Case Note & Summary
The petitioners, doctors running a hospital and sonography centre, sought quashing of a criminal complaint filed by the Appropriate Authority under the Preconception and Prenatal Diagnostic Techniques (Prohibition of Sex Selection) Act, 1994 (the Act) and the corresponding Rules. The complaint alleged five deficiencies in the maintenance of records following an inspection on 9 May 2012. These included using an old Form F format missing the words 'Non-invasive', failure to get entry of a portable sonography machine in the registration certificate, non-specification of time for the sonologist in the certificate, discrepancies in signatures on forms due to poor carbon copy print, and non-mention of reasons for abortion in the records. The petitioners argued that the defects were minor and that some pertained to the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act, not the PCPNDT Act. They also contended that Petitioner No.2 could not be prosecuted because the clinic registration stood only in the name of Petitioner No.1. The respondents maintained that the records were not properly kept, pointing out that Form F itself includes a column for MTP advice, and that the reply to the show-cause notice had admitted certain defects. The court examined the scheme of the Act, highlighting the proviso to Section 4(3) which deems any deficiency or inaccuracy in the complete record of ultrasonography as a contravention of Sections 5 or 6 unless the person conducting it proves otherwise. It further noted that the definition of 'Genetic Clinic' under Section 2(d) covers all places where prenatal diagnostic procedures are conducted. Without going into the factual adjudication of each defect, the court held that the presence of deficiencies, whether minor or major, prima facie attracted the penal provisions, and the complaint could not be quashed at the threshold. The petition was dismissed, and the prosecution was allowed to proceed.
Headnote
A) Criminal Procedure - Quashing of Complaint - Preconception and Prenatal Diagnostic Techniques (Prohibition of Sex Selection) Act, 1994, Sections 23, 29 - Maintainability of prosecution for record-keeping deficiencies - Deficiencies in Form F including use of old format missing 'Non-invasive', non-specification of sonologist time, and signature discrepancies were alleged - Petitioners sought quashing on grounds that defects were minor - Court examined statutory scheme and held that any deficiency or inaccuracy in records under proviso to Section 4(3) amounts to contravention unless contrary proved; prosecution should proceed (Paras 3-13). B) Interpretation of Statutes - PCPNDT Act, Section 4(3) proviso read with Rule 9 - Meaning of 'complete record' and 'deficiency or inaccuracy' - Form F is mandatory and must be complete; any missing information or incorrect format is a contravention - The burden is on the person conducting ultrasonography to prove no contravention - Held that using old Form F (missing 'Non-invasive') and not specifying time or reasons constitutes deficiency (Paras 11-13). C) Criminal Liability - Vicarious Liability - PCPNDT Act, Section 23 - Liability of persons managing clinic when registration in name of one - Both petitioners were managing the hospital - Court held that the Act covers all persons conducting prenatal diagnostic procedures; mere registration in one name does not absolve the other person in management from liability (Paras 7, 12).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the criminal complaint for violation of the Preconception and Prenatal Diagnostic Techniques (Prohibition of Sex Selection) Act, 1994 and Rules, 1996 should be quashed based on alleged deficiencies in maintenance of records, and whether both petitioners are liable for prosecution.
Final Decision
The criminal writ petition is dismissed. The complaint in S.C.C. No.863 of 2012 pending before the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Sillod is not quashed. The prosecution under Sections 23 and 29 of the PCPNDT Act may proceed. The court held that the deficiencies in maintaining records are not minor and the matter should be adjudicated at trial.
Law Points
- Proviso to Section 4(3) of PCPNDT Act creates a presumption of contravention
- any deficiency or inaccuracy in records amounts to contravention of Sections 5 or 6 unless contrary proved
- Rule 9 mandates maintenance of records in prescribed Form F
- use of old Form F is violation
- minor or major violation is immaterial
- both persons managing clinic are liable for prosecution under the Act
