Ravinder Kumar vs State of Haryana

Held: s.30 is a very drastic provision granting power to the Appropriate Authority or any officer authorized by it to enter a Genetic Laboratory, a Genetic Clinic, or any other place to examine the record found therein, to seize and seal the same – The first part of sub-section (1) of s.30 safeguards these centres or laboratories from arbitrary search and seizure action – The condition precedent for the search of a clinic is that the Appropriate Authority must have reason to believe that an offence under the 1994 Act has been or is being committed – Interpretation of “reason to believe” will depend on the context in which it is used in a particular legislation – Under the 1994 Act, there is a power to initiate action under the statute if the authority has reason to believe that certain facts exist – Thus, the test is whether a reasonable man, under the circumstances placed before him, would be propelled to take action under the statute – Considering the object of the 1994 Act, the expression “reason to believe” cannot be construed in a manner which would create a procedural roadblock – The reason is that once there is any material placed before the Appropriate Authority based on which action of search is required to be undertaken, if the action is delayed, the very object of passing orders of search would be frustrated – Therefore, the complaint or other material received by the appropriate authority or its members should be immediately made available to all its members – After examining the same, the Appropriate authority must expeditiously decide whether there is a reason to believe that an offence under the 1994 Act has been or is being committed and it is not required to record reasons for the same but, there has to be a rational basis to form that belief – However, the decision to take action under sub-section (1) of s.30 must be of the Appropriate Authority and not of its individual members otherwise the decision will be illegal – The Appropriate Authority for the district consisted of the Civil Surgeon, the District Program Officer of the Women and Child Development Department and the District Attorney – On facts, no legal decision was made by the Appropriate Authority in terms of sub-section (1) of s.30 to search for the appellant’s clinic and the decision to carry out the search was an individual decision of the Civil Surgeon-Chairman of the concerned Appropriate Authority – Thus, the action of search is itself vitiated – FIR and complaint were based on the material seized during the raid and since, the search itself is entirely illegal, continuing prosecution based on such an illegal search will be abuse of the process of law – Impugned judgment set aside – FIR and complaint quashed. [Paras 10-14, 16, 17]