Case Note & Summary
The petitioners, Dr. Ravindra Kadu Patil and Dr. Sudarshana Vinay Sonwane, are medical practitioners running a registered sonography center. Their registration certificate expired in 2011 and was renewed in 2012. Prior to renewal, an inspection was conducted on 3rd November 2012, leading to a criminal complaint under the Pre-Conception and Pre-Natal Diagnostic Techniques (Prohibition of Sex Selection) Act, 1994 (PCPNDT Act). The petitioners filed a discharge application in RCC No. 56/2012, which was dismissed on 13th January 2015. Their criminal revision (Criminal Revision Application No. 19/2015) was also dismissed on 5th October 2017. Aggrieved, they filed the present writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution and Section 482 CrPC. The core legal issue was whether the prosecution could proceed without a valid sanction under Section 28 of the PCPNDT Act. The petitioners argued that no sanction order was ever produced and that the prosecution was thus void. The State contended that sanction was granted but failed to produce the order. The court analyzed the requirement of sanction under Section 28, noting that it is a mandatory precondition. Since the sanction order was not placed on record and the prosecution could not demonstrate its existence, the court held that the proceedings were unsustainable. The court quashed the criminal proceedings and set aside the orders of the trial court and revisional court.
Headnote
A) Criminal Procedure - Quashing of Proceedings - Section 482 CrPC - Sanction under Section 28 PCPNDT Act - The court considered whether criminal proceedings under the PCPNDT Act could proceed without a valid sanction order. Held that sanction under Section 28 is a condition precedent for prosecution and its absence renders the proceedings void ab initio. The court quashed the proceedings. (Paras 1-10) B) Medical Law - Pre-Conception and Pre-Natal Diagnostic Techniques Act - Section 28 - Sanction for Prosecution - The issue was whether the Appropriate Authority had validly granted sanction for prosecution of the petitioners. The court found that the sanction order was not placed on record and the prosecution failed to establish its existence. Held that without valid sanction, the prosecution cannot continue. (Paras 5-10) C) Constitutional Law - Writ Jurisdiction - Articles 226 and 227 - The court exercised its writ jurisdiction to quash criminal proceedings where the trial court and revisional court had erroneously rejected the discharge application despite the absence of sanction. Held that the High Court can interfere to prevent abuse of process. (Paras 1-10)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the criminal proceedings against the petitioners under the Pre-Conception and Pre-Natal Diagnostic Techniques (Prohibition of Sex Selection) Act, 1994 can be sustained in the absence of a valid sanction under Section 28 of the said Act.
Final Decision
The court allowed the writ petition, quashed the criminal proceedings in RCC No. 56/2012, and set aside the orders dated 13.01.2015 and 05.10.2017.
Law Points
- Sanction under Section 28 of PCPNDT Act is mandatory
- Prosecution without valid sanction is void ab initio
- Discharge application must be considered on merits
- Criminal proceedings can be quashed under Section 482 CrPC for lack of sanction
