Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, a medical practitioner running a hospital at Rahata, faced inspection on 16 July 2007 by the Medical Superintendent (Respondent No.2) and other officers under the Pre-conception and Pre-natal Diagnostic Techniques (Prohibition of Sex Selection) Act, 1994. Technical discrepancies in maintaining Form F records were found, leading to a show cause notice, suspension of sonography machine registration, and sealing of machines. A complaint (R.T.C. No.153/2007) was filed before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Rahata, under Section 29 and Rule 9(4) of the Act, alleging defects such as incomplete Form F (missing information on living children, failure to fill columns 1-18, signature by owner instead of radiologist), absence of mandated public notice in the sonography room, and non-availability of a copy of the Act and Rules in the OPD. Summons were issued. The petitioner’s Criminal Revision No.17/2008 was dismissed by the Sessions Judge, Kopargaon, prompting the present writ petition seeking quashment of the complaint. The petitioner contended that the lapses were mere irregularities, not illegalities, and relied on guidelines issued by the State Appropriate Authority to argue that such defects should be ignored, and also cited several earlier High Court decisions where similar complaints were quashed. The respondents, through an affidavit-in-reply, asserted that the records were incomplete and that the deficiencies violated the Act and Rules, attracting penal consequences. The court examined Section 4, its proviso, Rule 9, and Rule 10. It observed that while deficiency in record-keeping amounts to contravention unless the accused proves otherwise, the complaint here merely listed technical defects without specific allegations as to how they contravened Section 5 or 6. The court applied the ratio of earlier precedents to hold that inadvertent blanks or general incomplete forms do not automatically make out an offence. The court also clarified that administrative guidelines cannot override statutory provisions. Finding no substantive violation disclosed, the court allowed the petition and quashed the complaint and proceedings before the Magistrate.
Headnote
A) Pre-conception and Pre-natal Diagnostic Techniques (Prohibition of Sex Selection) Act, 1994 - Section 4, proviso - Maintenance of Records - Deficiency or inaccuracy in record-keeping amounts to contravention of Section 5 or 6 unless the person conducting ultrasonography proves contrary - The Court found that incomplete entries in Form F, such as missing information on living children or signature by owner instead of radiologist, do not automatically constitute a criminal offence; the complaint must specifically allege how such deficiency contravened the Act. Held, the complaint based solely on technical defects without proof of contravention is quashed. (Paras 5,8-9) B) Pre-conception and Pre-natal Diagnostic Techniques (Prohibition of Sex Selection) Rules, 1996 - Rule 9 - Form F requirements - The Rule mandates maintenance of records as per Form F, but not every non-compliance attracts penal liability. The Court observed that defects like not displaying board in the sonography room or missing copy of the Act and Rules are matters of evidence, not per se offences. (Paras 5,8) C) Criminal Procedure - Quashing of proceedings - Precedents - Following earlier decisions of the same court in Dr. Pratidnya Jayesh Shinde, Dr. Alka Gite, Dr. Uma Shankar Rachewad, Dr. Ravindra Karmudi, and Dr. Tushar Patil, the Court held that a complaint based on incomplete Form F without clear allegation of contravention can be quashed. The complaint must attribute responsibility for record-keeping to the accused. (Paras 6,8)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the complaint filed under the Pre-conception and Pre-natal Diagnostic Techniques (Prohibition of Sex Selection) Act, 1994 and Rules should be quashed on the ground that the alleged defects are mere irregularities and do not make out any criminal offence.
Final Decision
The petition was allowed. The complaint R.T.C. No.153/2007 and all proceedings arising therefrom pending before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Rahata were quashed. The court held that the complaint based solely on technical defects in Form F without specific proof of contravention of Sections 5 or 6 did not constitute a criminal offence.
Law Points
- Maintenance of records under Section 4 proviso and Rule 9 requires complete record
- any deficiency or inaccuracy amounts to contravention unless the accused proves contrary
- mere technical deficiencies in Form F without specific allegation of contravention of Section 5 or 6 do not constitute criminal offence
- guidelines issued by State Appropriate Authority cannot override statutory provisions
