In a notable judgment of Ravinder Kumar v/s State of Haryana, the Supreme Court addressed the legality of a search and subsequent prosecution under the Pre-Conception and Pre-Natal Diagnostic Techniques (Prohibition of Sex Selection) Act, 1994. The appellant, a general physician and radiologist, contested an FIR and a complaint stemming from a raid conducted on April 27, 2017, at his clinic, Divine Diagnostic Centre in Gurugram.

Background of the Case:

The raid was initiated based on a complaint against an individual accused of running a racket related to sex determination and medical termination of pregnancies. Following a setup involving a decoy patient, the accused, Dhanpati, was alleged to have facilitated an illegal ultrasound to determine the sex of the fetus. During the operation, a sum of ?15,000 was exchanged, which was part of the evidence gathered by the raiding team.

Legal Proceedings:

The FIR registered against the appellant alleged violations under Section 23 of the 1994 Act, which penalizes medical practitioners involved in sex determination practices. The appellant filed a petition to quash the FIR and the accompanying complaint, arguing that the raid was conducted without proper authorization from the Appropriate Authority, as stipulated under the Act.

Key Arguments:

The appellant's counsel highlighted that the order for the raid was signed solely by the Civil Surgeon, the Chairman of the District Appropriate Authority, without the consent of the other two required members. They argued that such unilateral action rendered the raid illegal and thus voided the basis for the FIR and complaint.

In contrast, the state’s counsel contended that any procedural defect was a curable irregularity, maintaining that the urgency of the situation justified the Civil Surgeon’s actions.

Judicial Considerations:

The Supreme Court examined the relevant provisions of the 1994 Act, emphasizing that a search must be authorized by the Appropriate Authority collectively, not by an individual member. It stressed the need for a rational basis for the belief that an offense had been committed, thereby reaffirming the safeguard against arbitrary search and seizure.

Conclusion:

Ultimately, the Court found that the raid was unauthorized, rendering the seizure of evidence and subsequent prosecution invalid. As a result, the FIR and the complaint against the appellant were quashed, reinforcing the necessity for adherence to procedural norms in enforcing medical regulations. This case serves as a pivotal reminder of the balance between public health interests and the rights of medical practitioners against unlawful intrusions.