Case Note & Summary
The matter arose from a criminal writ petition filed by a gynecologist running a registered ultrasound clinic in Nanded, challenging the criminal complaint lodged by the Appropriate Authority under the Pre-conception and Pre-natal Diagnostic Techniques (Prohibition of Sex Selection) Act, 1994. The petitioner sought quashment of R.C.C. No. 421 of 2011 pending before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nanded. The complaint alleged that an inspection on 31 March 2011 revealed several irregularities in the maintenance of Form F, including frequent use of 'N.A.' in the forms, non-submission of a reply to a show cause notice, incomplete filling of forms for patients examined between 8 and 26 March 2011, missing consent/declaration parts for cases from April 2009 to March 2010, and absence of a combined warning board in English and Marathi. Based on these findings, the Authority charged the petitioner under sections 4(3), 5, 23, 29, and 30 of the Act. The core legal issue was whether such procedural irregularities constituted offences under the PCPNDT Act, particularly when there was no allegation of sex determination, sex selection, or communication of the sex of the foetus. The petitioner contended that the lapses were technical and did not attract penal liability, while the prosecution asserted that they violated the statutory record-keeping requirements. The court, after reviewing the seized records and hearing both sides, examined each allegation. It observed that the use of 'N.A.' to indicate non-applicable entries in the multi-purpose Form F was a standard practice and did not amount to incomplete or inaccurate record-keeping, as many fields were irrelevant to an ultrasound clinic. Regarding the forms for March 2011 cases, the court noted that only the diagnostic details were missing while patient names and consent parts had been filled; the monthly report was due by 5 April 2011, and the petitioner had time to complete them before the deadline. Therefore, no contravention occurred. With respect to the missing consent/declaration parts for the 2009–2010 period, the court accepted the explanation that doctors commonly keep the two parts of Form F separately, and since both parts existed, there was no deficiency or violation of section 5. The court emphasized that the complaint did not allege any substantive breach such as conducting sex determination or failing to obtain informed consent. It held that mere technical irregularities without evidence of mens rea or core statutory violations could not sustain criminal prosecution under the Act. Consequently, the court concluded that no offence was disclosed under any of the charged sections and allowed the writ petition, quashing the criminal case. The judgment favored the accused.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - PCPNDT Act - Record Keeping Requirements - Section 4(3) proviso, Pre-conception and Pre-natal Diagnostic Techniques (Prohibition of Sex Selection) Act, 1994 - The proviso mandates complete record of ultrasonography and any deficiency or inaccuracy amounts to contravention of sections 5 or 6; however, the use of 'N.A.' (Not Applicable) in Form F for items irrelevant to the clinic or patient does not amount to incomplete filling or inaccuracy. Held that such practice is permissible and does not constitute an offence. (Paras 4-7) B) Criminal Law - PCPNDT Act - Time for Filling Records - Rule 9(4), PCPNDT Rules, 1996 - Alleged non-filling of Form F for patients examined a few days before inspection on 31.03.2011; the monthly report was due by 5th April 2011. Since the forms were partially filled and diagnosis information could be filled before the due date, no contravention occurred. Held that the petitioner was within the time allowed to complete the records. (Para 8) C) Criminal Law - PCPNDT Act - Consent and Declaration Forms - Section 5, Pre-conception and Pre-natal Diagnostic Techniques (Prohibition of Sex Selection) Act, 1994 - The absence of consent/declaration parts of Form F for cases between April 2009 to March 2010, when the main forms were available, was explained by the practice of keeping the two parts separately. Since both parts existed, there was no failure to obtain or retain consent. Held that such a practice does not amount to an offence under the Act. (Paras 9-10) D) Criminal Law - PCPNDT Act - Essential Ingredients of Offences - Sections 4(3), 5, 23, 29, 30, Pre-conception and Pre-natal Diagnostic Techniques (Prohibition of Sex Selection) Act, 1994 - The complaint did not allege any act of sex determination, communication of sex of foetus, or failure to explain side effects and obtain written consent. Mere procedural irregularities in record-keeping, without evidence of substantive contraventions, do not attract penal liability. Held that no offence under the charged sections was disclosed, and the criminal case was quashed. (Para 11)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the alleged irregularities in maintaining records under the Pre-conception and Pre-natal Diagnostic Techniques (Prohibition of Sex Selection) Act, 1994 constitute offences under sections 4(3), 5, 23, 29, and 30 of the Act.
Final Decision
The writ petition is allowed. Criminal Case R.C.C. No. 421 of 2011 pending before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nanded, is quashed. The complaint did not disclose any offence under sections 4(3), 5, 23, 29, 30 of the PCPNDT Act.
Law Points
- Use of 'N.A.' in Form F does not amount to incomplete record or deficiency
- Time to fill up forms before monthly report due date not a contravention
- Keeping consent/declaration parts of Form F separately is a permissible practice and not a deficiency
- Mere procedural irregularities without evidence of sex determination or sex selection do not attract penal provisions under the PCPNDT Act
- Essential ingredients of sections 4
- 5
- 23
- 29
- 30 must be strictly satisfied for criminal liability.
