IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT GWALIOR BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MILIND RAMESH PHADKE

th

ON THE 14 OF OCTOBER, 2025 MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 49097 of 2019 SHIVBHAN SINGH RATHORE (MAHILA BAL VIKAS SAMITI)

Versus DR. SMT. POOJA AGRAWAL Appearance:

Shri Chetan Padndey - Advocate for petitioner.

ORDER IA No. 10505/2019, an application under Section 5 of Limitation Act for condonation of delay is taken up, considered and allowed for the reasons mentioned therein.

2. Delay in preferring the present petition is hereby condoned.

3. This petition for grant of leave to appeal under Section 378(3) of the Cr.P.C., 1973 has been filed against the judgment of acquittal dated 12.02.2019 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bhind, in private case No. 248/2009, whereby the respondent was acquitted of charges under Section 4(2) of the Pre-Conceptional and Pre-Natal Diagnostic Techniques (Prohibition of Sex Selection) Act, 1994 (hereinafter referred to as 'PCPNDT Act, 1994') and Rules 9 and 10 of the Pre-Conceptional and Pre-Natal Diagnostic Techniques Rules, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as 'PCPNDT Rules, 1996').

4. The complainant’s case in brief is that the complainant, Shivbhan Singh, is the secretary of the Mahila Bal Vikas Samiti Bhind (Women and Child Development Committee Bhind) and a social worker. This organization and committee is registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1973, with registration number 19168 dated 16.02.1987. The organization is recognized by the M.P. Goverment Women and Child Development and Panchayat & Social Justice Department. The accused used to operate Divyam Ultrasound Clinic located at Nai Abadi, Gali Number 1, Bhind. The said clinic was registered under the said Act for a period between 02.06.2005 to 01.06.2010. The accused failed to comply with the provisions of the Act and, on 02.03.2008, did not certify “Form C” for pre-natal diagnostic techniques. The accused also did not obtain consent in the local Hindi language in the prescribed “Form G” as per Rule 10 of the Act. Certification was filled in by another employee. Under Section 13 of the Act, the accused did not provide the list of clinic staff and did not inform the competent authority of any staff changes. The accused gave indications about the sex of the unborn child (female fetus) during the examination of pregnant women. The accused also conducted tests on the request of the pregnant woman herself, even without any referral from a competent medical practitioner. As per Section 3 of the Act, neither sufficiently qualified staff nor adequate space and equipment were available. Since the accused violated the provisions regarding pre-natal diagnostic techniques, a request has been made to punish the accused accordingly.

5. The accused has denied the charges and has demanded a trial. No defense evidence was presented on behalf of the accused. In the examination under Section 313 of the Criminal Procedure Code, the accused has stated that he is innocent and have been falsely implicated. The learned trial Court, after appreciation of evidence adduced by both parties, acquitted the accused of the charges he charges under Section 4(2) of PCPNDT Act, 1994 and Rule 9 and 10 of PCPNDT Rules, 1996 vide impugned judgment dated 12.02.2019.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner respectfully submitted that the learned Trial Court has failed to appreciate the material documentary evidence placed on record by the petitioner along with the complaint. It is specifically pointed out that the documents obtained from the office of the CMHO clearly showed blank spaces at the place of the patient’s signature. However, after the filing of the complaint, in order to cover up the said criminal lapse, the accused subsequently manipulated and rectified the said documents by filling in the missing details, which is apparent upon comparison of the original documents with those later produced. This material aspect, though evident from the record, was completely ig