District Appropriate Authority v. Kaushik Babulal Shah & Anr.
Background
A sting operation in 2009 alleged that the respondent, a doctor, had disclosed the sex of a foetus during a sonography test in exchange for money, in violation of the PC & PNDT Act. His sonography machine was seized and sealed as case property. He was subsequently acquitted by the Metropolitan Magistrate, and that acquittal was confirmed by the Sessions Court. He then approached the Gujarat High Court seeking release of the sealed machine, which the High Court granted (while allowing the authority to retrieve any data from it first), even though an application for leave to appeal the acquittal was still pending.
Decision Breakdown
The Appropriate Authority argued that Section 29 of the Act required records and case property to be preserved until "such proceedings" attained finality, including any pending appeal. The Supreme Court held that after 16 years, with the doctor acquitted by two courts and no specified time limit fixed by the statute or any notification for how long the machine had to stay sealed, there was no justifiable reason to keep it locked up indefinitely, doing so would only render the machine useless. The Court noted the High Court had already built in a safeguard letting the authority retrieve any needed data before the seal was opened, in the doctor's presence, and found this adequately protected the authority's interests. The appeals were dismissed, though the underlying question of law was left open for a future case.
Lesson Learnt
Seized property cannot be held in official custody indefinitely merely because litigation is still technically pending, especially once the person has been acquitted by more than one court, and courts will look for a practical solution that protects both evidentiary needs and the owner's livelihood.