IMPORTANT POINT
The court established that procedural fairness and adherence to statutory guidelines are essential in regulatory actions under the Pre-conception and Pre-natal Diagnostic Techniques Act.

ORDER :

The petitioners, both doctors, are before this Court calling in question proceedings in C.C.No.1938 of 2024 pending before the Metropolitan Magistrate, Traffic Court-I, Mayo Hall, Bangalore, pursuant to a complaint initiated by the 1st respondent under Section 200 of the Cr.P.C., alleging offences under Sections 20(1), (2), (3) and 23(1) and (2) of the Pre-conception and Pre-natal Diagnostic Techniques (Prohibition of Sex Selection) Act, 1994 (‘the Act’ for short).

2. Facts, in brief, germane are as follows:-

Both the petitioners are doctors. The 1st petitioner is the proprietor of the Diagnostic Centre in the name and style of ‘Medizone Medical Centre’ (the Centre’ for short). The 2nd petitioner is a certified registered operator of the ultrasound machine at the Diagnostic Centre. It is the averment in the petition that the ultrasound diagnostic procedures are conducted at the centre between 10.30 a.m. and 11.30 a.m. and between 6.00 p.m. and 7.00 p.m. on the prescription of doctors who direct a test to be conducted upon the patients. When things stood thus, the 1st respondent/Appropriate Authority under the Act, on receipt of certain information, conduct an inspection at 4.00 p.m. on 08-12-2023 at the Centre. At that time, it was found that the ultrasound room, which was situated opposite the reception counter, was open and in active mode. It is said that the lab technician have admitted that scanning was done in the Centre. The medical centre is closed, the scanning machine is locked. The result of conduct of inspection and seizure of materials is filing of a complaint before the jurisdictional Magistrate invoking Section 200 of the Cr.P.C., read with Section 28 of the Act, by registering a crime for offences punishable as afore-quoted. The registration of criminal case and issuance of summons is what has driven the petitioners to this Court in the subject petition.

3. Heard Sri S. Praveen, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and Sri B.N. Jagadeesh, learned Additional State Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondents.

4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would vehemently contend that inspection of the Centre is conducted at 4.00 p.m. when no records were displayed. The bone of contention is that signatures of 4 patients on Form-F were missing. Those signatures were taken in the register. It is not that the scanning was done without prescriptions from respective doctors. The information that is filled in Form-F clearly indicates that it is pursuant to prescriptions from doctors. The duration of pregnancy is also indicated. He would admit that signatures of concerned patients were not taken on the form, but they were taken in the register. Based upon the inspection, a notice comes to be issued on 08-12-2023. The notice seeks the petitioners to reply as to why registration should not be suspended, but on the same day seizure, closure and locking of the scanning machine had happened. Therefore, it was a post-decisional hearing. He would like to place reliance upon certain guidelines issued by Government of India, in the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, to buttress his submission qua the procedure adopted by the respondent in registering and continuing with the criminal case.

5. Per contra, the learned Additional State Public Prosecutor would vehemently refute the submissions to contend that taking of signatures in Form-F is mandated under the statute. It cannot be that the patients would not sign on the document and scanning is done. It is, therefore, necessary for the petitioners to explain or face proceedings for having conducted the scanning without the consent of patients. He would submit that guidelines so issued by Government of India are adopted by the State and no separate guidelines are notified by the State Government. He would further contend that the petitioners should come out clean in the trial, as they have admittedly undertaken the exercise of conducting ultrasound scanning