2012 Supreme(Bom) 912
In the High Court of Bombay at Aurangabad
A.V. NIRGUDE, J.
Meena Balaprasad Dhondge & Another
Versus
Appropriate Authority and Sub-Divisional Officer, Nanded
Criminal Writ Petition Nos.408 of 2011 & 406 of 2011
Decided on : 02-05-2012
For the Petitioner:R.N. Dhorde h/f. V.S. Kadam, Advocates.
For the Respondent: S.B. Pulkundwar, A.P.P.
Headnote:
Pre-conception and Pre-natal Diagnostic Techniques - Quashment of Criminal Case - Sections 4(3), 5, 23, 29 & 30 of the Pre-conception and Pre-natal Diagnostic Techniques (Prohibition of Sex Selection Act), 1994 - Sections 4, 5, 6, 9 of the Rules - Summary of Acts and Sections: The court discussed the relevant provisions of the Pre-conception and Pre-natal Diagnostic Techniques (Prohibition of Sex Selection Act), 1994, including regulations of pre-natal diagnostic techniques, written consent of pregnant woman, prohibition of communicating the sex of the fetus, maintenance and preservation of records, and the obligations of Genetic Counselling Centres, Genetic Laboratories, Genetic Clinics, Ultrasound Clinics, and Imaging Centres.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a gynecologist, was accused of not maintaining proper records as required under the Pre-conception and Pre-natal Diagnostic Techniques (Prohibition of Sex Selection Act), 1994. The petitioner claimed to have been sending patient information online to the authorities appointed under the Act on a daily basis.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioner had been filling up the form 'F' online and sending the same to the authorities under the Act on a daily basis. The court concluded that there was no prima facie case against the petitioner, and therefore allowed the Criminal Writ Petition and disposed of the case accordingly.
Issues: The main issue was whether the petitioner had contravened the provisions of the Pre-conception and Pre-natal Diagnostic Techniques (Prohibition of Sex Selection Act), 1994 by not maintaining proper records as required.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the filling up of form 'F' online by the petitioner, as well as sending patient information to the authorities under the Act on a daily basis, fulfilled the requirements of the Act. The court also emphasized that the expectation of immediately filling up the form after examination was overzealous and not mandated by the Act.
Final Decision: The Criminal Writ Petition was allowed, and the sealed record, which was opened on the direction of the Court, was re-sealed in the presence of the Court's Shirestedar.
This writ petition is filed seeking quashment of Criminal Case bearing R.C.C. No.422 of 2011, pending in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nanded, for offences punishable under sections 4(3), 5, 23, 29 & 30 of the Pre-conception and Pre-natal Diagnostic Techniques (Prohibition of Sex Selection Act), 1994 (for short "the Act").
2. The petitioner is the accused. It is common ground that the petitioner is a Gynecologist and practicing at Nanded, since 2004. It is further common ground that, the petitioner has ultrasound clinic at Nanded registered under the Act. It is common ground that till 31.03.2011, the Authorities under the Act inspected the ultra-sound clinic from time to time and found the same to be in order. On 31.03.2011, the "Appropriate Authority" appointed under the Act, visited the petitioner's clinic and found following irregularities :-
(i) The petitioner/accused did not put her signature on Form "F" of patients who were examined between 20.01.2011 to 04.03.2011.
(ii) Form "F" of patients who were examined between 04.03.2011 to 30.03.2011 were found blank except the signature of patients on consent-cum-declaration annexed to it.
(iii) The petitioner-accused did not fill up Form "F" in respect of sr.no.7.
Because of these irregularities, the Appropriate Authority lodged the complaint. It is not a case where decoy case was sent for collecting evidence.
3. In presence of learned Counsels for the parties, I directed the record seized at the petitioner's clinic to be opened and found a register of form "F". With the help of the learned Counsel and representatives of the parties, I perused the record to examine whether the allegations are truthful and if any irregularity would amount to offence under the Act.
4. In order to appreciate the submissions made at the bar as well as to find out whether prima facie case is made out against the petitioner/accused, the relevant provisions of Act should be read. Sections 4 & 5 of the said Act read as under :-
"4. Regulation of pre-natal 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 prenatal diagnostic techniques except for the purposes specified in clause (2) and after satisfying any of the conditions specified in clause (3);
(2) no pre-natal diagnostic techniques shall be conducted except for the purposes of detection of any of the following abnormalities, namely:-
(i) chromosomal abnormalities;
(ii) genetic metabolic diseases;
(iii) haemoglobinopathies;
(iv) sex-linked genetic diseases;
(v) congenital anomalies;
(vi) any other abnormalities or diseases as may be specified by the Central Supervisory Board;
(3) no pre-natal diagnostic 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) age of the pregnant woman is above thirty-five years;
(ii) the pregnant woman has undergone of two or more spontaneous abortions or foetal loss;
(iii) the pregnant woman had been exposed to potentially teratogenic agents such as drugs, radiation, infection or chemicals;
(iv) the pregnant woman or her spouse has a family history of mental retardation or physical deformities such as, spasticity or any other genetic disease;
(v) any other condition as may be specified by the Central Supervisory Board; Provided that the person conducting ultrasonography 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 amount to contravention of provisions of section 5 or section 6 unless contrary is proved by the person conducting such ultrasonography;
Provided that the person conducting ultrasonography on a pregnant woman shall keep complete record thereof in the clinic in such