Back
Doesn't Automatically Quash PC&PNDT Complaint:
In a significant ruling on the interplay between and under the , the has held that an does not automatically vitiate a criminal complaint or render the material collected during such search inadmissible. Justice Manisha Batra dismissed two petitions filed by Renu Deswal, Director of , and Dr. Vinit Gupta, a former radiologist at the centre, seeking quashing of a criminal complaint and summoning order under the Act.
Background: The Surprise Inspection and Alleged Deficiencies
The case originates from a surprise inspection conducted on , at the Bahadurgarh-based ultrasound centre. Acting on secret information, the constituted a team led by Dr. Kumud Sharma, Nodal Officer, to inspect the premises. During the raid, Renu Deswal was present, but Dr. Mahesh Chander Mishra, the radiologist, was absent. The team found that 479 ultrasounds had been conducted, but the centre failed to produce records for the last two years as mandated under .
The inspection revealed multiple deficiencies in the statutory records: missing signatures of the radiologist, incomplete patient/spouse details, lack of page numbering, and unsigned Form-Fs and referral slips. Notably, some ultrasound reports were signed by Dr. Mishra but allegedly conducted by Dr. Vinit Gupta. The centre’s registration was subsequently suspended, and a criminal complaint was filed under .
An initial summoning order was set aside by the revisional court for lack of reasoning, but a fresh order was passed on , prompting the petitioners to approach the High Court under .
Petitioners’ Arguments: Illegality at Every Stage
Counsel for the petitioners raised three primary challenges. First, they argued that the complaint was invalid because it was filed by Dr. Raj Karan, Deputy Civil Surgeon-cum-Nodal Officer, without proper authorisation from the three-member . Reliance was placed on to contend that statutory functions cannot be exercised by an individual officer.
Second, they contended that the search itself was illegal under , as it was authorised by an individual officer rather than a collective decision of the multi-member Authority. Citing the ’s ruling in , they argued that the should vitiate all subsequent proceedings and the material collected, including ultrasound records and Form-Fs.
Third, the petitioners highlighted the failure to join independent witnesses during the search, despite local persons being present. They argued that this violated the procedure and cast doubt on the recoveries. Additionally, Dr. Vinit Gupta submitted that he had resigned from the centre on , well before the inspection, and could not be held responsible for any violations.
State’s Defence: Authorisation and the Distinction Between Search and Evidence
The State, represented by Additional Advocate General , countered that the complaint was not a unilateral act. It had been deliberated upon by the and the three-member , which then authorised Dr. Raj Karan to file the complaint. This, they argued, fell squarely within the permitted under , as recognised in and .
Crucially, the State relied on the ’s recent judgment in to argue that even if the search was illegal, the material collected during it could still be considered. The legality of the search and the of evidence are distinct questions, and an does not automatically render the complaint unsustainable.
On the issue of independent witnesses, the State submitted that the inspection team had requested local persons to join, but they declined—a practical reality acknowledged by the in . Regarding Dr. Vinit Gupta, the State pointed to ultrasound reports dated after his claimed resignation, specifically , which allegedly showed him as the doctor who conducted the procedures, even though the reports bore Dr. Mishra’s signature.
Legal Analysis: Balancing Procedural Safeguards and Substantive Compliance
Justice Batra undertook a detailed examination of the statutory scheme. She noted that Section 28(1)(a) expressly permits an officer authorised by the Appropriate Authority to file a complaint. Since the State had specifically pleaded on affidavit that the Authority deliberated and authorised Dr. Raj Karan, and the petitioners produced no rebuttal, the court declined to presume a lack of authorisation at the threshold.
On the search, the court acknowledged that Ravinder Kumar established the illegality of a search authorised by an individual member of a multi-member Authority. However, relying on Dr. Naresh Kumar Garg , it held that this illegality does not automatically destroy the complaint or render the collected material non-existent. The court emphasised that the complaint’s core allegations—deficiencies in statutorily mandated records—could not be reduced to the legality of the physical entry into the premises.
The court also rejected the argument about independent witnesses, noting that the explanation for their non-joinder was plausible and a matter for trial. It held that the absence of independent witnesses does not, by itself, demolish the prosecution case.
Regarding Dr. Vinit Gupta’s resignation, the court observed that extends liability to any person rendering professional or technical services at a centre. Since the State had relied on ultrasound reports after his claimed resignation, this became a question of fact that could not be decided in quashing proceedings.
Key Observations
Justice Batra made several pivotal observations:
“The Hon'ble expressly distinguished between the legality of the search and the relevancy and of the material collected during the search. It was held that even where the search is illegal, the material or evidence collected in the course of such search cannot automatically be treated as non-existent.”
“What is material for the present purpose is that the complaint contains specific allegations which, if proved, may attract the statutory provisions invoked against the petitioners. A previous inspection cannot confer immunity against subsequent violations.”
“The question is not merely when the petitioner claims to have resigned. The relevant question is whether, notwithstanding the alleged resignation, he had in fact conducted or rendered professional services in relation to the ultrasound examinations relied upon by the prosecution. That is a question of fact.”
Court’s Decision and Implications
Dismissing both petitions, the High Court held that the allegations, taken at face value, were not “so absurd or inherently improbable” as to warrant quashing. The court directed the trial court to proceed with the complaint in accordance with law, without being influenced by any observations made in the order.
The ruling reinforces the distinction between procedural irregularities in search and the substantive merit of a complaint under the PC&PNDT Act. It underscores that while the Act’s safeguards must be respected, technical defects in the search do not automatically shield alleged violators from prosecution, especially when the complaint is independently deliberated upon by the statutory Authority. The judgment also clarifies that the resignation of a professional does not absolve them of liability if evidence suggests continued involvement.
