Case Note & Summary
The criminal writ petition sought quashing of a complaint filed by the Appropriate Authority under the Pre-Conception and Pre-Natal Diagnostic Techniques (Prohibition of Sex Selection) Act, 1994 and the Rules of 1996. The petitioners, two medical practitioners running Jyoti Maternity Home and Sonography Clinic, were accused of various deficiencies in maintaining statutory records, particularly Form F. The inspection conducted on 4th June 2012 led to sealing of sonography machines and suspension of registration, which the first petitioner challenged successfully in an earlier writ petition. During that pendency, Criminal Case No. 1635 of 2012 was lodged making both petitioners accused. The complaint alleged that records were not kept as required; Form F had multiple deficiencies: column 10 on invasive procedures was not filled, sonography results were falsely recorded as 'normal' when actually abnormal, 42 forms were pre-filled with 'normal' even before patient examination, blank pages bore signed sonologist signatures in advance, affidavits lacked patient signatures or sonologist signatures, monthly reports omitted MTP entries, and photographs of deities were pasted on the sonography machine. The petitioners contended that the second petitioner had no role in the centre, the forms used were old versions due to inadvertence, writing 'N.A.' for non-applicable invasive columns was proper, pasting deity photographs was not a rule violation, and pre-signing of forms was done by a relative to save time without criminal intent. They stressed that no allegation of sex disclosure had been made. The respondents argued that the inspection videography and documents revealed serious irregularities, false entries, and advance signatures, which prima facie violated the Act, and that the explanations offered were mere defences to be tested at trial. The court examined the relevant provisions, especially the proviso to Section 4(3) of the Act and Rule 9, and considered previous judgments of the High Court where similar matters were quashed due to lack of criminal intent. The court observed that the essential ingredient of sex selection or determination was missing, and the complaint essentially revolved around defective record-keeping without any nexus to disclosure of foetal sex. The judgment was reserved on 8th April 2014 and pronounced on 9th May 2014, but the operative part is not included in the extracted text.
Headnote
A) Criminal Procedure - Quashing of Complaint - Exercise of Inherent Powers - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, Section 482 - To quash a criminal complaint, the court examines if the allegations in the complaint, taken at face value, disclose the commission of an offence. If the complaint is vague or does not make out a prima facie case, proceedings may be quashed. The court observed that where the complaint alleges only defective maintenance of records and does not allege disclosure of sex of foetus, the essential ingredient of sex selection is missing, and criminal proceedings are liable to be quashed. (Paras 4-9) B) Pre-Conception and Pre-Natal Diagnostic Techniques Act - Maintenance of Records - Form F Deficiencies - Pre-Conception and Pre-Natal Diagnostic Techniques (Prohibition of Sex Selection) Act, 1994, Sections 4, 5, 6; Rule 9 of PCPNDT Rules, 1996 - The proviso to Section 4(3) mandates keeping complete record of ultrasonography; deficiency or inaccuracy amounts to contravention unless contrary is proved. However, for criminal liability, the deficiency must be such as to indicate a deliberate attempt to violate the Act. The court noted that where the deficiencies were technical, such as using old form, writing 'normal' when report was abnormal but no evidence of sex disclosure, and pre-signing of blank forms by sonologist, no prima facie case of violation of the Act is made out, especially when the explanation was that the forms were printed earlier and used inadvertently. (Paras 6, 7, 10) C) Pre-Conception and Pre-Natal Diagnostic Techniques Act - Pasting Photographs of Deities on Sonography Machine - Not a Violation - The court noted that merely pasting photographs of Gods and Goddesses on the sonography machine does not violate any specific rule under the PCPNDT Act, consistent with earlier view in Dr. Prakash Chaudhari case. (Para 7) D) Criminal Liability - Mens Rea - Requirement of Intent - Mere irregularities or procedural lapses in filling forms, without any criminal intent to conceal or to facilitate sex selection, do not constitute an offence under the PCPNDT Act. The court distinguished between technical breaches and intentional violations, observing that the complaint must allege a nexus between the deficient records and an intention to determine or disclose the sex of the foetus. (Paras 7-10) E) Pre-Conception and Pre-Natal Diagnostic Techniques Act - False Entries - Writing 'Normal' for Abnormal Sonography - Explanation - Act, 1994, Section 4(3) proviso - Where sonography results were abnormal but were recorded as 'normal' in Form F, such false entry is a serious deficiency and may amount to contravention. However, the court observed that if the complaint does not link this false entry to any act of sex selection or disclosure, the explanation that the error was inadvertent may be considered. (Paras 6, 7, 10)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the complaint filed under the Pre-Conception and Pre-Natal Diagnostic Techniques (Prohibition of Sex Selection) Act, 1994 and Rules made thereunder, alleging deficiencies in filling of Form F and maintenance of records, without any averment of disclosure of sex of foetus, makes out a prima facie case constituting an offence, warranting continuation of criminal proceedings.
Law Points
- Mere deficiencies in maintenance of records without criminal intent not sufficient to constitute offence under PCPNDT Act
- Using old forms inadvertently may not attract penal provisions
- Pasting photographs of deities on sonography machine is not a violation of Rules
- Explanations in additional affidavit are matters of defence and not to be considered at quashing stage
- For quashing complaint test is whether allegations in complaint prima facie make out offence
- Writing 'N.A.' in non-applicable columns does not amount to incomplete filling
- Taking signatures of sonologist in advance in blank forms may constitute irregularity but criminality requires intent
