2023 Supreme(Online)(MAD) 25393
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 21.11.2023 CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN Crl.O.P.No. 19948 of 2021 and Crl.M.P.Nos.10846 & 10847 of 2021 Dr.Shivani Balaram .... Petitioner Vs Appropriate Authority, For Sub District under Pre-conception & Pre-Natal Diagnostic Techniques (Regulation and Prevention of Misuse)
Act (Central Act) No.57 of 1994 &
The Chief Medical Officer, Kurinjipadi, Cuddalore District. .... Respondent 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.
For Petitioner : Mr.Manoj Pandian For Respondent : Mr.A.Gopinath Government Advocate (Crl.Side)
ORDER
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 first accused pharmacy.
8. On receipt of the reply, the Appropriate Authority did not pass any orders as contemplated under Section 17(a) of the PCPNDT Act. It is a fatal to the case of the prosecution. No provision is attracted as against the petitioner. All the contravention, were allegedly made onl