Punjab & Haryana High Court Acquits Ultrasound Centre, Cites Invalid Complaint Under PCPNDT Act

Chandigarh: The Punjab and Haryana High Court recently set aside the conviction of M/S Kamboj Ultrasound and Diagnostic Centre and its directors, Dr. M.P. Kamboj and Dr. Renu Kamboj , for alleged violations under the Pre-Conception and Pre-Natal Diagnostic Techniques (Prohibition of Sex Selection) Act, 1994 (PC&PNDT Act). The Court ruled that the initial complaint leading to their prosecution was not filed by a validly constituted "Appropriate Authority" as mandated by the Act, thereby vitiating the entire proceedings.

The revision petition (CRR 1499 / 2008) challenged the judgment of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hisar, dated February 7, 2007, which convicted the petitioners, and the appellate judgment of the Sessions Judge, Hisar, dated July 9, 2007, which upheld the conviction with a minor modification in sentence.

Case Background

The case originated from a complaint filed on October 3, 2005, by Dr. S.P. Naval , then Civil Surgeon-cum-District Appropriate Authority, Hisar. The complaint alleged deficiencies in record-keeping (Form F) and contravention of Sections 4(2) and 6(b) of the PC&PNDT Act, punishable under Section 23 of the Act. These allegations stemmed from an inspection of the petitioners' ultrasound centre conducted on October 1, 2005.

The petitioners were convicted by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hisar, and sentenced to Rigorous Imprisonment (RI) of 1-2 years for each offence, along with fines. The Sessions Judge, Hisar, on appeal, reduced the RI for one of the offences from 1-2 years to 1 year, while maintaining the rest of the sentence. The present revision petition before the High Court had been pending for approximately 17 years.

Arguments Before the High Court

The primary contention raised by the counsel for the petitioners was that the complaint was not filed by a competent authority as per Sections 17 and 28 of the PC&PNDT Act. It was argued that: - Under Section 17 of the Act (as amended in 2002), the "Appropriate Authority" for a district must be a three-member committee. - The complaint in this case was filed solely by the Civil Surgeon, Dr. S.P. Naval , claiming to be the District Appropriate Authority. - Reliance was placed on previous High Court judgments, including M/s Mindray Medical India Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Haryana and anr. (CRR No. 2177 of 2010, decided on 18.5.2012) and Dr. R.C. Khandelwal and others vs. State of Haryana and anr. (CRM-M No. 19172 of 2013), which held that the Appropriate Authority for a district is a three-member committee. - It was further submitted that the Supreme Court had dismissed a Special Leave Petition ( State of Haryana and anr vs. Jitu @ Jitender Brahamparkash and anr , SLP (Crl.) No. 10407 of 2015) against a High Court order that had quashed proceedings based on a complaint not filed by a three-member Appropriate Authority.

The State counsel, conversely, argued that: - The Civil Surgeon was duly authorized. - The interpretation of Section 17 regarding a three-member body by the High Court in M/s Mindray Medical should apply prospectively to prosecutions initiated after that judgment, not retroactively to the petitioners' case initiated in 2005. - A subsequent interpretation of a law by a court relates back to the date of the law's enactment itself.

Court's Analysis and Findings

The High Court meticulously examined Section 17 of the PC&PNDT Act, which details the constitution of the "Appropriate Authority." Section 17(3)(a) specifies that when appointed for the whole State or Union Territory, the Authority shall consist of three members: an officer of or above the rank of Joint Director of Health and Family Welfare (Chairperson), an eminent woman representing a women's organization, and an officer of the Law Department. Section 17(3)(b) states that for any part of the State, the authority shall be "of such other rank as the State Government...may deem fit."

The Court referred to its own precedent in M/s Mindray Medical India Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Haryana and anr. , where it was held: > "A conjoined reading of Section 17 (2) read with Section 17 (3) (a) of the Act would show that the appropriate authority for the whole or part of the State shall be a three members Committee..."

The Court also noted the Supreme Court's dismissal of the SLP in the Jitu @ Jitender Brahamparkash case, which implicitly upheld the High Court's view on the necessity of a three-member committee.

Addressing the State's argument about prospective application, the High Court cited Asst. Commissioner, Income Tax, Rajkot Vs. Saurashtra Kutch Stock Exchange Ltd. (2008) 13 SCC 141, wherein the Supreme Court held: > "It is settled principle that the interpretation of a provision of law relates back to the date of the law itself and cannot be prospective of the judgment."

The High Court observed that in the present case, the complaint was filed by Dr. S.P. Naval alone. It emphasized: > "In the instant case, the complaint was filed by Dr. S.P. Naval alone and it ought to have been filed by a three-member Committee, appointed by a Notification under Section 17 of the PC and PNDT Act. The same not having been done, the very complaint itself is not maintainable and therefore, the subsequent proceedings and conviction stands vitiated."

The Court further found support in the case of Dr. R.C. Khandelwal and others vs. State of Haryana and anr. , where it was explicitly stated: > "...it is held that the complaint filed by the Civil Surgeon alone is not maintainable and the entire proceedings are vitiated being illegal in law."

Decision and Implications

Concluding that the complaint was not instituted by a legally constituted "Appropriate Authority," the High Court found considerable merit in the revision petition.

The Court ordered: > "In view of the aforementioned discussion, I find considerable merit in the present petition and therefore, the judgments of the Trial Court as well as of the lower Appellate Court are hereby set aside. The petitioners are acquitted of the charges framed against them."

This judgment underscores the critical importance of procedural correctness in initiating prosecutions under special enactments like the PC&PNDT Act. A failure to adhere to the statutory requirements for the constitution and functioning of the "Appropriate Authority" can render the entire legal process, including conviction, invalid. It serves as a reminder that the authority to prosecute must be strictly in accordance with the letter of the law.