The central legal point established in the judgment is the requirement to produce seized materials in the prescribed statutory manner, failing which the seizures may be deemed fragile and unworthy of credence.

Sureshwar Thakur, J.

The instant application is directed, against, the verdict recorded by the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Court No.3, Hamirpur, District Hamirpur, H.P. in Complaint Challan No. 38-1-2015.

2. The State being aggrieved therefrom, has, hence sought the leave of this Court, to, assail it. The relevant hereat provisions, of, Rule 12, of, The Pre-conception and Pre-natal Diagnostic Techniques (Prohibition of Sex Selection) Rules, 1996, are, extracted hereinafter:-

“12. Procedure for search and seizure.- (1) The Appropriate Authority or any officer authorized in this behalf may enter and search at all reasonable times and Genetic counseling Centre, Genetic Laboratory, Genetic Clinic, Imaging Centre or Ultrasound Clinic in the presence of two or more independent witnesses for the purposes of search and examination of any record, register, document, book, pamphlet, advertisement, or any other material object found therein and seal and size the same if there is reason to believe that it may furnish evidence of commission of an offence punishable under the Act.

Explanation.- In these Rules-

(1) ‘Genetic Laboratory/Genetic Clinic/Genetic Counselling Centre’ would include an Ultrasound Centre/Imaging Centre/nursing home/hospital/institute or any other place, by whatever name called, where any of the machines or equipments capable of selection of sex before or after conception or performing any procedure technique or test for pre-natal detection of sex of foetus, is used;

(2) ‘material object’ would include records, machines and equipments; and

(3) ‘seize’ and ‘seizure’ would include ‘seal and ‘sealing’ respectively…………”

In, sub-section (3) whereof, a, specific mandate, is, cast upon the seizing authorities, to upon, the seized incriminatory materials, hence emboss thereon, seal impressions. Subsection (3) of Rule 12, defines, “seize” to include seal and sealing respectively, thereupon it was imperative, for the seizing officer, to, upon the seized incriminatory materials, hence emboss seal impressions, (i) also, it was incumbent, upon, the prosecution to hence produce, before the learned trial Court, the seized items, lodged, in carton boxes, , with embossings thereon, of, seal impressions. The aforesaid manner, of, production, of, the seized property, with existence, of, seal impression thereon, was, imperative (a) for facilitating the learned trial Magistrate concerned, to, dispel arousal, of, inferences, qua hence stratagems of, invention, of, concoctions, being rather deployed by the seizing officer, in his seizing, the, carton boxes (b) and also was imperative, for, enabling the learned trial Magistrate, for invincibly, concluding, qua the seized incriminatory materials, as carried in carton boxes, being related to seizure thereof, as, made through memos. However, as apparent, on, a reading of paragraphs 66, and, 67 of the impugned verdict, the seized incriminatory materials, though, were lodged, in, carton boxes, yet, theirs remaining unembossed, with, seal impressions, rather, with the carton boxes being sealed, with a tape, thereupon the aforesaid manner, of, sealing the seized carton boxes, carrying there within, the seized materials, hence is in complete blatant infringement, of, the prescribed statutory manner, qua their sealing. In aftermath, the seizures, are, both fragile and unworthy, of, any credence.

3. For the reasons which have been recorded hereinabove, this Court holds that the learned trial Court, has appraised, the entire evidence on record, in a wholesome and harmonious manner, apart therefrom, the analysis of the material on record by the learned trial Court, does not, suffer from any perversity or absurdity of mis-appreciation and non-appreciation of evidence on record. Consequently, the leave to appeal is declined. The impugned verdict is affirmed and maintained.