Case Note & Summary
The case arose from a Criminal Writ Petition filed by Smt. Zaheda Sayyed, President of Mundadatai Charitable Trust which runs Faijan Multi Speciality Hospital and a sonography centre in Kaij, District Beed. She sought to quash a private complaint filed by the Appropriate Authority under the Pre-conception and Pre-natal Diagnostic Techniques (Prohibition of Sex Selection) Act, 1994 (PC-PNDT Act) and the corresponding Rules of 1996. The complaint alleged that during a raid on 20 June 2011, records revealed incomplete Forms F, and a show cause notice was issued. The petitioner replied acknowledging the use of dash marks but promised future compliance. The Appropriate Authority filed a complaint before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Kaij, under Sections 23, 25, 29 read with 23(1) of the Act and Rules 9(4), 10(1), and 10(1A) against the petitioner and the radiologist, Dr. Pradip Dama. Process was issued against both. The petitioner’s Criminal Revision No.26 of 2012 was dismissed by the Sessions Court at Ambajogai. Meanwhile, the proceedings against Dr. Dama were quashed by the High Court on 28 January 2014. The petitioner contended she is a 10th-fail housewife with no medical knowledge and thus not responsible for maintaining the records; she claimed due diligence and relied on several High Court judgments where similar cases were quashed. The State argued the complaint averred she herself examined pregnant women, her reply admitted deficiencies, and as President she was in charge of the business, making her liable under Section 26; due diligence was a matter for trial. The court examined Sections 4, 23, and 26 of the Act and Rule 9, observing that Section 4(1) prohibits any person from using or causing to be used a place for pre-natal diagnostic techniques except under conditions. The petitioner, being such a person, could not escape liability merely because she is non-medical. The defence of due diligence is a trial defence. The admission of incomplete records established a prima facie case. The quashing of the co-accused’s case did not affect her independent liability. The extract of the judgment ends without the final operative order, but the reasoning consistently rejected the petitioner’s contentions and indicated that the complaint could not be quashed.
Headnote
A) Criminal Procedure - Quashing of Complaint - Liability under Special Statute - Pre-conception and Pre-natal Diagnostic Techniques (Prohibition of Sex Selection) Act, 1994, Sections 23, 26 - The court held that a person who is the President of a trust running a sonography centre and is in charge of its business is prima facie liable for violations; the question of whether the offence was committed without knowledge or after due diligence is a defence to be considered at trial, not at the stage of quashing (Paras 7, 9-10). B) Medical Law - Pre-natal Diagnostic Techniques - Record Maintenance - Pre-conception and Pre-natal Diagnostic Techniques Rules, 1996, Rule 9(4) - The complaint alleged incomplete filling of Form F; the petitioner's reply admitted to using dash marks instead of completely filling the form, which the court found to constitute a prima facie case of contravention (Paras 6-8). C) Interpretation of Statutes - Person Liable - Section 4(1) of Pre-conception and Pre-natal Diagnostic Techniques (Prohibition of Sex Selection) Act, 1994 - The term "person" includes any individual who uses or causes to be used a place for prenatal diagnostic techniques, not limited to medical professionals; thus, the petitioner as owner/in-charge is covered (Para 10). D) Criminal Law - Effect of Quashing Against Co-Accused - The quashing of proceedings against the co-accused radiologist does not automatically exonerate the petitioner; liability must be assessed independently based on the statutory scheme (Para 9).
Issue of Consideration
Whether a non-medical President of a charitable trust running a sonography centre can be held liable under the Pre-conception and Pre-natal Diagnostic Techniques (Prohibition of Sex Selection) Act, 1994 for violations by the appointed radiologist, and whether the complaint against her should be quashed.
Law Points
- liability under PC-PNDT Act extends to any person owning or using a sonography centre
- non-medical status no defence
- due diligence under Section 26 is a trial defence
- quashing of co-accused proceedings does not automatically absolve petitioner
