for the appellant’s clinic and the decision to carry out the search was an individual decision of the Civil Surgeon-Chairman of the concerned Appropriate Authority, whether the search conducted would be illegal; meaning to be assigned to the expression “has reason to believe” under sub-section (1) of Section 30. Headnotes† Pre Conception and Pre-natal Diagnostic Techniques (Prohibition of Sex Selection) Act, 1994 – ss.30(1), 17, 2(a) – “has reason to believe” – Interpretation: Held: s.30 is a very drastic provision granting power to the Appropriate Authority or any officer authorized by it to enter a Genetic Laboratory, a Genetic Clinic, or any other place to examine the record found therein, to seize and seal the same – The first part of sub-section (1) of s.30 safeguards these centres or laboratories from arbitrary search and seizure action – The condition precedent for the search of a clinic is that the Appropriate Authority must have reason to believe that an offence under the 1994 Act has been or is being committed – Interpretation of “reason to believe” will depend on the context in which it is used in a particular legislation – Under the 1994 Act, there is a power to initiate action under the statute if the authority has reason to believe that certain facts exist – Thus, the test is whether a reasonable man, under the circumstances * Author 398 [2024] 9 S.C.R. Digital Supreme Court Reports placed before him, would be propelled to take action under the statute – Considering the object of the 1994 Act, the expression “reason to believe” cannot be construed in a manner which would create a procedural roadblock – The reason is that once there is any material placed before the Appropriate Authority based on which action of search is required to be undertaken, if the action is delayed, the very object of passing orders of search would be frustrated – Therefore, the complaint or other material received by the appropriate authority or its members should be immediately made available to all its members – After examining the same, the Appropriate authority must expeditiously decide whether there is a reason to believe that an offence under the 1994 Act has been or is being committed and it is not required to record reasons for the same but, there has to be a rational basis to form that belief – However, the decision to take action under sub-section (1) of s.30 must be of the Appropriate Authority and not of its individual members otherwise the decision will be illegal – The Appropriate Authority for the district consisted of the Civil Surgeon, the District Program Officer of the Women and Child Development Department and the District Attorney – On facts, no legal decision was made by the Appropriate Authority in terms of sub-section (1) of s.30 to search for the appellant’s clinic and the decision to carry out the search was an individual decision of the Civil Surgeon-Chairman of the concerned Appropriate Authority – Thus, the action of search is itself vitiated – FIR and complaint were based on the material seized during the raid and since, the search itself is entirely illegal, continuing prosecution based on such an illegal search will be abuse of the process of law – Impugned judgment set aside – FIR and complaint quashed. [Paras 10-14, 16, 17] Case Law Cited Aslam Mohammad Merchant v. Competent Authority & Ors. [2008] 10 SCR 332 : (2008) 14 SCC 186 – referred to. List of Acts Pre Conception and Pre-natal Diagnostic Techniques (Prohibition of Sex Selection) Act, 1994; Penal Code, 1860. List of Keywords Sex determination of a foetus; Racket; Medical termination of the pregnancy; Illegal activity; Ultrasound; Decoy patient; Raid; Appropriate Authority; Clinic; Search of a clinic; Civil Surgeon; [2024] 9 S.C.R. 399 Ravinder
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.