Supreme Court Dismissed Appeal To Maintain Seal On Sonography Machine, Saying No Justifiable Reason For Indefinite Sealing Based On Pending Proceedings Under PCPNDT Act
The Supreme Court upheld the Gujarat High Court's Order to open the seal of a seized sonography machine.
Justice Bela M Trivedi, Justice Prasanna B Varale, Supreme Court
The Supreme Court dismissed an Appeal to maintain the seal on a Sonography Machine, stating that there is no justifiable reason to keep it sealed indefinitely based on the insistence that the proceeding is still pending and has not attained finality.
The Court dismissed an Appeal filed by the District Appropriate Authority, thereby upholding the Gujarat High Court's Order to open the seal of a seized sonography machine. The Court stated that “keeping the sonography machine in a sealed condition for a further indefinite period would only result in making the machine either useless or worthless.”
A Bench of Justice Bela M Trivedi and Justice Prasanna B Varale held, “The sonography machine which was sealed way back in the year 2009 has been kept in the same situation i.e. under the sealed condition for 16 years now. No purpose would be served by accepting the submission of the learned counsel for the Appellant Authority to keep the machine sealed even after nearly 16 years. Not even any justifiable reason is coming forward from the Appellant Authority so as to why the sonography machine must be kept in a sealed condition for an indefinite period except an insistence that the proceeding is still pending and had not attained finality. Another aspect of consideration is that keeping the sonography machine in a sealed condition for a further indefinite period would only result in making the machine either useless or worthless.”
Senior Advocate Sanjay Parikh represented the Appellant, while Advocate Rushabh N. Kapadia appeared for the Respondents.
Brief Facts
A sting operation was conducted by the Appellant Authority, where the Respondent allegedly conducted a sonography test and disclosed the sex of a foetus. Following the operation, the Appellant Authority lodged a complaint, and during search and seizure, the sonography machine was sealed.
The Respondent filed a Writ Petition before the High Court to remove the seal, which was initially granted, but later challenged by the Appellant Authority. Later, the Respondent was acquitted. The Respondent then filed an Application before the High Court, seeking the removal of the seal of the sonography machine, which was allowd by the High Court.
Court’s Reasoning
The Supreme Court noted, “After perusal of the chronology of events referred above, and the provisions of law under the PC & PNDT Act, 1994, it is clear that in Section 29(1) there is no prescription of a specified period for which such record needs to be preserved. The words used in Section 29(1) are either ‘two years’ or ‘as may be prescribed’, and in Section 29(2) the words used are at all reasonable times. Admittedly, there is nothing on record to show that there is any prescription of period specified by way of any notification issued by either the government or the competent authority.”
“Section 29(1) provides for preservation of the record for a period of two years or for such period as may be prescribed. Section 29(2) requires that such record shall be made available for inspection to the Appropriate Authority or any other person authorized by the Appropriate Authority at all reasonable times,” the Bench pointed out.
“Thus, this direction very well takes care of the interest of the Appellate Authority. At the cost of repetition, we may state that no justifiable reason worth consideration is coming forward from the appellant authority to keep the sonography machine in a sealed condition for an indefinite period till the conclusion of the proceedings,” the Court held.
Consequently, the Court ordered, “Considering all these facts and the reasons stated above, we see no reason to interfere with the impugned order in the present petitions. Therefore, the appeals being devoid of any merit, are liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, same are dismissed.”
Accordingly, the Supreme Court dismissed the Appeal.
Cause Title: District Appropriate Authority v. Kaushik Babulal Shah & Anr. (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 637)
Appearance:
Appellant: Senior Advocate Sanjay Parikh; AOR Rashmi Nandakumar; Advocate Yashmita Pandey
Respondents: AOR Vikash Singh and Swati Ghildiyal; Advocates Rushabh N. Kapadia, Pradhuman Gohil and Deepanwita Priyanka
