Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, a radiologist running Indumati Netralaya & Sonography Centre, filed a criminal writ petition before the Bombay High Court to quash the complaint (S.C.C. No.862 of 2012) filed by the Appropriate Authority under the PCPNDT Act. The complaint arose from an inspection on 9th May 2012 where five deficiencies were noticed: (1) Monthly report indication not specified; (2) Form F not according to PNDT Act (Column 11 missing 'Non invasive'); (3) Self-referral of patients without referral slip; (4) Timing of radiologist not displayed outside; (5) Referral slips incomplete, no doctor signature. The petitioner argued that the monthly report format is not prescribed, Form F error was a printing mistake, self-referral is allowed, no rule requires display of timings or doctor signature on referrals, and that the deficiencies do not indicate intent to determine sex. The petitioner relied on several Bombay High Court decisions quashing similar proceedings. The State opposed the petition, contending that the petitioner admitted the defects in reply and there is a prima facie case. The Court examined Section 4 of the Act and Rule 9, noting the proviso that any deficiency or inaccuracy in record keeping amounts to contravention of Sections 5 or 6 unless contrary proved. The judgment excerpt ends during discussion of Rule 9. Final decision unknown.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Quashing of Complaints - Preconception and Prenatal Diagnostic Techniques (Prohibition of Sex Selection) Act, 1994, Sections 4, 5, 6, 23, 29 - Preconception and Prenatal Diagnostic Techniques (Prohibition of Sex Selection) Rules, 1996, Rule 9 - Challenge to complaint filed by Appropriate Authority alleging deficiencies in maintenance of records such as monthly report not specified, Form F not as per Act, self-referrals, timing of radiologist not displayed, incomplete referral slips - Petitioner contended that monthly report format not prescribed, minor printing error in Form F, self-referral permitted, no rule for displaying timing or doctor signature on referral - Relied on earlier decisions of Bombay High Court quashing similar complaints for inadvertent errors - Public Prosecutor argued petitioner admitted defects in reply and prima facie case exists - Court examined provisions of Section 4 and Rule 9 - Held that proviso to Section 4(3) requires keeping complete record and any deficiency or inaccuracy amounts to contravention unless contrary proved (Paras 1-9). (Note: Judgment text incomplete beyond Para 9; final decision not provided in excerpt.)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the criminal complaint for violations under the PCPNDT Act should be quashed for the alleged record-keeping deficiencies.
Final Decision
Not mentioned (judgment excerpt incomplete)
Law Points
- Preconception and Prenatal Diagnostic Techniques (Prohibition of Sex Selection) Act
- 1994
- Section 4
- Section 5
- Section 6
- Section 23
- Section 29
- Preconception and Prenatal Diagnostic Techniques (Prohibition of Sex Selection) Rules
- 1996
- Rule 9
- maintenance of records
- Form F
- self-referral
Case Details
2014 LawText (BOM) (05) 28
Criminal Writ Petition No.21 of 2013
Shri B.R. Warma, Shri C.V. Thombre (for Petitioner); Shri S.V. Kurundkar, Public Prosecutor, Shri V.D. Godbharle, Mrs. S.G. Chincholkar, A.P.P. (for Respondents)
Dr. Vijaymala w/o Vishal Akate
The State of Maharashtra, Through its Secretary, Drugs and Medical Education Department; Medical Superintendent, Sub District Hospital, Sillod and Appropriate Authority
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Criminal writ petition seeking to quash a complaint filed under the Preconception and Prenatal Diagnostic Techniques (Prohibition of Sex Selection) Act, 1994 (PCPNDT Act) for alleged violations of record-keeping requirements.
Remedy Sought
The petitioner seeks quashing of the criminal proceedings (S.C.C. No.862 of 2012) pending before the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Sillod.
Filing Reason
The petitioner claims that no offence is made out based on the deficiencies noted during inspection, as the alleged defects are minor or not mandated by the Act or Rules.
Previous Decisions
The Magistrate issued process on the complaint. No prior orders in this petition are mentioned, but the petition is admitted.
Issues
Whether the allegations in the complaint constitute violations under the PCPNDT Act warranting criminal prosecution.
Whether the deficiencies in record-keeping (monthly report, Form F, self-referral, timing display, referral slips) amount to contraventions of Sections 4, 5, 6, 23, 29 of the Act and Rule 9.
Whether the criminal proceedings should be quashed in light of earlier High Court decisions.
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioner: The defects do not indicate intention to determine sex; monthly report form not prescribed; Form F printing error minor; self-referral allowed; no rule for displaying radiologist's timing or doctor signature on referral; earlier judgments quashed similar complaints.
Respondent: Petitioner admitted defects in reply; prima facie case exists; trial court should consider evidence before framing charge.
Judgment Excerpts
On 9th May, 2012, Medical Superintendent complainant, along with Dr. Madhuri Thorat, Dr. Madhav Munde, Residential Medical Officer, District Civil Hospital, Aurangabad and Divisional Vigilance Cell and Technical Officer visited the hospital Indumati Netralaya and Sonography Centre...
The defects noticed were: "1) Monthly report indication is not specified. 2) Form F including 19 points is not according to PNDT Act Book (Column No.11), 3) Self Referal of patients (without referal slip) is done. 4) Timing of Radiologist not displayed out side. 5) Referal slip are incomplete, No signature of Doctor, No indication."
Provided that the person conducting ultra sonography on a pregnant woman shall keep complete record thereof in the clinic in such manner, as may be prescribed, and 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
On 9th May 2012, inspection conducted; notice issued for 5 lacunae; petitioner replied on 12th May 2012; on 22nd November 2012, sonography machine sealed and registration suspended; on 5th December 2012, complaint filed as S.C.C. No.862 of 2012 before JMFC, Sillod, and process issued; petitioner filed Criminal Writ Petition No.21 of 2013 before Bombay High Court, Aurangabad Bench, which was admitted and heard finally.
Acts & Sections
- Preconception and Prenatal Diagnostic Techniques (Prohibition of Sex Selection) Act, 1994: Section 4, Section 5, Section 6, Section 23, Section 29
- Preconception and Prenatal Diagnostic Techniques (Prohibition of Sex Selection) Rules, 1996: Rule 9
