DISTRICT APPROPRIATE AUTHORITY Vs. KAUSHIK BABULAL SHAH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Under challenge in these criminal appeals preferred by the District Appropriate Authority, Ahmedabad is the judgement and order dated 01.10.2012 of the Gujarat High Court wherein the issue regarding opening of the seal of the ceased sonography machine which was case property (mudammal) was decided by the court in favor of the Respondent. The court observed that the Respondent had been acquitted both by the Trial Court as well as the appellate Court, and thus directed the seal to be opened. The High Court further directed that if any data was to be recovered from the machine then the Appellant Authority was at liberty to keep their Engineer present at the time of the opening of the seal of the sonography machine and retrieve any such data, and the same to be done in the presence of the Appellant. The subsequent judgement and order dated 22.10.2012 is also under challenge wherein the recall application preferred by the Appellant was dismissed in limine.

(2.) The factual matrix giving rise to the present appeal is as follows

(3.) It is the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that as per Section 29 of the PC & PNDT Act all the records and documents have to be maintained and preserved till the criminal proceedings are completely disposed of. It is submitted that in the order dated 01.10.2012 wherein the High Court has directed opening the seal of the sealed sonography machine, the Court has not considered the fact that a Criminal Appeal challenging the acquittal order passed by the Trial Court and the appellate court is still pending before the High Court. An order directing the opening of the seal of the sealed sonography machine during the pendency of the appeal is thus contradictory to the law laid down in Section 29 and Section 30 of the Act, and Rules 9 & 12 of the Rules 1996 and is liable to be set aside.