1. Seizure and sealing of sonography machine under PC & PNDT Act — acquittal by trial and appellate courts — dispute over release of property during pending challenge to acquittal. (Para 1 )
Back
Next 
2025 Supreme(SC) 779
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Bela M. Trivedi, Prasanna B. Varale, JJ.
District Appropriate Authority – Appellant
Versus
Kaushik Babulal Shah & Anr. – Respondents
Criminal Appeal No(s). 1969-1970 of 2017
Decided On : 06-05-2025
Important Points
Court held that sealed property should not be kept indefinitely when parties are acquitted, emphasizing timely disposal while balancing rights of parties involved.
Subject
Criminal Law - Appeal
Act Referred
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE: S.451
PRE-CONCEPTION AND PRE-NATAL DIAGNOSTIC TECHNIQUES ACT: S.23(1), S.29, S.30, S.4(1), S.5(2), S.6(1)
PRE-CONCEPTION AND PRE-NATAL DIAGNOSTIC TECHNIQUES RULES: R.10(1), R.12, R.18(1), R.9, R.9(4), R.9(6)
PRE-CONCEPTION AND PRE-NATAL DIAGNOSTIC TECHNIQUES ACT: S.23(1), S.29, S.30, S.4(1), S.5(2), S.6(1)
PRE-CONCEPTION AND PRE-NATAL DIAGNOSTIC TECHNIQUES RULES: R.10(1), R.12, R.18(1), R.9, R.9(4), R.9(6)
Headnote
(A) Pre-Conception and Pre-Natal Diagnostic Techniques Act, 1994 - Sections 29 and 30 - The High Court permitted the opening of a sealed sonography machine, directing retrieval of data in presence of the Appellant, as the Respondent was acquitted by two courts - Appeals from the District Appropriate Authority challenging this order were dismissed as lacking merit. (Paras 1, 7, 16)
(B) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Section 451 - The court opined that property should not be kept sealed indefinitely and emphasized its timely disposal, balancing rights of parties involved. (Paras 12, 16)
Facts of the case:
The Appellant sealed the sonography machine after allegations of sex determination and a sting operation. The Respondent was acquitted in 2012 and sought release of the machine, which the High Court granted.
Findings of Court:
The High Court justified opening the seal based on acquittal and necessity for the Respondent's livelihood.
Issues: Whether the High Court's direction to open the seal was permissible while criminal proceedings were pending.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that maintaining the seal for an indefinite period was unjust, especially considering multiple acquittals and confirmed that long delays could render the property useless.
Result: Appeals dismissed.
(B) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Section 451 - The court opined that property should not be kept sealed indefinitely and emphasized its timely disposal, balancing rights of parties involved. (Paras 12, 16)
Facts of the case:
The Appellant sealed the sonography machine after allegations of sex determination and a sting operation. The Respondent was acquitted in 2012 and sought release of the machine, which the High Court granted.
Findings of Court:
The High Court justified opening the seal based on acquittal and necessity for the Respondent's livelihood.
Issues: Whether the High Court's direction to open the seal was permissible while criminal proceedings were pending.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that maintaining the seal for an indefinite period was unjust, especially considering multiple acquittals and confirmed that long delays could render the property useless.
Result: Appeals dismissed.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Advocates appeared:
For the Appellant(s) : Mr. Sanjay Parikh, Sr. Adv. Ms. Rashmi Nandakumar, AOR Ms. Yashmita Pandey, Adv.
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Rushabh N. Kapadia, Adv. Mr. Pradhuman Gohil, Adv. Mr. Vikash Singh, AOR Ms. Deepanwita Priyanka, Adv. Ms. Swati Ghildiyal, AOR
For the Appellant(s) : Mr. Sanjay Parikh, Sr. Adv. Ms. Rashmi Nandakumar, AOR Ms. Yashmita Pandey, Adv.
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Rushabh N. Kapadia, Adv. Mr. Pradhuman Gohil, Adv. Mr. Vikash Singh, AOR Ms. Deepanwita Priyanka, Adv. Ms. Swati Ghildiyal, AOR
Table of Contents
2. Whether records must be preserved until final disposal under Section 29, PC & PNDT Act, versus the right to use property for livelihood after acquittal. (Para 3 , 4 )
3. Indefinite sealing of equipment leads to worthlessness; Section 451 CrPC permits release of property subject to decay or where otherwise expedient to prevent loss. (Para 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 )
4. Seized property should not be kept sealed indefinitely if it risks becoming useless, provided the court ensures data preservation and considers the owner's right to livelihood. (Para 12 , 14 , 16 )
5. Appeals dismissed; High Court order directing the opening of the seal of the sonography machine upheld. (Para 17 )
6. Under what conditions must records be preserved under Section 29 of the PC & PNDT Act?
Records must generally be preserved for two years or as prescribed. However, if criminal or other proceedings are instituted against a Genetic Counselling Centre, Laboratory, or Clinic, the records and documents must be preserved until the final disposal of such proceedings. (Para 9 , 10 )
7. When can a court order the release of seized property pending the conclusion of proceedings under Section 451 CrPC?
A court may order the custody or disposal of property if it is subject to speedy and natural decay, or if it is otherwise expedient to do so, after recording any evidence it thinks necessary. (Para 13 , 14 )
8. How can the court balance the need for evidence preservation with the owner's right to use seized equipment?
The court may order the release of equipment to prevent it from becoming worthless, while protecting the authority's interest by allowing the retrieval of necessary data in the presence of a concerned engineer. (Para 12 , 16 )
JUDGMENT :
PRASANNA B. VARALE, J.
1. Under challenge in these criminal appeals preferred by the District Appropriate Authority, Ahmedabad is the judgment and order dated 01.10.2012 of the Gujarat High Court wherein the issue regarding opening of the seal of the ceased sonography machine which was case property (mudammal) was decided by the court in favor of the Respondent. The court observed that the Respondent had been acquitted both by the Trial Court as well as the appellate Court, and thus directed the seal to be opened. The High Court further directed that if any data was to be recovered from the machine then the Appellant Authority was at liberty to keep their Engineer present at the time of the opening of the seal of the sonography machine and retrieve any such data, and the same to be done in the presence of the Appellant. The subsequent judgment and order dated 22.10.2012 is also under challenge wherein the recall application preferred by the Appellant was dismissed in limine.
2. The factual matrix giving rise to the present appeal is as follows-
2.1 A sting operation was conducted by the Appellant Authority on 26.05.2009 wherein the Respondent, Kaushik Babulal Shah had conducted a sonography test and examined the embryo of one Kailashben Nitinkumar Parmar (who was a part of the operation) at the Manthan Imaging Centre, situated at Shivanand Complex, Maninagar. After the completion of the sonography test, it was alleged that he had disclosed the sex of the foetus as “male child” in consideration for a total amount of Rs 10,000/- where a sum of Rs. 5000/- was paid prior to the examination and the balance of Rs. 5000/- was paid after the examination. Subsequent to the sting operation, a complaint was lodged by the District Appropriate Authority (Appellant) against the Respondent on 27.05.2009. During search and seizure, the sonography machine was sealed. In the process it was also discovered that Form ‘F’ which as per the provisions of the PRE-CONCEPTION AND PRE-NATAL DIAGNOSTIC TECHNIQUES ACT , 1994 (hereinafter ‘PC & PNDT Act’) are mandatory to be maintained was found to have been incompletely filled. A case was therefore registered against the Respondent and his agents under Section 4(1), 5(2), 6(1), 23 (1) of P.N.D.T. Act, 1994 and Rules 9(4), 10(1), 9(6), 18 (1) of the 1996 Rules.
2.2 Against the sealing of the sonography machine, the Respondent preferred Writ Petition SCA No. 5830/09 before the High Court of Gujarat to remove the seal of the machine. In the said Writ, the Learned Single Judge vide order dated 30.06.2009 quashed the action of the Appellant Authority in sealing the sonography machine and directed to open the seal. The said order was challenged before the Division Bench in LPA No. 1371 of 2009 wherein the Division Bench on 07.12.2009 allowed the appeal and set aside the order passed by the Learned Single Judge giving direction to the Learned Metropolitan Magistrate, Ahmedabad to decide Criminal Case No. 785 of 2009 against the Respondent as expeditiously as possible
2.3 On 04.12.2012, the Respondent was acquitted by the Metropolitan Magistrate, Ahmedabad of all charges and it was directed that the seized property that is the sonography machine and other items be returned back to the complainant after the expiry of the appeal period. This judgment was challenged by the Government of Gujarat in Criminal Appeal No. 109/2012 before the Sessions Court. The Sessions Court confirmed the order of acquittal of the Respondent passed by the Metropolitan Magistrate vide order dated 23.08.2012.
2.4 In the meantime on 14.06.2012, Special Criminal Application, No. 1503 of 2012 was filed by the Respondent before the High Court of Gujarat praying to remove the seal of sonography machine in view of the acquittal of the Respondents and also taking into consideration that the Appeal period was over. The High Court vide order dated 01.10.2012 allowed the petition and held-
“6. Therefore, considering the right of the present peti
