NARESH KUMAR GARG v. THE STATE OF HARYANA
Admissibility of Evidence from Illegal Searches and the Independence of Statutory Complaints from Police Discharge under the PCPNDT Act.
Court: Supreme Court of India
Citation: 2026 INSC 176
Decision Date: 23-02-2026
List of Laws
Pre-Conception and Pre-Natal Diagnostic Techniques (Prohibition of Sex Selection) Act, 1994; Pre-Conception and Pre-Natal Diagnostic Techniques (Prohibition of Sex Selection) Rules, 1996; Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; The Indian Evidence Act, 1872; Indian Penal Code, 1860
- Facts: The appellant, a radiologist, was implicated in a sting operation targeting illegal sex determination. A decoy pregnant patient was sent to the appellant's clinic by a co-accused who had allegedly accepted a bribe. A raid followed, conducted on the verbal order of the Civil Surgeon acting as the Chairman of the District Appropriate Authority. Initially, an FIR was registered, but the police filed a discharge application for the appellant, noting a lack of evidence regarding sex disclosure, which the Magistrate accepted. Subsequently, the District Appropriate Authority, based on recommendations from an Advisory Committee, filed a statutory complaint under the PCPNDT Act for violations related to the non-maintenance of mandatory Form F and registers. The appellant challenged the complaint, arguing that the underlying raid was illegal because it was authorized by a single member (the Chairman) rather than the collective Authority, and that the prior discharge in the police case barred further prosecution.
- Procedural Posture: The appellant filed a petition under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. before the High Court of Punjab and Haryana to quash the complaint and the summoning order. The High Court dismissed the petition. The appellant then approached the Supreme Court of India via a Special Leave Petition.
- Issue: Does the illegality of a search, caused by a lack of collective authorization by the Appropriate Authority under Section 30 of the PCPNDT Act, automatically vitiate the subsequent criminal complaint and render the seized evidence inadmissible?
- Holding: No. While the search may be technically illegal for lack of collective authorization, the evidence collected during such a search is not discarded if it is relevant and admissible. Further, a discharge in a police case (FIR) does not bar a statutory complaint filed by the Appropriate Authority under the specialized Act.
- Reasoning: The Court reasoned that although the ratio in "Ravindra Kumar vs. State of Haryana" establishes that a search must be authorized by the Appropriate Authority collectively, the evidence obtained (seized records) cannot be ignored. Adopting the "baby with the bath water" analogy, the Court relied on Constitution Bench precedents to hold that in India, the test for admissibility is relevance, not the legality of the method of procurement. The Court emphasized that the PCPNDT Act is a social welfare legislation where the maintenance of "Form F" is mandatory and serves as a vital safeguard against female foeticide. Since the statutory complaint focused on record-keeping violations (Section 23), the prior discharge in the FIR (pertaining to different charges like Section 420 IPC) had no bearing on the independent statutory power of the Authority to prosecute for regulatory contraventions.
🔒 For Members Only