Sealed Sonography Machine May Be Released as Court Upholds High Court Direction Allowing Opening for Data Retrieval

A bench of Justices Bela M. Trivedi and Prasanna B. Varale heard appeals by the District Appropriate Authority, Ahmedabad challenging the Gujarat High Court’s orders permitting the opening of a sealed sonography machine and refusing a recall application; the appeals questioned whether the seal could be removed while criminal proceedings remained pending.

The Court dismissed the appeals and upheld the High Court’s direction to open the seal, holding that indefinite preservation of the machine—sealed since 2009—was unreasonable and unjustified. The Court noted that records preserved under Section 29 of the Pre-Conception and Pre-Natal Diagnostic Techniques (PC & PNDT) Act required preservation for prescribed periods or until final disposal of proceedings, but found no basis to keep the machine sealed for an extended and indefinite period. The Court affirmed the High Court’s safeguard that, “if such data is to be retrieved, respondent No.2 Authority may keep their Engineer concerned present at the time of opening of the seal of the sonography machine in presence of the petitioner and may retrieve the data as required.” The Court, in its reasoning, observed: “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.”

Background The dispute arose from a sting operation conducted on 26.05.2009 at Manthan Imaging Centre, Maninagar, where the respondent sonologist allegedly disclosed fetal sex for consideration of Rs.10,000. The District Appropriate Authority registered a complaint on 27.05.2009, seized and sealed the sonography machine, and noted incomplete maintenance of Form ‘F’ under the PC & PNDT Act. Criminal proceedings were instituted under Sections 4(1), 5(2), 6(1), 23(1) of the Act and related Rules of 1996.

The respondent challenged the sealing in the Gujarat High Court; a Single Judge initially directed opening the seal on 30.06.2009, but the Division Bench set aside that order on 07.12.2009 and directed the trial court to proceed expeditiously. The Metropolitan Magistrate acquitted the respondent on 04.12.2012 and ordered return of seized property after the appeal period; the Sessions Court confirmed acquittal on 23.08.2012. Thereafter the respondent filed Special Criminal Application No.1503/2012 seeking removal of the seal; the High Court allowed the petition on 01.10.2012, directing release within 15 days and permitting the Appropriate Authority’s engineer to be present when the seal was opened to retrieve any data. The High Court recorded: “Therefore, considering the right of the present petitioner original accused regarding the use of the machine for his earning or livelihood... this exercise may be done within a period of 15 days from today...” The Authority’s recall application was dismissed on 22.10.2012, and a separate Criminal Misc. Application seeking leave to appeal against acquittal remained pending.

On appeal to this Court, counsel for the Authority relied on Section 29’s proviso that records should be preserved till final disposal, arguing the pending leave application justified continued sealing. The respondent contended that preservation obligations did not permit indefinite sealing once acquittal was confirmed, and that the High Court’s direction safeguarded the Authority’s interest. The Supreme Court examined Sections 29 and 30 of the PC & PNDT Act and Section 451 CrPC principles on custody and disposal of property, and concluded there was no reason to keep the machine sealed for 16 years; the High Court’s balanced direction sufficiently protected evidentiary interests. The appeals were dismissed. The question of law, if any, was kept open.

Case Details: Case No.: 2025 INSC 637 Case Title: District Appropriate Authority v. Kaushik Babulal Shah & Anr. Appearances: For the Petitioner(s): [Not indicated in judgment] For the Respondent(s): [Not indicated in judgment]