Illegality In Search Doesn't Render Collected Evidence Invalid : Supreme Court

The Supreme Court on Monday (February 23) held that illegality in search for want of proper authorization cannot render the materials or evidence gathered during the search invalid.

“While the search may be illegal, the materials or evidence gathered or collected in the course of such search can still be acted or relied upon subject to the rule of relevancy and the test of admissibility.” observed a bench of Justices Manoj Misra and Ujjal Bhuyan.

The case arose from a raid conducted on September 17, 2015, following a complaint alleging illegal sex determination. Acting on the directions of the Civil Surgeon-cum-Chairperson of the District Appropriate Authority, a decoy operation was carried out, leading to allegations that Appellant-Dr. Naresh Kumar Garg conducted an ultrasound examination without maintaining statutory records, such as Form F, or obtaining the patient's signature.

While the appellant was later discharged in a police case arising from the same incident, the District Appropriate Authority filed a separate complaint under the Pre-Conception and Pre-Natal Diagnostic Techniques (Prohibition of Sex Selection) Act, 1994 (PCPNDT Act). A Magistrate issued a summons in 2022, which the Punjab and Haryana High Court declined to quash, leading him to file an appeal before the Supreme Court.

Before the Supreme Court, the appellant contended that the entire search conducted was illegal for want of proper authorisation, rendering the collected evidence inadmissible. Partly accepting this contention, the judgment authored by Justice Bhuyan, relying on the constitution bench decision of Pooran Mal Vs. Director of Inspector (Investigation), (1974) 1 SCC 345 stated that “unless there is an express or necessarily implied prohibition in law, evidence obtained as a result of illegal search or seizure is not liable to be shut out.”

The court said that the evidence gathered or collected during the illegal search would not have an impact on the admissibility of the evidence, as the decision regarding the admissibility of such evidence rests with the court.

Therefore, the appeal was dismissed, keeping all questions regarding the reliability and admissibility of evidence open for consideration at trial.

Headnote

Pre-Conception and Pre-Natal Diagnostic Techniques (Prohibition of Sex Selection) Act, 1994 – Section 30(1) – Search and Seizure – Collective Decision Required – The power to authorize a search under Section 30(1) must be exercised by the "Appropriate Authority" collectively as defined under Section 17 - An individual member, including the Chairperson/Civil Surgeon acting alone, cannot legally authorize a search – Noted that in this case, the search was directed solely by the Civil Surgeon without the association of the other two members (District Programme Officer and District Attorney), rendering the search technically illegal. [Paras 41 - 50]

Evidence – Admissibility of Evidence Collected in Illegal Search – Rule of Relevancy – Even if a search is conducted in infraction of statutory procedures (such as Section 30 of the PCPNDT Act), the materials or records seized during such search are not automatically discarded. Materials gathered in an illegal search remain admissible in evidence subject to the test of relevancy and genuineness – Noted that Court must, however, examine such evidence with greater care. [Paras 50 - 52]

Pre-Conception and Pre-Natal Diagnostic Techniques (Prohibition of Sex Selection) Rules, 1996 – Rule 9 and Rule 10 – Maintenance of Form F – Maintenance of records in "Form F" is mandatory and not a mere procedural formality - Non-maintenance or inaccurate maintenance of records constitutes a "springboard" for the offence of female foeticide and amounts to a contravention of Sections 5 and 6 of the Act - Even if sex determination is not proven, the failure to maintain statutory records is a punishable offence under Section 23. [Paras 33 - 54]

Criminal Procedure – Discharge in Police Case vs. Statutory Complaint – A discharge order passed by a Magistrate in a criminal case arising from an FIR (Police Investigation) has no bearing on a separate complaint filed by the Appropriate Authority under Section 28 of the PCPNDT Act - The Act mandates cognizance only upon a complaint by the authorized authority, and police investigation is generally discouraged for these specialized offences – appeal dismissed. [Relied on Ravinder Kumar v. State of Haryana, 2024 SCC Online SC 2495; Federation of Obstetrics and Gynaecological Societies of India (FOGSI) v. Union of India, (2019) 6 SCC 283; Pooran Mal v. Director of Inspector (Investigation), New Delhi, (1974) 1 SCC 345; Radha Kishan v. State of Uttar Pradesh, AIR 1963 SC 822; Paras 28, 37, 54]

Cause Title: DR. NARESH KUMAR GARG VERSUS STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS.

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 186

Click here to download judgment

Appearance:

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Rajive Bhalla, Sr. Adv. Mr. Yajur Bhalla, Adv. Mr. Yash, Adv. Mr. Amijot Bir Singh, Adv. Mr. Ashutosh Tiwari, Adv. Ms. Gauri Bedi, Adv. Mr. Divyansh Misra, Adv. Ms. Neha Verma, Adv. Mr. Shubham Bhalla, AOR

For Respondent(s) : Mr. Neeraj, A.A.G. Mr. Samar Vijay Singh, AOR Mr. Piyush Beriwal, Adv. Ms. Jyotsna Vyas, Adv. Ms. Sabarni Som, Adv. Mr. Yash Tyagi, Adv. Ms. Amisha Dash, Adv. Mr. Eashwar, Adv. Mr. Ashutosh Mishra, Adv. Mr Abhishek Kumar Suman, Adv. Mr Nikhil Kumar Chaubey, Adv.