Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Dr. Tukaram Karde, a BHMS medical practitioner and owner of Bhagwant Hospital and Genetic Clinic in Washi, was convicted under Section 23 of the Pre-Conception and Pre-natal Diagnostic Techniques (Prohibition of Sex Selection) Act, 1994 read with Rule 9(4) of the Rules, 1996. The conviction was based on an inspection conducted on 17.02.2011 by the Taluka Appropriate Authority and a district-level squad, which revealed that the clinic had not maintained registers in prescribed forms, consent forms after 27.12.2009 were missing, case records were unavailable, and the sonologist Dr. Jagtap had stopped visiting from 06.01.2010. Despite this, the petitioner had submitted nil reports to the authorities. The trial court convicted the petitioner, and the appellate court confirmed the conviction. In revision, the High Court held that the petitioner, as the owner of the clinic, was responsible for maintaining records and submitting returns. The fact that the sonologist was separately permitted did not absolve the owner of his statutory duties. The court found no perversity in the concurrent findings and dismissed the revision application.
Headnote
A) Medical Law - Pre-Conception and Pre-natal Diagnostic Techniques Act, 1994 - Section 23 r/w Rule 9(4) - Vicarious Liability of Clinic Owner - The petitioner, owner of a genetic clinic, was convicted for non-maintenance of prescribed registers and consent forms, and for submitting false nil reports despite sonography being conducted. The court held that the owner cannot escape liability by blaming the sonologist, as the duty to maintain records and submit returns is on the person conducting the clinic. The conviction was upheld. (Paras 1-10)
B) Criminal Procedure - Revision - Scope of Revisional Jurisdiction - The High Court in revision examined the legality and propriety of the concurrent findings of the trial court and appellate court. The court found no perversity or illegality in the findings and declined to interfere. (Paras 1-2)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the petitioner, as owner of the genetic clinic, is liable for the failure to maintain prescribed records and for submitting false nil reports under the PCPNDT Act, 1994 and Rules, 1996.
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the criminal revision application, upholding the conviction and sentence of the petitioner under Section 23 of the PCPNDT Act read with Rule 9(4) of the Rules, 1996.
Law Points
- Vicarious liability of clinic owner
- Strict compliance with record-keeping under PCPNDT Act
- False nil reports as violation
- Rule 9(4) of PCPNDT Rules
- 1996
Case Details
2023 LawText (BOM) (09) 5
Criminal Revision Application No.183 of 2021 with APPLN/2726/2022
Mr. Rajendra Deshmukh, Senior Advocate a/w Mr. Shriram V. Deshmukh i/b Mr. V.M. Maney for Petitioner; Mr. S.B. Narwade, APP for Respondent Nos.1 & 2
Dr. Tukaram s/o Ramkrishana Karde
The State of Maharashtra, Dr. Rajabhau s/o Vishwanath Galande
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Criminal revision application against conviction under PCPNDT Act
Remedy Sought
Petitioner sought to quash the judgments of conviction and sentence passed by the trial court and appellate court
Filing Reason
Petitioner was convicted for non-maintenance of prescribed records and submission of false nil reports under the PCPNDT Act
Previous Decisions
Trial court convicted the petitioner in R.C.C. No.30 of 2011 on 12.01.2016; appellate court confirmed the conviction in Criminal Appeal No.03 of 2016 on 30.11.2021
Issues
Whether the petitioner, as owner of the genetic clinic, is liable for the failure to maintain prescribed records and for submitting false nil reports under the PCPNDT Act, 1994 and Rules, 1996.
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioner argued that he was not the person conducting sonography; the sonologist Dr. Jagtap was separately permitted and responsible for records.
Prosecution contended that the petitioner, as owner, was responsible for maintaining records and submitting returns, and the nil reports were false.
Ratio Decidendi
The owner of a genetic clinic is vicariously liable for non-maintenance of prescribed records and submission of false returns under the PCPNDT Act, even if the sonologist is separately permitted. The duty to maintain records and submit returns is on the person conducting the clinic.
Judgment Excerpts
The petitioner has been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 23 of the Pre-Conception and Pre-natal Diagnostic Techniques (Prohibition of Sex Selection) Act, 1994 r/w Rule 9(4) of the Pre-Conception and Pre-natal Diagnostic Techniques (Prohibition of Sex Selection) Rules, 1996.
The petitioner was the medical practitioner and owner of Hospital and Genetic Clinic, under the name and style 'Bhagwant Hospital' at Washi.
In the inspection, they noticed many irregularities. The registers were not maintained in the prescribed forms. The consent forms after 27.12.2009 were not available. The case record was also not available.
Procedural History
The petitioner was convicted by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Washi, in R.C.C. No.30 of 2011 on 12.01.2016. The conviction was confirmed by the Additional Sessions Judge-1, Bhoom, in Criminal Appeal No.03 of 2016 on 30.11.2021. The petitioner then filed the present criminal revision application before the High Court.
Acts & Sections
- Pre-Conception and Pre-natal Diagnostic Techniques (Prohibition of Sex Selection) Act, 1994: Section 23
- Pre-Conception and Pre-natal Diagnostic Techniques (Prohibition of Sex Selection) Rules, 1996: Rule 9(4)
