IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
M. NAGAPRASANNA, J.
Mr. B. Gopala Krishna, S/o. Bramhananda & Ors. - Petitioners
Versus
District Commissioner and District Appropriate Authority (“DAA”) - Respondent
Criminal Petition No. 6934 of 2024
Decided On : 21-10-2024
(A) Pre-conception and Pre-natal Diagnostic Techniques (Prohibition of Sex Selection) Act, 1994 - Sections 19, 20, and 23 - Quashment of criminal proceedings - Petitioners sought to quash proceedings for alleged violations under the Act, claiming no offence was committed as they maintained necessary records and applied for renewal of registration prior to expiry - The court found that the petitioners had submitted their renewal application on time, and the delay in processing by the authorities led to the wrongful initiation of criminal proceedings. (Paras 1-12)
(B) Natural Justice - The court emphasized that the Appropriate Authority must provide a show cause notice before suspending or cancelling registration, and failure to do so violates principles of natural justice. (Paras 10-11)
Facts of the case:
The petitioners, a clinical laboratory owner and a registered medical practitioner, faced criminal proceedings for operating without a valid license under the Act, despite timely application for renewal. (Paras 1-2)
Findings of Court:
The court quashed the criminal proceedings, highlighting the lack of due process and the authorities' failure to act on the renewal application. (Paras 12)
Issues: Whether the petitioners committed an offence under the Act and if due process was followed in initiating criminal proceedings. (Paras 4-5)
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the petitioners could not be held liable for operating without a license due to the authorities' inaction on their renewal application, and emphasized the necessity of following procedural safeguards. (Paras 8-9)
Result: Criminal proceedings quashed.
ORDER :
M. Nagaprasanna, J.
1st petitioner, owner of a clinical laboratory in the name and style of Sree Venkateshwara Clinical Laboratory and the 2nd petitioner, registered medical practitioner are knocking at the doors of this Court, in the subject petition, seeking quashment of proceedings in C.C.No.10586 of 2024 pending before the Metropolitan Magistrate, Traffic Court-1, Bengaluru and the order of the concerned Court taking cognizance of the offence under 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:-
The 2nd petitioner is said to be the qualified registered medical practitioner who has begun his practice in the year 1980 and has a Karnataka Medical Council registration. The 1st petitioner who is the owner of the aforesaid clinic obtains a certificate of registration under the Act and the Rules framed thereunder for a period of 5 years. It was to be in operation from 30-10-2017 through 29-10-2022. On 26-09-2022 the petitioners paid renewal fee as is necessary under the Act for renewal of certificate of registration. For two years no action is taken on the application. On 22-02-2024 the District Health and Family Welfare Officer and his team members conduct an inspection and search in the clinic and seized one ultrasound machine and kept the machine so sealed in the clinic. Another team comes on 27-02-2024 and conducts search in the diagnostic centre of the laboratory. Based upon the aforesaid search conducted, a crime comes to be registered invoking Section 200 of the Cr.P.C. The concerned Court, in terms of its order dated 20-04-2024, takes cognizance of the offence, registers C.C.No.10586 of 2024 and issues summons to the petitioners to be returnable by 16-07-2024. It is taking of cognizance, registration of crime and issuance of summons that has driven the petitioners to this Court in the subject petition.
3. Heard Sri K.V. Tejasvi, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and Sri B.N. Jagadeesha, learned Additional State Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent.
4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would vehemently contend that the petitioners have not committed any offence under the Act. No violation is found at the time of search. The complaint is registered on the score that no records are maintained and no records with forms are maintained. The only allegation is that they did not find Form-2F. Not maintaining Form2F does not relate to sex selection or detection. It is not even a punishable offence. He would further contend that the petitioners have filed the application for renewal of certificate of registration along with requisite fee before the date of expiry of the licence. The respondent did not pursue the application in a timely manner and what is now projected is that the clinic is running without a licence. The laboratory runs on ultrasound machine. The ultrasound machine itself is seized which deprived services to the general public. Before initiation of criminal prosecution, no notice to show cause as to why action should not be taken for the offence punishable under the Act, is even issued. He would submit that there are glaring lacunae in what the respondent has done by conducting search in the laboratory of the petitioners. He would seek quashment of proceedings.
5. Per contra, the learned Additional State Public Prosecutor would vehemently refute the submissions to contend that the petitioners are running the clinic/laboratory without a licence under the Act. They do not possess any registration under the provisions of the Karnataka Private Medical Establishments Act, 2007. The laboratory has not maintained appropriate forms. All this is in violation of law and, therefore the petitioners should face the proceedings and come out clean in a full blown trial. He w
The court emphasized the necessity of timely processing of renewal applications and adherence to procedural safeguards before initiating criminal proceedings under the Act.
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.
The importance of maintaining records as prescribed under the Act and Rules, and the legal implications of non-compliance.
Procedural safeguards must be strictly adhered to in actions taken under the PCPNDT Act as arbitrary actions undermine the statutory framework.
Strict compliance with the provisions of the PCPNDT Act is essential to prevent sex determination and female foeticide, and non-compliance cannot be excused as a clerical error.
Seizer of Sonography machine - Civil Surgeon is appropriate authority. Now, as per the amendment, Civil Surgeon can authorize any surgeon to carry out inspection.
(1) Sex determination test – Summoning order – It is mandatory for person conducting Ultrasonography on a pregnant woman to keep complete record relating to Ultrasonography in clinic – Determination ....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.