PRE-CONCEPTION AND PRE-NATAL DIAGNOSTIC TECHNIQUES (PROHIBITION OF SEX SELECTION) ACT, 1994

Facts: A joint inspection was conducted by the State and District team, Dhenkanal, in Ultrasound Unit of Shri Jagannath Hospital where it was found that the Respondents had violated the provisions Under Sections 3(2), 5 and 29 of the PC and PNDT Act which is punishable u/s 23 and 25 of the said Act. For such violation the authorized officer of the Collector-cum-District Appropriate Authority seized the ultrasound machine and other equipments from the said clinic and suspended the registration license. A complaint was filed against the Accused under the PC and PNDT Act. The Trial Court took cognizance of offences alleged and issued summons to the Respondents. Against such summons being served the respondents appealed to High Court for quashing of such proceedings where the High Court gave order in respondent's favour. Hence, this appeal.

Held: The court held that the Collector-District Magistrate-cum-District Appropriate Authority is said to have authorised the Tehsildar/Executive Magistrate, Dhenkanal, to inspect the clinic of the Respondents on 28.05.2014 and to take appropriate legal action. It was submitted that the High Court did not keep in view this authorisation dated 27.05.2014 authorising the Tehsildar to make the inspection of the Respondents' hospital on 28.05.2014. Therefore, the impugned order of High Court is set aside and appeal is allowed thereby stating that High court erred in quashing the petition without taking into consideration of the order dated 27.05.2014.

Facts: The grievance agitated in the present petition dealt with the increase of female foeticide, resultant imbalance of sex ratio and the indifference in the implementation of the stringent law in force. The fulcrum of the anguished grievance laid stress on the non-implementation of the provisions of the Act, 1994 and the Rules, 1996. The Petitioner contended that the sex ratio in most of the States had decreased and in certain States, there had been a minor increase, but the same was not likely to subserve the aims and objects of the Act. The Petitioner had submitted that certain directions are required to be issued.

Held: An offence punishable under Section 23(1) of the said Act and further all offences under the Act have been made non-bailable and non-compoundable and the misuse of the same can only be taken care of by ensuring that the Appropriate Authority applies its mind to the fact of each case/complaint and only on satisfaction of a prima facie case, a complaint be filed rather than launching prosecution mechanically in each case. Decrease in the sex ratio is a sign of colossal calamity and it cannot be allowed to happen. Concrete steps have to be taken to increase the same so that invited social disasters do not befall on the society. The present generation is expected to be responsible to the posterity and not to take such steps to sterilize the birth rate in violation of law. The societal perception has to be metamorphosed having respect to legal postulates. ver there is an abuse of the process of the law, the individual can always avail the legal remedy. Neither the validity of the Act nor the Rules has been specifically assailed in the other petition. What had been prayed was to read out certain provisions and to add certain exceptions. The averments of the present nature with such prayers could not be entertained.

Facts: Petitioner is the owner of a MRI Equipment Service and Repair Centre. The petitioner filled up all the forms for registration, however after the submission of such forms the workshop of the petitioner was raided by the officials of R3 claiming that the petitioner has violated the provisions of the PCPNDT Act. An FIR was also registered against the petitioner alleging that the workshop had not been registered under the Act. The petitoner contended that that Rule 18A Sub-Rule 7 provides only in respect of ultrasound machines and the competent authority by way of a Circular cannot override the Rules and apply the same to other imaging machines. Also, the power to make Rules under S. 32 vests in the Central Government and the power to make Regulation as per S. 33 of the PCPNDT Act vests with the Board. Thus, no power has been vested in the appropriate authority to issue Circulars beyond the Rules and Regulations and add up imaging machines.

Held: After taking into consideration of the various provisions of the Act , the Court held that Section 3B of the PCPNDT Act prohibits sale of ultrasound machine or imaging machine or scanner or any other equipment capable of detecting the sex of the foetus to any Genetic Counselling Centre, Laboratory, Clinic or any other person not registered under the Act and from the material placed on record by the competent authority it is evident that though the petitioner has not installed any imaging machine in his office but is dealing in the sale of equipments of the imaging machine. The term 'ultrasound equipment' appearing in Sub-Rule 7 of Rule 18A cannot be given a restricted meaning and confined the same to an ultrasound machine but has to be applied to all allied machines which can serve the purpose of an ultrasound machine and would thus include an imaging machine as well. Hence, the circular issued by the competent authority does not suffer from the vice of arbitrariness being beyond the competence nor does it over-ride any rule or regulation or provision of the PCPNDT Act.

Facts: The High Court after noticing that the person who prosecuted the Respondent did not come within the definition of "Appropriate Authority" as stipulated under Section 17(3) of the PCPNDT Act, 1994, held that the complaint was not maintainable. Hence, the present Appeal.

Held: The Court after taking into account Section 28(1)(a) of the Act held that the Authority is vested in three officers, namely, the Appropriate Authority, i.e. the authority as notified Under Section 17(3) of the Act apart from any officer authorised in that behalf either by the Central Government or the State Government or by the concerned Appropriate Authority notified Under S. 17(3) itself. The High Court has noted that the officers who were authorised by the concerned appropriate authorities to help the Appropriate Authority to monitor and have effective implementation of the Act cannot construed as officers authorised in that behalf as provided Under S. 28(1)(a) of the Act. The High Court had, therefore, no other go except to set aside the proceedings initiated at the instance of the Petitioner and while setting aside the same gave liberty to the Petitioner to take appropriate recourse under the provisions of the Act and High Courts order was upheld by this court.