##PAGE1##

CRL RC No. 1005 of 2021

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 24-03-2026

CORAM

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE G.K. ILANTHIRAIYAN

CRL RC No. 1005 of 2021 K.Ramachandran

Owner, M/s Mahalakshmi Nursing Home,

Periyakuruchi, Neyveli-2,

Cuddalore District.

..Petitioner Vs

Appropriate Authority for Sub District Under Pre Conception

Pre-natal Diagnostic Techniques, (Prohibition of Sex Selection) Act, 1994 and

The Chief Medical Officer, Virudhachalam,

Cuddalore District.

..Respondent

Prayer : Criminal Revision Case is filed under Section 397 read with 401 of Code of Criminal Procedure, to call for the records pertaining to the order and judgment dated 27.08.2021 made in Crl.A.No.13 of 2021 on the file of Learned Principal Sessions Judge, Cuddalore, confirming the conviction and sentence imposed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Neyveli in CC.No.68 of 2014 dated 19.01.2021 and set aside the same by allowing the above Criminal

Revision Petition.

________

Page1 of 10

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/04/2026 04:06:11 pm )

CRL RC No. 1005 of 2021

For Petitioner: Mr.K.Sivabalan for Mr.M.D.Babu

For Respondent: Mr.L.Baskaran Government Advocate (Crl.Side)

ORDER

This Criminal Revision Case has been preferred as against the Judgment

passed in Crl.A.No.13 of 2021 on the file of the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Cuddalore, thereby confirming the order of conviction and sentence imposed by the District Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate, Neyveli, in C.C.No.68 of 2014 dated 19.01.2021, for the offences punishable under Sections 23(1) (2 counts) and 25 of the Pre-Conception and Pre-Natal Diagnostic Techniques (Prohibition of Sex Selection) Act, 1994 (hereinafter referred to as the “PCPNDT Act), Sections 5(2) and 5(3) of the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as the “MTP Act”)

and Section 312 of IPC.

2. The case of the prosecution is that the respondent conducted a

surprise visit at M/s.Chackkarapani Nursing Home, Tittaguidi, which is run by one Dr.Jothimullanathan, where a 16 years old girl, viz., Maheswari, undergone medical termination of pregnancy on 05.02.2014, with a history of bleeding due to a missed abortion. During enquiry, the Doctor informed that the said

________

Page2 of 10

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/04/2026 04:06:11 pm )

CRL RC No. 1005 of 2021

Maheswari had produced a scan report obtained from the petitioner’s nursing home dated 04.02.2014, wherein she was allegedly informed orally about the sex of the foetus as female. It is further stated that, as per the direction of the petitioner’s hospital, she had consumed abortion tablets on her own, which resulted in heavy bleeding, and thereafter was admitted to M/s.Chackkarapani Nursing Home, Tittaguidi. The same was recorded by the said Doctor at M/s.Chackkarapani Nursing Home, Tittaguidi, in Form-C as “abortion pills failure”. Therefore, on 07.02.2014, the respondent team inspected the petitioner’s hospital and found that the hospital was in practice of revealing the sex of foetus to antenatal mothers undergoing ultrasound scan procedures at their centre. On verification, it was found that, in respect of the antenatal mother Maheswari, the genetic test or analysis of scan procedure was not recorded in Nominal Register or in the Form–F Register, which is mandatory under the PCPNDT Act and a notice was issued to the petitioner’s hospital. Further, it was found that the petitioner‘s hospital had not obtained prior permission from the competent authorities for performing MTP. Further, the sex of the foetus of another patient, viz., Agastia was disclosed to her and that MTP was done after receipt of Rs.22,000/-. Therefore, the respondent filed a

complaint and the same has been taken cognizance by the Trial Court.

________

Page3 of 10

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/04/2026 04:06:11 pm )

CRL RC No. 1005 of 2021

3. In order to prove the complaint, the prosecution had examined

P.W.1 to P.