IMPORTANT POINT
The person conducting ultrasonography is responsible for maintaining records as per the statutory requirements, and procedural lapses in inspections can lead to the quashing of convictions.

JUDGMENT/ORDER

1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of the parties.

2. The petitioner has impugned the judgments and orders of conviction passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Washi, District Osmanabad in R.C.C. No.30 of 2011, decided on 12/1/2016 and confirmed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-1, Bhoom, by judgment and order in Criminal Appeal No.03 of 2016 dtd. 30/11/2021.

3. The petitioner has been convicted for the offence punishable under Sec. 23 of the Pre-Conception and Pre-natal Diagnostic Techniques (Prohibition of Sex Selection) Act, 1994 (For short 'Act 1994') r/w Rule 9(4) of the Pre-Conception and Pre-natal Diagnostic Techniques (Prohibition of Sex Selection) Rules, 1996 (For short 'Rules 1996').

4. The facts giving rise to the prosecution case were that the petitioner was the medical practitioner and owner of Hospital and Genetic Clinic, under the name and style 'Bhagwant Hospital' at Washi. The petitioner was BHMS. He obtained a Certificate of Registration to run a Genetic Clinic for pre-natal diagnostic procedures for Ultrasound on 10.05. 2002 from Civil Surgeon, General Hospital, Parbhani for five years. Thereafter, he renewed the registration, and it was renewed for a further five years from 15/5/2007. On 12/5/2005. The Civil Surgeon had granted permission to Dr. D.M. Jagtap to operate the machine at the Hospital of the applicant. In the said permission, a specific condition was laid that Dr. Jagtap would be responsible for maintaining the record of the Sonography Centre, and the applicant shall take note thereof.

5. The prosecution has a case in brief that the Complainant was the Taluka Appropriate Authority for inspecting the Sonography Centers. On 17/2/2011, the Complainant and members of the District Level squad inspected the Genetic Clinic of the accused. In the inspection, they noticed many irregularities. The registers were not maintained in the prescribed forms. The consent forms after 27/12/2009 were not available. The case record was also not available. Dr. Jagtap stopped visiting the Centre from 6/1/2010 to conduct the sonography. The petitioner had forwarded the 'nil' reports, although the Radiologist was not visiting the Centre. They seized the necessary papers and drew the seizer panchanama in the presence of the accused. He put his signature and obtained the signatures of the members of the squad on panchanama. Lastly, he filed the complaint.

6. Admittedly, Dr. Jagtap was not arraigned as an accused in the complaint. He was added as accused by the Court order dtd. 18/1/2012 below Ex. 51. However, this Court, by order in Criminal Writ Petition No. 22 of 2014 dated January 5, 2015, discharged him on the basis of the admission of the Complainant that the accused had furnished the undertaking before the Civil Surgeon accepting the responsibility to maintain and preserve the record. The trial Court discharged the accused No. 2 by order dated 22.03. 2012. His prayer for discharge was also refused by the High Court. Hence, the accused faced the trial and was convicted, as mentioned above.

7. Learned senior counsel Mr. Rajendra Deshmukh for the accused has argued that there are various apparent errors of law on the face of the record. On 19/12/2005, by permission exhibit-137, Dr. Jagtap was permitted to operate the sonography machine. Therefore, he was responsible for the statutory compliances. Since the accused was not the expert, he cannot be held responsible for the statutory compliances. After Dr. Jagtap stopped visiting the Genetic Clinic, as per the directions of the office of the first informant, the accused sent the 'nil' monthly reports. Therefore, both Courts erred in law in not believing it was a statutory compliance. The Court did not appropriately consider the law in the facts and circumstances of the case. The charges were also not properly framed. The Complainant, who had given a surprise visit to the Clinic, had no authority. A notification