Complaints under PNDT Act invalid if not filed by a required three-member authority.

JUDGMENT :

Jasjit Singh Bedi, J.

The present revision petition has been filed impugning the judgment dated 09.08.2008 passed by Sessions Judge, Hisar, whereby the appeal filed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 09/10.01.2008 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hisar, has been partly accepted with modification.

2. The complaint in the present case came to be instituted on 21.12.2006. The judgment of conviction and order of sentence was passed on 09/10.01.2008 by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hisar. The Appeal filed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence was partly accepted with modification on 09.08.2008. The instant revision petition was filed on 12.08.2008 and has come up for final hearing now i.e. after a period of 19 years from the date of institution of the FIR.

3. The brief facts are that the complaint was filed on behalf of the State of Haryana through the District Appropriate Authority-cum-Civil Surgeon, Hisar who was stated to have been appointed as the District Appropriate Authority under Section 17 (2) of the Pre-Conception and Prenatal Diagnostic Techniques (Prohibition of Sex Selection) Act, 1994 (hereinafter to be referred as 'PC and PNDT Act') and as amended by Amendment Act, 2002 (14 of 2003) and Rules, 1996 (hereinafter referred as PNDT Act) vide notification No.l/18/88/2HB-II-97 dated 18.09.1997 for alleged deficiencies in maintenance of records resulting into contravention of section 4(3) and 5 (l)(b) read with Rule 9 punishable under Section 23 of the Act.

4. It is the case of complainant that M/s Kamboj Ultrasound and Diagnostic Pvt. Ltd, Hisar was a registered Genetic Clinic under Section 3 of PNDT Act having Registration No.27 granted on 31.10.2001. Accused/respondents No. 2 and 3 were both Directors/Qualified/Competent and responsible persons on behalf of accused/respondent No. 1 and they were In-charge and responsible for M/s Kamboj Ultrasound and Diagnostic Pvt. Ltd. Hisar for the conduct of its business. On 06.10.2006, the District Nodal Officer (PNDT) requested the complainant with reference to a news clipping on Channel IBN-7 and Newspapers Dainik Jagran & Dainik Bhaskar. On the basis thereof, the complainant constituted a team consisting of Dr. R.P Singhal, Dr. Himani Kansal & District Nodal Officer (PNDT), Dr. Ashok Chaudhary and directed them to proceed further. On the same day, the premises of the accused was inspected. A spot memo was prepared of the seized records which were anti-natal register comprising from Page No. 535 onwards having records from 25.08.2006 to 05.10.2006 and original form F with referral slips for the month of September and October 2006. The team also sealed four ultrasound machines in the premises of accused on the same day. Spot memo and seizure memo were prepared. From a perusal of the seized records, it was found that prima-facie there was a gross contravention of the provisions of the PNDT Act and as such, registration of the accused was suspended under Section 23 of the Act vide letter dated 18.10.2006. The accused were also asked not to engage in any activity under the Act till further orders. Thereafter, a show cause notice dated 18.10.2006 was issued to the accused No.2 and 3. They submitted a reply to the show cause notice vide letter dated 24.10.2006. As per the request of the accused, personal hearing was given to them on 24.10.2006. It is further detailed in the complaint that from the perusal of records seized on 06.10.2006 from the premises of the accused, it was found that there were multiple violations of Form F in the records. In fact, Form F which was maintained by the accused were not in the prescribed manner as provided in Rule 9(4) of the PN