New Delhi: A Bench comprising Justices Manoj Misra and Ujjal Bhuyan of the Supreme Court of India, on February 23, 2026, held that an illegal search does not automatically render the materials or evidence gathered during such search invalid or inadmissible. The Court ruled that such evidence can still be acted upon and relied upon, subject to the rule of relevancy and the test of admissibility under applicable law.
The Bench made this significant pronouncement while dismissing a criminal appeal filed by Dr. Naresh Kumar Garg, a radiologist from Gurugram, who had challenged a complaint lodged against him under the Pre-Conception and Pre-Natal Diagnostic Techniques (Prohibition of Sex Selection) Act, 1994 (PCPNDT Act).
The matter arose from a sting operation conducted on September 17, 2015, by the District Appropriate Authority, Gurugram, acting on a complaint alleging illegal sex determination at Geetanjali Hospital in Badshahpur. A decoy patient, Smt. Suman, was arranged and accompanied by a shadow witness to meet Dr. Abdul Kadir, who allegedly demanded ₹25,000 for sex determination of the foetus. Dr. Kadir subsequently took the decoy patient to Vatika Medicare, where the appellant, Dr. Naresh Kumar Garg, allegedly conducted an ultrasound without filling the mandatory Form F, without making any register entry, and without obtaining the patient’s declaration.
An FIR (No. 336 of 2015) was registered following the raid. However, upon police investigation, the appellant was discharged by the trial court on October 28, 2015, after the police filed a discharge application noting that while record discrepancies existed, the appellant had not carried out sex determination. The police further noted that for violations relating to maintenance of records, separate provisions existed under the PCPNDT Act for filing a complaint.
Subsequently, the District Advisory Committee, in its meeting on December 17, 2015, recommended filing of a complaint against the appellant, Dr. Abdul Kadir, and Vatika Medicare. On September 17, 2018, the District Appropriate Authority authorised Dr. Chitranjan, Deputy Civil Surgeon, to lodge the complaint. A complaint was accordingly filed on September 18, 2018, under Sections 4, 5, 6, and 29 of the PCPNDT Act read with Rules 9 and 10 of the PCPNDT Rules, punishable under Section 23 of the Act. The Judicial Magistrate First Class, Gurugram, issued summons on September 12, 2022.
The appellant challenged this before the Punjab and Haryana High Court under Section 482 CrPC, seeking quashing of the complaint and the summoning order. The High Court dismissed the petition vide its judgment dated July 24, 2024. The appellant thereafter approached the Supreme Court by way of a special leave petition.
Senior Counsel for the appellant argued that the raid was ordered solely by the Civil Surgeon, a single member of the District Appropriate Authority, without associating the other two members, namely the District Programme Officer and the District Attorney. Reliance was placed on the Supreme Court’s earlier decision in Ravindra Kumar v. State of Haryana (2024 SCC OnLine SC 2495), which held that a search authorised by a single member of the Appropriate Authority is illegal and vitiates the proceedings. It was further contended that the subsequent complaint was not maintainable as it was based on the same facts that had led to the appellant’s prior discharge.
The State of Haryana, represented by the Additional Advocate General, countered that the PCPNDT Act confers independent statutory powers on the District Appropriate Authority to initiate complaint proceedings, and that the discharge in a police case has no bearing on these independent powers. It was argued that the evidence seized remained valid and that violations of Rules 9 and 10 of the PCPNDT Rules are grave statutory contraventions, not mere procedural lapses.
The Court acknowledged that the search suffered from an infraction of Section 30 of the PCPNDT Act, as it was an individual decision of the Chairperson rather than a collective decision of the District Appropriate Authority, attracting the ratio in Ravindra Kumar. However, it held that the evidence and materials collected during such a search cannot be wholly discarded.
Relying upon the Constitution Bench decision in Pooran Mal v. Director of Inspection (1974) and earlier rulings in Radha Kishan v. State of U.P. (AIR 1963 SC 822) and R.M. Malkani v. State of Maharashtra (1973), the Court reiterated that Indian evidence law recognises relevancy as the primary test of admissibility, and does not exclude relevant evidence merely because it was obtained through an illegal search or seizure.
The Court further held that the appellant’s prior discharge in the FIR-based police case is of no consequence to the complaint proceedings under the PCPNDT Act, which mandates cognizance only on a complaint by the Appropriate Authority. Non-maintenance of mandatory Form F records prima facie constitutes a cognisable offence.
The Court clarified that all contentions regarding the reliability and admissibility of evidence remain open for adjudication at trial.
Case Title: Dr. Naresh Kumar Garg v. State of Haryana & Ors.
