Summary
The Supreme Court upheld the Magistrate's cognizance and issue of process against a doctor running a sonography centre for violations of the PCPNDT Act arising from errors and blanks in Form F records. Under the proviso to Section 4(3), incomplete or inaccurate records amount to a contravention of Sections 5 or 6 unless the contrary is proved, and complete Form F is mandatory. Such lapses are not mere technical errors, and the provisions cannot be diluted.
Issues
- Whether the Magistrate was right to take cognizance and issue process under Section 23 of the PCPNDT Act for violation of Sections 4(3), 5, 6 and 29 and the Rules, based on errors and blanks in Form F.
- Whether deficiencies in maintaining Form F records can be treated as inadvertent technical errors that do not justify prosecution.
Provisions considered
- Section 4(3), proviso, Pre-Conception and Pre-Natal Diagnostic Techniques (Prohibition of Sex Selection) Act, 1994The proviso requires a person conducting ultrasonography on a pregnant woman to keep complete records in the prescribed manner, and treats any deficiency or inaccuracy as a contravention of Section 5 or 6 unless the contrary is proved; the Court held that defects in Form F therefore cannot be dismissed as technical. (¶¶ 7, 10, 13, 14)
- Sections 5 and 6, Pre-Conception and Pre-Natal Diagnostic Techniques (Prohibition of Sex Selection) Act, 1994Quoted as requiring the pregnant woman's written consent, prohibiting communication of the sex of the foetus, and prohibiting sex determination; record deficiencies are deemed contraventions of these sections by virtue of the proviso to Section 4(3). (¶¶ 4, 10, 13)
- Section 23, Pre-Conception and Pre-Natal Diagnostic Techniques (Prohibition of Sex Selection) Act, 1994The penal provision for medical practitioners and clinic owners or employees who contravene the Act or Rules, under which process was issued against the appellant. (¶¶ 4, 10, 13)
- Section 28, Pre-Conception and Pre-Natal Diagnostic Techniques (Prohibition of Sex Selection) Act, 1994Quoted as allowing cognizance only on a complaint by the Appropriate Authority or an authorised officer, or by a person who has given the prescribed notice; the cognizance taken on the authority's complaint was upheld. (¶¶ 10, 17)
- Form F (with Rules 9(4) and 10(1-A)), Pre-Conception and Pre-Natal Diagnostic Techniques (Prohibition of Sex Selection) Rules, 1996Form F, prescribed for keeping records of pre-natal diagnostic procedures, was reproduced; following Federation of Obstetrics & Gynaecological Societies of India, the Court treated its complete contents as mandatory. (¶¶ 11, 12, 13)
- Section 204, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973The Magistrate's order issuing process under this section was the order under challenge and was upheld. (¶¶ 4, 8, 17)
Held
- Keeping complete records in Form F is essential to the PCPNDT Act and its purpose. Following Federation of Obstetrics & Gynaecological Societies of India v. Union of India, non-maintenance of records is a springboard for female foeticide, not a clerical error; complete contents of Form F are mandatory, and any deficiency or inaccuracy amounts to a contravention of Sections 5 or 6 under the proviso to Section 4(3) unless the person conducting the ultrasonography proves otherwise. (¶¶ 13, 14)
- Although sex ratios have improved in recent years, the progress is incomplete and uneven. Diluting the Act's provisions or letting infractions pass cannot be countenanced, and strict enforcement of the Act remains essential. (¶¶ 14, 15, 16)
- The appellant's contention that the errors and blanks in Form F were inadvertent technical errors did not justify interfering with the cognizance and issue of process. The High Court had also held that the extent of the violations is a matter for trial and that the District Civil Surgeon was the Appropriate Authority under a notification of 15.05.2015; the Supreme Court did not discuss these points separately and dismissed the appeal on a cumulative assessment. (¶¶ 7, 17)
Result
Appeal dismissed; the High Court's refusal to interfere with the Magistrate's order of 09.06.2016 taking cognizance and issuing process was upheld.