Thursday 15 May 2014

When prosecution under PCPNDT Act should not be quashed?

Justice A.I.S. Cheema, dismissing the petition for quashing of the allegations, said that, “it would be premature to accept explanations regarding inaccuracies or deficiencies before trial takes place. It is further apparent that if the lapse is insignificant, the benefit would go to the accused at the time of sentence, but claiming that deficiencies in Form F and keeping Records are insignificant, cannot be reason to claim that no offence is there and to discharge the accused.”
When the complaint has been filed under this Act showing the inaccuracies and deficiencies in the keeping of record, and complainant has documents to support disclosing sufficient grounds to proceed in the light of provisions of this Act and Rules, this Court cannot, before holding of the trial, sit in Judgment whether or not the Record has been kept properly; or Form F concerned has been properly filled or improperly filled; or whether or not the deficiencies pointed out are serious or insignificant. 
The Court dismissed the petition on the grounds that in such serious matters, it would be inappropriate to interfere when prima facie case is made out. 
The Judge rightfully considered the aim and objectives of the Act which pertained to prohibition of abuse of these prenatal diagnostic techniques. Strict compliance of every provision of the Act and the Rules is required and the Court fairly reiterated the same.


Dr. Dattatraya s/o Keshav Kanade,

1) The State of Maharashtra,   

              CORAM:  A.I.S. CHEEMA, J.
    Citation: 2014ALLMR(Cri)3977                             

The   present   Petition   has   been   filed   to 
quash   complaint   filed   by   Appropriate   Authority 
(hereafter   referred   as   "complainant")   under   the 
provisions   of   Pre­conception   and   Pre­natal 
Diagnostic   Techniques   (Prohibition   of   Sex 

Selection) Act, 1994 (hereafter referred as "Act") 
and   the   Pre­conception   and   Pre­natal   Diagnostic 
Techniques   (Prohibition   of   Sex   Selection)   Rules, 
1996 (hereafter referred as "Rules").
The   Petition   is  Admitted  and   has   been 
heard finally. Learned counsel for the Petitioner 
as   well   as   learned   Public   Prosecutor   for   the 
Respondents   submitted   elaborate   arguments.   With 
this   matter   some   other   similar   matters   were   also 
argued   and   Counsel   for   Petitioners   adopted 
arguments  of  each other  on  law points  to  request 
for quashment of Criminal Trials against accused.  

The Petitioner claims that he is running 

his hospital at Rahata. On 16th July, 2007 Medical 
Superintendent, Rural Hospital, Rahata­ Respondent 
No.2   along   with   other   Officers   visited   his 
hospital   and   carried   out   inspection   and   found 
technical discrepancies/faults on the part of the 

Petitioner.   Respondent   No.2   issued   show   cause 
notice on 17th July, 2007. The Petitioner replied 
the   same   on   the   same   day.   Respondent   No.2 
suspended   registration   certificate   of   sonography 
machines and sealed the machines. Respondent filed 
Complaint   bearing   R.T.C.   No.153   of   2007   in   the 
Court of Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Rahata, 
under   Section   29,   Rule   9(4)   of   the   Act   alleging 
that   there   were   various   discrepancies   in   the 
maintenance   of   the   Records.   Thus,   breach   of 
Sections   of   the   Act   and   Rules   was   alleged.   The 
Judicial   Magistrate,   First   Class,   Rahata   issued 
summons to present Petitioner.

The   Petitioner   filed   Criminal   Revision 
No.17 of 2008 before District and Sessions Judge, 
Kopargaon, which came to be rejected and thus the 
present Petition has been filed, claiming that the 
complaint concerned before the Judicial Magistrate 
The   Petitioner   claims   that   only 

should be quashed.
irregularities   and   no   illegalities   are   there   and 
no offence has been made out.
On behalf  of the Respondents,  affidavit­
in­reply   has   been   filed   by   the   Medical 
Superintendent,   Rural   Hospital,   Rahata.   In 
affidavit­in­reply   the   claims   made   by   the 
Petitioner   are   denied.   According   to   the 
Respondent,   there   are   irregularities   in   record 
keeping   as   per   revised   Form   F.   As   per   the 
Respondents,  Petitioner  has  not  completely  filled 
up   Form   F   and   only   half   portion   of   the   Form   is 
filled up. Second part of the Form F is filled up, 

which   is   also   incomplete.   The   affidavit   claims 
that   in   the   forms   concerned,   the   Petitioner   has 
not   mentioned   how   many   issues   are   there   i.e. 
male/female.   It   is   further   the   affidavit   that   in 
the   declaration   given   by   doctor,   authorized 
signatory   was   radiologist   Dr.   Yogendra   Sachdeo, 
but   the   declaration   is   signed   by   the   present 

Petitioner. For such reasons, the Respondents want 
the Petition to be rejected.
Learned   counsel   for   the   Petitioner 
referred   to   copy   of   the   complaint   filed   in   the 
trial   Court   and   the   defects   or   deficiencies 
pointed out in the same. According to the learned 
counsel,   Defect   Nos.1   and   5   relate   to   non 
compliance with Form F. Defect No.1 mentions that 
F   Form's   columns   1   to   18   do   not   appear   to   have 
been filled in. Defect No.5 mentions that it does 
not   appear   that   specialist   doctor   who   did   the 
sonography,   filled   the   form   F.   The   counsel 
submitted that in February, 2003 State Appropriate 

Authority   and   Additional   Director   of   Health 
Services   had   issued   guidelines   to   the   District 
Appropriate   Authorities   regarding   implementation 
of   the   Act.   Referring   to   the   same,   according   to 
the counsel, the present defects pointed out, need 
It   is   argued,   Defect   No.3   mentions   that 

to be ignored.
notice giving information to public to the effect 
that   disclosure   of   sex   of   foetus   is   prohibited 
under law, was necessary to be displayed. The same 
had   not   been   displayed   in   the   room   where 
sonography   is   done.   The   counsel   argued   that   the 
Act   and   Rules   do   not   say   that   notice   should   be 
displayed   in   the   sonography   room.   He   submitted 
that   board   in   this   regard   was   put   in   the   O.P.D. 
and   on   gate   of   the   hospital.   (the   counsel   was, 
however,   unable   to   show   material   in   support   of 
this submission at the stage of arguments.)
Counsel   referred   to   Defect   No.4   which 

stated   that between  8th July,  2007  to 15th  July, 
2007   in   Form   F   in   portion   of   declaration,   as 
Radiologist   name   of   visiting   doctor,   Dr.   Sachdeo 
has been put, however the form was signed by Dr. 
Kanade.   With   regard   to   this   Defect,   the   argument 
was that even the owner of the hospital can sign 

Regarding Defect No.5 that the doctor who 

the form.
did sonography, did not fill F Form, the argument 
was that the owner can sign the same. The Defect 
No.6   mentions   that   in   the   concerned   form, 
information   regarding   living   children   was   not 
filled   up.   With   regard   to   this,   learned   counsel 
submitted   that   merely   by   not   filling   such 
information, it would not be a criminal act.
In the complaint, Defect No.7 is that one 
copy   of   each   of   the   Act   and   the   Rules   was   not 
available   in   the   O.P.D.   With   regard   to   this 
Defect, the learned counsel for Petitioner argued 

that   such   copy   was   available   but   it   was   in   the 
table   of   the   doctor.   (the   counsel   was   unable   to 
support   the   argument   that   such   copy   was   indeed 

Regarding   getting   ultra   sound   sonography 
machine   released,   the   counsel   submitted   that   the 
Petitioner   had   already   filed   Criminal   Writ 
Petition No.490 of 2009 and obtained relief.
After referring to the various provisions 
of the Act, reference was made to the case of Dr. 
Pratidnya   Jayesh   Shinde   and   another   vs.   Dr. 
Rameshchandra  Kisan  Savkare  and  another,  reported 
in   2014   ALL   M.R.(Cri)   681.   In   that   matter, 
proceeding was quashed as the complaint was silent 
as   to   how   responsibility   of   maintaining   records 
was   cast   upon   the   concerned   Applicants   as   were 
before   the Court.  Reliance  is also  placed  on  the 
Judgment   in   the   case   of  Dr.   Alka   w/o   Anant   Gite 
and   another   vs.   The   State   of   Maharashtra   in 

Criminal   Application   No.3500   of   2011   decided   on 
11th   May,   2012.  Referring   to   that   Judgment, 
submission   is   that   inadvertently   if   a   column   is 
blank,   it   cannot   attract   offence.   Relying   on   the 
case   of   "Dr.   Mrs.   Uma   Shankar   Rachewad   vs. 
Appropriate Authority"­ Criminal Writ Petition No.
407   of   2011,   decided   on   19th   April,   2012,   it   is 

submitted   that   writing   of   "N.A."   i.e.   Non­
Applicable   does   not   amount   to   incomplete   filling 
of Form.  Judgment in the case of Dr. Ravindra s/o 
Shivappa   Karmudi   vs.   The   State   of   Maharashtra   in 
Criminal Application No.757 of 2012 decided on 3rd 
May, 2012,  was referred to submit that F Form was 
incomplete   does   not   mean   criminal   offence   is 
there.   Reliance  was  also  placed  on the    Judgment 
in   the   matter   of   Dr.   Tushar   Rangrao   Patil   vs. 
Appropriate   Authority   in   Criminal   Writ   Petition 
No.406 of 2011 decided on 2nd May, 2012. These are 
matters   decided   by   learned   Single   Judge   of   this 
Court.   The   submission   is   that   in   those   matters 

also although there were defects in maintaining of 
Form F, the Petitioners therein were given benefit 
and the concerned cases against those Petitioners 
were quashed. Thus it is argued that the Petition 
needs to be allowed.
The learned Public Prosecutor referred to 

the affidavit in reply, to submit that the F Forms 
filled,   were   incomplete   and   that   important 
information as to how many issues are there, male 
or female, was not filled in and that the doctor 
signing   the   declaration   form   was   not   the   doctor 
who   was   authorized   signatory   or   the   radiologist. 
The   Public   Prosecutor   referred   to   the   copies   of 
documents   regarding   the   records   maintained,   to 
show various defects regarding which the complaint 
has been filed. It was pointed out that there are 
forms   having   signatures   of   patients   without 
requisite   information   being   filled   in   or 
incomplete   information.   As   per   the   Public 
Prosecutor, the letter issued by State Appropriate 

Authority,   to   the   Appropriate   Authorities   in 
Districts,   which   is   in   the   nature   of   guidance, 
does   not   substitute   requirements   of   the   Act   and 
the Rules. There was non compliance of prominently 
displaying   the board  and  keeping  copy  of the  Act 
and Rules available, and this would be a matter of 
evidence   at   the   time   of   trial.   According   to   the 

Public Prosecutor, the defects pointed out in the 
complaint are supported by documents and clear­cut 
case   is   made   out   regarding   violation   of   the 
provisions   of   the   Act   and   Rules.   Not   filling 
information   regarding   number   of   living   children, 
is   deficiency   in   keeping   of   records,   attracting 
penal provisions of the Act.
To   appreciate   the   controversy,   it   would 
be appropriate to keep in view certain provisions 
of the Act.
Portions   relevant   from   Section   4   of   the 
Act are as under:­

"4.   Regulation   of   pre­natal 
diagnostic  techniques.­ On and from 
the commencement of this Act,­
(1) no place including a registered 
Genetic   Counselling   Centre   or 
Genetic Laboratory or Genetic Clinic 
shall  be used or caused  to be used 

by   any   person   for   conducting   pre­
natal   diagnostic   techniques   except 
for the purposes specified in clause 
(2) and after satisfying any of the 
conditions specified in clause (3);
(2)   no   pre­natal   diagnostic 
techniques shall be conducted except 
for the purposes of detection of any 
of   the   following   abnormalities, 
(i) ........  (iv).........
(ii)........  (v)..........
(iii).......  (vi).........



techniques   shall   be   used   or 
conducted   unless   the   person 

qualified to do so is satisfied for 
reasons   to   be   recorded   in   writing 
that any of the following conditions 
are fulfilled, namely:­
(i)   ........ (ii).........
(iii) ........ (iv).........
(v)   ........ 
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 



provisions of section 5 or section 6 
unless   contrary   is   proved   by   the 
person   conducting   such   ultra 
With   reference   to   the   above   proviso   as 
regards   keeping   of   records,   relevant   portions   of 
Rule 9 are as under:­

"9.   Maintenance   and   preservation   of 
records.­   (1)   Every   Genetic 


Laboratory, Genetic Clinic including 
a   Mobile   Genetic   Clinic,   Ultrasound 
Clinic   and   Imaging   Centres   shall 
maintain   a   register   showing,   in 
serial   order,   the   names   and 
addresses of the men or women given 
genetic   counselling,   subjected   to 
pre­natal   diagnostic   procedures   or 
pre­natal   diagnostic   tests,   the 
names of their spouse or father and 
the   date   on   which   they   first 
reported   for   such   counselling, 
procedure or test.
(2)   The   record   to   be   maintained   by 
every Genetic Counselling Centre, in 
respect   of   each   woman   counselled 
shall be as specified in Form D.
(3)   The   record   to   be   maintained   by 
every Genetic Laboratory, in respect 
of   each   man   or   woman   subjected   to 


procedure/technique/test shall be as 

specified in Form E,
(4)   The   record   to   be   maintained   by 
every   Genetic   Clinic   including   a 
Mobile Genetic Clinic, in respect of 
each   man   or   woman   subjected   to   any 
pre­natal   diagnostic   procedure/ 
technique/test,   shall   be   as 
specified in Form F.
In Rule 10 conditions for conducting pre­
natal  diagnostic  procedures  are  prescribed,  which 
includes   obtaining   written   consent   as   prescribed 
in Form G in a language the person undergoing the 
procedure understands.
Section   20   of   the   Act   deals   with 
cancellation   or   suspension   of   the   registration. 
Sub­section (1) and (2) deal with giving of notice 
and   reasonable   opportunity   before   suspending   or 

cancelling registration of the Genetic Counselling 
Centre, Genetic Laboratory or Genetic Clinic. Sub­
section (3) of Section 20 reads as under:­


contained   in   sub­sections   (1)   and 
(2), if the Appropriate Authority is 
of the opinion that it is necessary 

or expedient so to do in the public 
interest, it may, for reasons to be 
recorded   in   writing,   suspend   the 
registration   of   any   Genetic 


Laboratory or Genetic Clinic without 
issuing any such notice referred to 
in sub­section (1).”
The   learned   Public   Prosecutor   submitted 
that   the   cases   under   the   Act   are   treated   as 
warrant cases instituted otherwise than on police 
report.   It   has   been   argued   that   major   or   minor 
violation in the keeping of records is immaterial.

Scheme   of   the   Act   and   Rules   need   to   be 
Proviso   below   Section   4(3)   of   the   Act 
shows that persons conducting ultra sonography on 
a   pregnant   woman   are   required   to   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   of   the   Act 
unless contrary is proved by the person conducting 
such   ultra   sonography.   Section   5   of   the   Act 
relates   to   taking   written   consent   of   pregnant 
woman and prohibition of communicating the sex of 
foetus.   Section   6   of   the   Act   prohibits 
determination of sex by Genetic Counselling Centre 
or   Genetic   Laboratory   or   Genetic   Clinic   or   any 
person.   Rule   9   relates   to   maintenance   and 
preservation   of   records   and   this   inter­alia 
includes keeping record in respect of each man or 
woman   subjected   to   any   pre­natal   diagnostic 

procedure/technique/test   in   specified   Form   F. 
Although sub­rule (4) of Rule 9 refers to Genetic 
Clinic,   definition   of   "Genetic   Clinic"   as   in 
Section   2(d)   of   the   Act   specifies   that   Genetic 
Clinic   means   a   clinic,   institute,   hospital, 
nursing   home   or   any   place,   by   whatever   name 
called,   which   is   used   for   conducting   pre­natal 

diagnostic   procedures.   Thus,   all   such   places   are 
covered  where  pre­natal  diagnostic  procedures  are 
being conducted and all persons doing the same are 
also covered, and as per the statute, maintaining 
of   proper   records   and   Form   F   as   prescribed,   is 
Section 5 requires taking written consent 
of the pregnant woman and prohibits communication 
of   sex   of   foetus.   In   this   regard   Form   G   is 
prescribed   in   Rule   10.   (According   to   the   Public 
Prosecutor   Section   5(2)   of   the   Act   prohibits 
communicating   of   sex   of   the   foetus   by   words, 
signs,   or in any  other  manner  and thus  according 

to him displaying of  even photographs of Gods and 
Goddess  where  pre­natal  diagnostic  procedures  are 
conducted,   is   not   permissible,   as   the   same   gives 
opportunity to convey sex of foetus by signs or in 
other manners.)
Section 23 of the Act shows that medical 

geneticist,   gynecologist,   registered   medical 
practitioner  or   any   person   who   owns  a   Genetic 
Counselling   Centre,   a   Genetic   Laboratory   or   a 
Genetic   Clinic   or   is   employed   in   such   a   Centre, 
Laboratory or Clinic and renders his professional 
or   technical   services   to   or   at   such   a   Centre, 
Laboratory or Clinic, whether on an honorary basis 
or   otherwise,   and   who   contravenes   any   of   the 
provisions of the Act or rules made thereunder is 
also   liable   for   punishment.   Under   Section   23   of 
the   Act,   the   owner   of   Centre,   Laboratory,   Clinic 
who takes professional services to run the Centre 
where   pre­natal   diagnostic   techniques   are 
conducted,   is   also   liable,   if   any   provisions   of 

the Act or Rules are contravened. 
Under   Section   26   of   the   Act,   with 
reference   to   companies,   the   word   "company"   means 
any  body  corporate   and includes  a firm  and other 
association   of   individuals   and   such   persons   are 
In view of Section 3(3) of the Act, pre­

also liable, when offences by Companies are there.
natal diagnostic techniques can be conducted only 
at   place   registered   and   any   change   has   to   be 
reported. Under Rule 13 every change of employee, 
place,   address   and   equipment   installed   has   to   be 
informed to the Appropriate Authority.
I   have   heard   learned   counsel   for   the 
Petitioner   as   well   as   learned   Public   Prosecutor. 
Record   has   been   perused.   The   criminal   case   filed 
by   the   Appropriate   Authority   in   the   lower   Court 
supported by documents shows the deficiencies and 
inaccuracies   found   and   necessary   particulars   are 

there.   Counsel   for   Petitioner   has   strenuously 
tried   to   demonstrate   that   either   the   defects 
alleged are not there or even if they are there, 
they   are   insignificant.   The   Petitioner   is   trying 
to give reasons as to how the Form was maintained 
and if there are lacunae, what is the explanation.
The   Full   Bench   of   High   Court   of   Gujarat 

in Suo Motu vs. State of Gujarat, reported in 2009 
CRI.L.J.   721,   considered   effects   of   non 
maintaining   records   properly   under   this   Act.   It 
was held that criminal consequences are attracted 
and   there   can   also   be     suspension   of   the 
registration.   Para   8   of   the   Judgment   reads   as 
"8. It needs to be noted that improper 
maintenance   of   the   record   has   also 
consequences     other   than   prosecution 
for   deemed violation of section 5 or 
6. Section 20 of the Act provides for 
cancellation   or   suspension   of 

registration   of   Genetic   Counselling 
Centre,   Genetic   Laboratory   or   Genetic 
Clinic   in   case   of   breach   of   the 
provisions   of   the   Act   or   the   Rules. 
Therefore, inaccuracy or deficiency in 
maintaining   the   prescribed   record 
shall also amount to violation of the 
prohibition   imposed   by   section   6 
against   the   Genetic   Councelling 

Centre,   Genetic   Laboratory   or   Genetic 
Clinic   and   expose   such   clinic   to 
proceedings   under   section   20   of   the 
Act. Where, by virtue of   the deeming 
provisions   of   the   proviso   to   sub­




contravention   of   the     provisions     of 
section   5   or     6   is   legally   presumed 
and   actions   are   proposed   to   be   taken 
under   section   20,   the   person 
conducting   ultrasonography   on   a 
pregnant   woman   shall   also   have   to   be 
given an opportunity to prove that the 
provisions of section 5 or 6 were not 
violated   by   him   in   conducting   the 

"It     would   also   be   improper   and 
premature   to   expect   or     allow   the 
person   accused   of   inaccuracy   or 
deficiency   in   maintenance   of   the 
relevant record to show or prove that 
provisions of section 5 or 6 were not 
violated by him, before the deficiency 
or   inaccuracy   were   established   in 
court   by   the   prosecuting   agency   or 

before   the   authority   concerned   in 

other proceedings.”
In   that   Judgment   of   Full   Bench, 
mentioned   above,   opinion   (iv)   recorded   in 
Para 9, is as under:­
"(iv).       Deficiency   or   inaccuracy   in 
filling Form F prescribed under Rule 9 
of   the   Rules   made   under   the   PNDT   Act, 
being   a   deficiency   or     inaccuracy   in 
keeping   record   in   the   prescribed 
manner,   it   is   not   a   procedural   lapse 
but an independent offence amounting to 
contravention   of   the   provisions   of 
section 5 or 6  of the PNDT Act and has 

to   be   treated   and   tried   accordingly. 
It   does   not,   however,   mean   that   each 
inaccuracy or deficiency in maintaining 
the requisite record may be as serious 
as   violation   of   the   provisions   of 
section 5 or 6 of the Act and the Court 
would   be   justified,   while   imposing 
punishment upon conviction, in taking a 
lenient   view   in   cases   of   only 

technical,   formal   or   insignificant 
lapses   in   filling   up   the   forms.     For 
example, not maintaining the record of 
conducting   ultrasonography   on   a 
pregnant   woman   at   all   or   filling   up 
incorrect   particulars   may   be   taken   in 
all seriousness as if the provisions of 
section   5   or   6   were   violated,   but 
incomplete details of the full name and 
address   of   the     pregnant   woman   may   be 
treated   leniently if her identity and 
address   were otherwise mentioned in a 
manner sufficient to identify and trace 
It is clear that it would be premature to 
accept   explanations   regarding   inaccuracies   or 

deficiencies   before   trial   takes   place.   It   is 
further   apparent   that   if   the   lapse   is 
insignificant, the benefit would go to the accused 
at   the   time   of   sentence,   but   claiming   that 
deficiencies   in   Form   F   and   keeping   Records   are 
insignificant,   cannot   be   reason   to   claim   that   no 
Reference   needs   to   be   made   to   the 
14 (A).

offence is there and to discharge the accused.
case  of  Sujit  Govind   Dange  (Dr.)  and another   vs. 
State   of   Maharashtra   and   others,   reported   in 
2013(2)   Bom.C.R.   351.  In   that   matter   Division 
Bench   of   this   Court   held   that   any   deficiencies 
noticed   in   maintaining   the   record,   in   specially 
Form F, attracts the provisions of the Act.
The   Division   Bench   of   this   Court 
considered the objects and reasons of the Act and 
as to how the Act was necessary to control menace 
of female foeticide. In Para 29, while considering 
Section   4   of   the   Act,   it   was   observed   with 

reference to Rule 9, as under:­
"29.   Considering   the   object   of   the 
Act,   the   maintenance   and   preservation 
of   records   as   per   rule   9   is   an 
important statutory duty cast upon the 
person   (Doctor)   conducting   ultra 



sonography   on   a   pregnant   woman   and, 
inaccuracy   found   in   this   regard 
amounts   to   contravention   of   the 
provisions   of   section   5   or   6   of   the 
Act   unless   contrary   is   proved   by   the 
person   (Doctor)   conducting   such   ultra 
In that matter also arguments were raised 
that   the   discrepancies   were   minor   in   nature   or 
that   they   were   only   inaccuracies.   The   Hon'ble 
Division Bench in Para 30 held as under:­. 
"30.   It   is   important   to   note   that   in 
order   to   prohibit   abuse   of   these 
prenatal   diagnostic   techniques,   the 
Legislature has incorporated a proviso 

to sub­section (3) of section 4 of the 
Act   which   stipulates   that   any 
deficiency   or   inaccuracy   found   in 
maintaining   and   preserving   complete 
record   in   a   manner   prescribed   by   the 
person conducting ultrasonography on a 
pregnant   woman   shall   amount   to 
contravention   of   the   provisions   of 
section 5 or section 6 unless contrary 

is   proved   by   the   person   conducting 
such   ultrasonography.   This   provision, 
in   our   view,   is   completely   consistent 
with the objectives of the Act and has 
been introduced  to   prohibit  abuse  of 
the pre­natal diagnostic techniques by 
the person conducting ultra sonography 
on a pregnant woman".  
"The contention of the petitioner that 
the discrepancy  was of a minor  nature 
is   wholly   misconceived.   Neither   the 
provisions of the Act nor that of the 
Rules   provide     or     define     minor   or 
major     deficiencies   or   inaccuracies. 
On the other hand,  it requires  strict 
compliance   of   every   provision   of   the 

Act   and   the   Rules.   Considering   the 
objectives   to   be       achieved,   strict 
punishment   is   provided   for   violating 
the   conditions   prescribed   under   the 
Act.   The   contentions   canvassed   by   the 
petitioner, in this regard, therefore, 
are   devoid   of   substance   and   are 
With   reference   to   Sub­section   (3)   of 

Section 20 of the Act, the Hon’ble Division Bench 
recorded in Para 39, as under:­
“The   observations   made   by   the 



Infertility   Clinic   Pvt.   Ltd.   & 
others   Vs.   Appropriate   Authority 
PNDT   Act   &   others),   reported   in 
2005(1) Bom.C.R. 595 (supra) clearly 
show that the Division Bench in view 
of   the   fact   that   prosecution   was 
launched   against   the   petitioner   in 
the   said   case,   it   was   held   to   be 



authorities to take recourse to sub­
section   (3)   of   Section   20   of   the 

Act.   In   the   instant   case,   the 
Petitioner   having   admitted   the 


existence   of   deficiency   and 

maintaining   the   record   including 
form   ’F’   has   resulted   in 
contravention   of   the   provisions 
contained   in   section   5   or   6   and, 
therefore,   would   amount   to   an 

offence   and   can   be   treated   to   be 



Appropriate   Authority   to   invoke   the 
provisions   of   sub­section   (3)   of 
section 20 of the Act, in the larger 
public   interest   and,   therefore,   the 
action of suspension of registration 
of   the   Genetic   Centre   of   the 
petitioner   is   sustainable   in   law 
till such time contrary is proved by 
the petitioner.”
Para   38   of   the   Judgment   of   the   Division 
Bench recorded that:­ 

"38.   Rule   9(1)   requires   that   every 
Genetic   Counselling   Centre,   Genetic 

laboratory,   Genetic   Clinic,   etc., 
shall   maintain   a   register   showing,   in 
serial   order,   the   names   and   addresses 
of   the   men   or   women   given   genetic 
counselling,   subjected   to   pre­natal 
diagnostic   procedure   or   pre­natal 
diagnostic   tests,   the   names   of   their 
spouse or father and the date on which 
they   first   reported   for   such 

counselling,   procedure   or   test.   Sub­
rule   (4)   of     rule   9   stipulates   the 
record   to   be   maintained   by   every 
Genetic Clinic, in respect of each man 
or   woman   subjected   to   any   pre­natal 
diagnostic   procedure/technique/test, 
shall be as specified in Form 'F'. In 
the   instant   case,   the   petitioner   has 
admitted   existence   of   discrepancies, 
irregularities   in   maintenance   of   Form 
'F'   which   has   undoubtedly   resulted   in 
causing     deficiency   or   inaccuracy   in 
maintaining   and   preserving   the   record 
and, therefore, as per proviso to sub­
section   (3)   of   section   4   of   the   Act, 
  in   contravention
provisions   of   section   5   or   6   of   the 
Act and     would amount to an offence, 

unless   contrary   is   proved   by   the 
ultrasonography test." 
petitioner   who   has   conducted   such 
Keeping   in   view   the   observations   of   the 
Hon'ble   Division   Bench   in   the   case   of   "Sujit 
Govind   Dange",   mentioned   above,   there   remains   no 

doubt   that   deficiencies   or   inaccuracies   in   the 
maintaining   of   record   and   Form   F   attract   the 
provisions   of   Section   5   or   6   of   the   Act.   I   am 
bound   by   the   Judgment   of   the   Division   Bench   of 
this Court.
When   the   complaint   has   been   filed   under 
this Act showing the inaccuracies and deficiencies 
in   the   keeping   of   record,   and   complainant   has 
documents to support disclosing sufficient grounds 
to proceed in the light of provisions of this Act 
and   Rules,   this   Court   cannot,   before   holding   of 
the   trial,   sit   in   Judgment   whether   or   not   the 
Record has been kept properly; or Form F concerned 

has been properly filled or improperly filled; or 
whether   or   not   the   deficiencies   pointed   out   are 
serious or insignificant. When complaint has been 
filed   pointing   out   deficiencies   or   inaccuracies, 
before trial it would not be proper for this Court 
to consider the arguments that what is pointed out 
is   no   deficiency   or   no   inaccuracy.   It   would   be 

prejudging   the   matter.   As   per   Proviso   of   Section 
4(3) "any" deficiency or inaccuracy in keeping of 
complete record "shall amount to contravention" of 
Section   5   or   6   "unless   contrary   is   proved." 
Naturally,   the   contrary   can   be   "proved"   only   at 
the trial. Appropriate Authority under the Act is 
Public   Servant   acting   in   discharge   of   official 
duty   and   has   to   act   with   responsibility.   Keeping 
in   view   the   Judgments   discussed   above,   in   such 
serious   matters,   it   would   be   inappropriate   to 
interfere when prima facie case is made out.   
It cannot be said, at present, that there 
is no sufficient ground for proceeding. Keeping in 

view Aims and Objects of the Act and Scheme of the 
Act   and   Rules   referred   above   and   stringent   and 
specific   provisions   not   tolerating   any   (means­ 
any) deficiency or inaccuracy in keeping complete 
records,   I   am   unable   to   accept   the   explanatory 
arguments   in   defence   or   to   invoke   writ 
jurisdiction,   inherent   power   or   revisional 

jurisdiction   to   quash   the   proceedings   at   the 
threshold   when   sufficient   grounds   to   proceed   are 
made out in the complaint.

For   reasons   mentioned,   arguments   in 
favour   of     State   have   substance,   and   submissions 
to   be   discarded.   Defences   being   raised,   can   be 
considered   at   the   time   of   trial.   The     Petition 
stands rejected.
for Petitioner to quash process or Complaint need 
                               [A.I.S. CHEEMA, J.] 

Print Page

No comments:

Post a Comment