Case Note & Summary
This criminal writ petition was filed before the High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Bench at Aurangabad, seeking quashing of R.C.C. No. 56 of 2012 pending before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Jamner. The complaint was lodged by the Appropriate Authority under the Preconception and Prenatal Diagnostic Techniques (Prohibition of Sex Selection) Act, 1994 and the corresponding Rules, alleging that the petitioners, who operated a hospital and registered sonography centre, had committed various record-keeping violations. Specifically, during an inspection, it was discovered that F Forms for several pregnant women were incomplete; signatures or thumb impressions were not obtained on declarations; columns regarding number of children, missed abortion, and MTP advice were left blank; and overall maintenance of records was deficient. The petitioners contended that they had submitted all information online and that manual hard copies were not essential. They argued that any gaps were inadvertent and did not amount to criminal offences, relying on several previous decisions of the High Court where similar petitions had been allowed. They also maintained that Petitioner No. 2, a doctor running a maternity home, was wrongly implicated as she was not the handler of the sonography machine. The respondent, through the Public Prosecutor, countered that the Act and Rules mandate physical record-keeping, online submission being additional only, and that the deficiencies found constituted prima facie offences. The Court reproduced Section 4(3) of the Act and Rule 9 of the Rules, highlighting that any deficiency or inaccuracy in maintaining records amounts to contravention of Sections 5 or 6 unless the contrary is proved. The judgment text provided is truncated and does not contain the Court’s final analysis or order; consequently, the decision and ratio decidendi could not be extracted.
Issue of Consideration
Whether the complaint against the petitioners for alleged violations of Sections 4(3), 5, 6, 23, 25, 28 and Rules 9(1),(4), 10(1A) of the Preconception and Prenatal Diagnostic Techniques (Prohibition of Sex Selection) Act, 1994 and Rules should be quashed on grounds of compliance with online submissions and alleged defects not constituting offences.
Law Points
- Deficiency or inaccuracy in maintaining records as per PCPNDT Act constitutes contravention of Sections 5 or 6 unless contrary is proved
- Online submission of forms does not substitute physical maintenance of records as required by Act and Rules
- Strict compliance with record-keeping under Rule 9 is required
- Incomplete F Forms and missing signatures can amount to offences under the PCPNDT Act
Case Details
2014 LawText (BOM) (05) 4
Criminal Writ Petition No. 255 of 2013
Shri B.R. Kedar (for Petitioners), Shri S.V. Kurundkar (Public Prosecutor) with Shri V.D. Godbharle and Mrs. S.G. Chincholkar (A.P.P.)
Dr. Ravindra Kadu Patil & Dr. Sudarshana Vinay Sonwane
The State of Maharashtra, Through Dr. B.R. Sonwane
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Criminal writ petition seeking quashing of complaint filed under the Preconception and Prenatal Diagnostic Techniques (Prohibition of Sex Selection) Act, 1994.
Remedy Sought
Petitioners sought quashing of R.C.C. No.56 of 2012 pending before J.M.F.C., Jamner.
Filing Reason
Petitioners alleged that they had complied with the Act and Rules, and that the complaint based on alleged deficiencies in maintaining F Forms and records was unfounded.
Previous Decisions
The sonography machine was sealed on 5th December 2011; the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Jamner ordered opening of the seal on 19th May 2012; Writ Petition No.2121 of 2012 was withdrawn on 20th June 2012; the District Advisory Committee reportedly accepted the petitioners' explanation and recommended opening the seal.
Issues
Whether incomplete or inaccurate F Forms and missing signatures constitute offences under Sections 4(3), 5, 6 of the PCPNDT Act read with Rules 9 and 10?
Whether online submission of forms can substitute physical record maintenance under the Act and Rules?
Whether Dr. Sudarshana Sonwane (Petitioner No.2) can be held liable as a handler of the sonography machine when registration shows only Petitioner No.1?
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioners argued that online forms were complete, manual records were not necessary, blank columns were inadvertent and did not attract criminal liability, and relied on previous High Court decisions quashing similar complaints. They also contended that Petitioner No.2 was wrongly implicated.
Respondent argued that hard copies of records are mandatory under the Act and Rules, online submission is additional only, and the deficiencies found—missing signatures, blank columns—made out a prima facie case for the offences alleged.
Judgment Excerpts
The complaint filed makes out prima facie case. The Respondent wants the Petition to be rejected.
any deficiency or inaccuracy found therein shall amount to contravention of provisions of section 5 or section 6 unless contrary is proved by the person conducting such ultra sonography
Procedural History
Petitioners operated hospital and registered sonography centre. Permission renewal applied on 14-10-2011, granted on 03-11-2012 w.e.f. 17-11-2011. Panchnama conducted on 01-12-2011; sonography machine sealed on 05-12-2011. Show cause notice issued on 09-12-2011; petitioners replied on 12-12-2011. Judicial Magistrate ordered opening of seal on 19-05-2012. Writ Petition No.2121/2012 withdrawn on 20-06-2012. Complaint R.C.C. No.56/2012 filed. Present writ petition filed in 2013, admitted and heard finally; judgment reserved on 08-04-2014 and pronounced on 09-05-2014.
Acts & Sections
- Preconception and Prenatal Diagnostic Techniques (Prohibition of Sex Selection) Act, 1994: 4(3), 5, 6, 23, 25, 27, 28
- Preconception and Prenatal Diagnostic Techniques (Prohibition of Sex Selection) Rules, 1996: 9(1), 9(4), 10(1A)
