Case Note & Summary
The revision petition was filed by Dr. Kavita Pramod Kamble (Londhe), the original accused in Regular Criminal Case No.318 of 2011, challenging her conviction and sentence by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Karmala, District Solapur. She was convicted under Section 23 of the Pre-Conception and Pre-Natal Diagnostic Techniques (Prohibition of Sex Selection) Act, 2003 (PCPNDT Act) for contravention of Sections 5(2), 6, and 4(3) read with Rules 9(4), 10(1A), 9(8), 10, 19(4), 17(1), and 17(2) of the Prenatal Diagnostic Techniques (Regulation and Prevention of Misuse) Amendment Rules, 2003 (PNDT Rules). The trial court sentenced her to rigorous imprisonment for 3 years and fine of Rs.10,000 for contravention of Sections 5(2) and 6; 6 months and fine of Rs.5,000 for contravention of Rule 9(8); and 3 months and fine of Rs.5,000 each for contravention of Rules 19(4), 17(1), and 17(2), with all substantive sentences to run concurrently. The prosecution case was that on a decoy operation, the revision petitioner conducted an ultrasound on a pregnant woman and disclosed the sex of the fetus, and also failed to maintain proper records as mandated. The revision petitioner argued that the trial court erred in convicting her without proper evidence and that the sentence was excessive. The High Court, after examining the evidence, found that the prosecution had proved the contraventions beyond reasonable doubt, particularly the disclosure of sex and failure to maintain records. However, considering the revision petitioner's age (60 years) and that she had already undergone some imprisonment, the court reduced the substantive sentence to the period already undergone, while maintaining the fines. The revision petition was partly allowed to the extent of sentence modification.
Headnote
A) Medical Law - Pre-Conception and Pre-Natal Diagnostic Techniques Act - Contravention of Sections 5(2), 6, 4(3) - Record-Keeping - The revision petitioner, a doctor, was convicted for failing to maintain proper records as required under the PCPNDT Act and Rules, and for disclosing the sex of the fetus to a decoy patient. The court upheld the conviction, holding that the prosecution had proved the contraventions beyond reasonable doubt. (Paras 1-10) B) Criminal Procedure - Revision - Sentencing - Reduction of Sentence - The court, considering the age of the revision petitioner (60 years) and the fact that she had already undergone some imprisonment, reduced the substantive sentence to the period already undergone, while maintaining the fines. (Paras 11-15)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the conviction of the revision petitioner under Section 23 of the PCPNDT Act for contravention of Sections 5(2), 6, and 4(3) read with various Rules is sustainable, and whether the sentence imposed is appropriate.
Final Decision
The revision petition is partly allowed. The conviction is upheld, but the substantive sentence is reduced to the period already undergone by the revision petitioner. The fines are maintained.
Law Points
- Strict compliance with PCPNDT Act and Rules is mandatory
- Non-maintenance of records is a substantive offence
- Disclosure of sex of fetus is prohibited
- Sentence can be reduced considering age and circumstances
