Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.K. ILANTHIRAIYAN, J.
Dr. Shivani Balaram - Petitioner
Versus
Appropriate Authority, The Chief Medical Officer, Kurinjipadi, Cuddalore - Respondent
Crl.O.P.No.19948 of 2021 and Crl.M.P.Nos.10846 & 10847 of 2021
Decided On : 21-11-2023
CRIMINAL LAW - PRE-CONCEPTION & PRE-NATAL DIAGNOSTIC TECHNIQUES ACT - Sections 3B, 18(1), 18(5), 23(1) of the PCPNDT Act 1994; Rules 3A(1) of the PCPNDT Rules 1996 - The court discussed the provisions of the PCPNDT Act, emphasizing the necessity for proper registration and licensing of facilities using ultrasound machines. It interpreted Section 18(1) as prohibiting operation without registration and Section 18(5) as requiring the Appropriate Authority to ensure compliance with standards. The court found that the petitioner, a consulting doctor, was not in violation as the ultrasound machine was unregistered and not in working condition at the pharmacy, leading to the quashing of the proceedings against her.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a doctor, was implicated in a complaint regarding the operation of an unregistered ultrasound machine at Sun Pharmacy, where she was a consulting doctor. The complaint arose after an inspection revealed the machine was not registered under the PCPNDT Act. The first accused, the pharmacy owner, had died, and the petitioner claimed the machine was defective and not in use at the time of inspection.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioner had a valid license for a different facility and that the ultrasound machine in question was not operational. The prosecution failed to provide sufficient evidence linking the petitioner to the alleged violations, and the Appropriate Authority did not take necessary actions post-reply to the show cause notice.
Issues: Whether the petitioner violated the PCPNDT Act by using an unregistered ultrasound machine at Sun Pharmacy and whether the proceedings against her were justified.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the petitioner could not be held liable under the PCPNDT Act as the machine was not in working condition and she had no involvement in the alleged violations at the pharmacy. The Appropriate Authority's failure to act on the petitioner's response to the show cause notice was also critical in determining the lack of a prima facie case against her.
Final Decision: The court quashed the proceedings in C.C.No.207 of 2017 against the petitioner, allowing the Criminal Original Petition.
ORDER :
G.K. Ilanthiraiyan, J.
[PRAYER: Criminal Original petition filed under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, to call for the records of C.C.No.207 of 2017 pending on the file of Principal District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Neyveli and quash the same as against the petitioner herein.]
This Criminal Original Petition has been filed to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.207 of 2017 on the file of the District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Neyveli.
2. Heard the learned counsel appearing on either side and perused the materials available on record.
3. The case of the prosecution is that the respondent filed a private complaint and the same has been taken cognizance by the Trial Court in C.C.No.207 of 2017 for the offence under Section 28(1) of the Pre-conception & Pre-Natal Diagnostic Techniques (Regulation and Prevention of Misuse) Act 1994 and Pre-conception & Pre-Natal Diagnostic Techniques (Regulation and Prevention of Misuse) Rules 1996 and for the offences under Section 3B, 18(1), (5) and Rule 3A (1) of PCPNDT Act Rules 1996 punishable under Sections 23(1) of the Pre-conception & Pre-Natal Diagnostic Techniques (Regulation and Prevention of Misuse) Act (Central Act) No.57 of 1994.
4. The crux of the complaint is that on 27.12.2016, the respondent, along with Joint Director of Medical and Rural Health Services, Cuddalore, State Inspection team members and Sub District Appropriate Authority, Kurinjipadi, had inspected the private pharmacy, viz., Sun Pharmacy, situated at Main Bazar, Block – 19, Neyveli and seized an unregistered Ultra Sound Machine. The said facility is not registered by the Appropriate Authority under PCPNDT Act to operate Ultra Sound Machine in the inspected place viz., Sun Phramacy, Neyveli. It is in violation of the provisions under Section 3B, 18(1), (5) of PCPNDT Act 1994 and Rules 3(A) 1 of PCPNDT Rules 1996.
5. The first accused is the owner of the private pharmacy, which was found in possession of Ultra Sound Machine, without any license, in an unregistered facility. On enquiry with staff members of Sun Pharmacy and based on the statement recorded by them, it came to light that the second accused in the Sun Pharmacy had used the above seized Ultra Sound Machine in her consulting room at Main Bazar, Block – 19, Neyveli. She had obtained license to operate the Ultra Sound Machine in the facility at No.15, Gandhi Nagar, Neyveli. Therefore, she violated the provision under Sections 3(3) and 18(5) of the PCPNDT Act. Hence, the complaint.
6. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that there are totally two accused, in which the petitioner is arrayed as A2. The first accused died. The petitioner is a Doctor by profession and qualified as MBBS., DGO., She is one of the consulting Doctors of Sun Pharmacy, situated at No.3/5, Main Bazzar, Block-19, Neyveli. The petitioner was also working as a consulting Doctor at Sri Janani Scan Centres at No.15, Gandhi Nagar Church Road, Neyveli. She had purchased Ultra Sound Machine in the brand name of “Welcare” in the year 2012 and also obtained license to use the machine for a period from 18.12.2012 to 17.12.2017. However, in the year 2014, it was found defective and was not in good working condition. Therefore, she purchased a new machine on 22.08.2015. The old defective machine was packed and kept ready to be taken by the Global Imaging Systems, from whom Sun Pharmacy had purchased the said machine. It was kept in dismantled position and sealed in a carton box.
7. In the meanwhile, the respondent made inspection. Therefore, it was not in working condition. There is absolutely no material to show that the petitioner is working in all three pharmacies of the first accused. After receipt of the show cause notice, the petitioner submitted a detailed reply on 06.01.2017 stating that it was already sold out and it was not in working condition. It was kept in a sealed carton box. She never practiced in the said machine in the premises of the firs
AI
The Appropriate Authority must conduct a proper inquiry before initiating criminal proceedings under the PCPNDT Act, and mere allegations without evidence do not suffice to implicate an accused.
Temporary suspension of ultrasound clinic revoked automatically upon submission of doctor's registration before alleged violation; impeccable material warrants quashing under S.482 CrPC as no offence....
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.
The High Court directed the statutory authority to consider a complaint regarding the violation of diagnostic facility suspension orders by ensuring compliance with natural justice through notice and....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
