Medical superintendent of rural hospital at every taluka level is authorised to file a complaint under PCPNDT Act.

Solapur doctor will face trial in sex determination case1

MUMBAI : A Solapur based doctor will face trial for allegedly conducting sex determination tests after the Bombay high court dismissed her petition observing that the complaint filed against her are correct. The court has directed the local magistrate to proceed with framing charges against her.

Justice Roshan Dalvi on June 11, 2013 dismissed a petition by Dr Kavita Kamble, who runs the Krishna Hospital at Karmala. On September 13, 2010 a magistate issued process against her on the evidence of three witnesses whose statements were recorded under the Pre-Conception and Pre-natal Diagnostic Techniques Act. The additional sessions judge dismissed her appeal on November 11, 2011.1

Kamble moved HC contending that that the complainant was not the appropriate authority (AA) for Karmala taluka under the Act to file the complaint. She said the evidence of three witnesses recorded do not make out a case for framing charges and a witness, who is another doctor who seized documents, did not have any authority to do so. She contended that provisions of the Act have not been followed and hence she should have been discharged by the magistrate.

The judge upheld submissions of advocate Jay Mehta and additional public prosecutor Anuradha Mane that according to a notification, the medical superintendent of rural hospital at every taluka level is authorised to file a complaint under the Act. Justice Dalvi noted that in the instant case, the additional collector or sub-divisional officer have been appointed as AA under a notification which is gazetted .

Also that the sub-divisional officer, Solapur, had directed the complainant a medical superintendent of the sub-district hospital, to lodge the complaint against the doctor. Consequently the complaint filed is correct, added Justice Dalvi.

Justice Dalvi said the magistrate has rightly observed that the evidence of the decoy, a pregnant woman on whom the test was conducted, is sufficient to frame charges. Also, that the magistrate considered the purpose of the Act and the Rules with regard to power of seizure of incriminating documents and attachment, by the other witness , a doctor. The complaint is seen to have been correctly filed by the medical superintendent of the Rural Hospital,'' saud Justice Dalvi, adding that magistrate shall proceed to frame charges.

Print Page