PCPNDT High Court relief : If the procedure to seize the records itself is illegal, no liability for improper records can be saddled upon Doctors.

Hon. Bombay High Court has given to solace to Doctors against highhanded action of PCPNDT Authorities.

Case Details :
Navi Mumbai Municipal Corporation V/s. M/s. Manjurshree Diagnostic Center
Cri. Appl. No. 488/2014, Decided on 25/10/2018

Judgment Link :
https://indiankanoon.org/doc/140551668/

Facts in short :
1. The Municipal Corporation filed application against the acquittal of the Respondents by the Trial Court from the offenses under PCPNDT Act.

2. It was contended on behalf of the Corporation in the relevant period about 69 sonographis were performed by the Respondent, however there was no proper record maintained as envisaged under rule 9 of the said Act. Hence they ought not to have been acquitted.

3. Per Contra, it was argued on part of the Respondent that the procedure to seize the documents was itself not legal. Even the Constable who was supposed to be an independent witness was also put outside during the process of search and seizure. The printouts of sonography reports were not proved as per the Evidence Act being the electronic evidence.

Held :
1. After hearing of the parties at length, the Hon. Bombay High Court confirmed the order of acquittal of Doctors passed by the Trial Court.

2. By taking recourse to settled principle that"If a statute requires a thing to be done in a particular way then it should be done in that way only, else should not be done at all", it was observed that search and seizure should be conducted by the procedure prescribed by law. i.e. by taking help of 2 or more independent  and respectful inhabitants of the same locality.

3. However in the case in hand, the Prosecution took the help of a public witness, who was also kept out of the purview of the search and seizure process. Even Police personnel  who accompanied the PCPNDT Authorities was not made involved in said process. Therefore the procedure as laid down by law was not followed. 

4. Thus the allegations of the Authorities that the Respondent did not maintain the record properly do not stand as the process of search and seizure was itself illegal and thus no liability can be fastened upon the Doctors. Even the prosecution could not prove the printouts of sonography reports as per law.

5. Even the trap of decoy patient set by the Authorities  failed in order to prove the allegations of Sex determination. Thus the appeal deserves to be dismissed.

Well, in this case the Doctors were saved solely because of the improper action on part of the Authorities. It may not happen every time. So maintaining of record properly and not resorting to illegal activities like sex determination, have no alternative. 

Thanks and regards,

Adv. Rohit Erande
Pune. © 

Comments

  1. Unknown29 October 2018 at 03:25

    Very truly said by the Honourable Court.
    But the flaw lies in not penalizing the Patients who roam free ( a large number of them) asking for/ getting sex determination done either from remote villages or abroad as close as Dubai.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

#PCPNDT - Mere Pendency of a criminal case is not a ground to refuse the renewal of registration – Hon. P&H High Court, at Chandigarh. Adv. ROHiT ERANDE ©

 Mere Pendency of a criminal case is not a ground to refuse the renewal of registration – Hon. P&H High Court, at Chandigarh  Adv. ROHiT ERANDE  © Case Details :  CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.9312 OF 2020 Dr. Sanjiv Kaushal V/s. State of Haryana and others CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH Facts in short : 1. The  Petitioner has approached this Court, praying for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing order dated 13.10.2016 passed by the District Appropriate Authority, Sirsa, Haryana-respondent No.2; order dated 23.04.2018 passed by the State Appropriate Authority, PNDT, Panchkula-respondent No.4 and order dated 11/14.01.2019 passed by the Additional Chief Secretary to Government of Haryana-cum-State Appellate Authority, Health Department, on the ground that the request of the petitioner for renewal of registration under the PC & PNDT Rules, 1996 has been declined merely because of the pendency of a criminal case against ...
Read more

PCPNDT Act : Can USG be performed by even by MBBS after 6 months training ? : What are the effects of Hon. Supreme Court's order..

"Prima facie the judgment of the Delhi High Court has trenched upon an area of legislative policy"  The 3 judges bench of Hon. Supreme Court observed this while staying the judgment of  Hon. Delhi High Court. Hon. Delhi High Court .  Case details : Union of India V/s. Indian Radiological and Imaging Association of India & ors. SLP. Nos. 166657-59 of 2016. Interim Order dated :14th March, 2018 by the three judges Bench. Coram : Hon. Dipak Misra (the then Hon.C.J.I.), Hon. D.Y. Chandrachud and Hon. A.M. Khanwilkar, JJ. Order Link : https://www.sci.gov.in/supremecourt/2016/20683/20683_2016_Judgement_14-Mar-2018.pdf Facts in Short : 1. The Hon. Supreme Court was dealing with 2 sets of Petitions with 2 main questions. i.e. the Strict implementation of PCPNDT Act and the later petitions were relating to the challenge of Judgment of Hon. Delhi High Court in relation to 6 months training rule. 2. In first part of the Judgment Hon. Apex Co...
Read more

" The Machine which is registered under the PCPNDT Act cannot be carried to other place which is not registered" : Hon. Bombay High Court. Adv. Rohit Erande. ©

 " The Machine which is registered under the PCPNDT Act cannot be carried to other place which is not registered" : Hon. Bombay High Court. Adv. Rohit Erande. © In short, One Machine - One Place - One Registration. In its recently reported judgment of Dr. Deepak Sane V/s. State of Maharashtra, 2017(1) Mh.L.J.379, W.P. no.2995/2015, The Division Bench at Nagpur held so.. Facts in short : 1. The petitioner is the leading Medical Practitioner in Nagpur and dealing exclusively with Heart Treatment. He is required to use the 2D Echo Colour Doppler Machine for Treating his patients and for treating the patients he requires to visit the ICCU at different Hospitals. 2. IT was the case of the petitioner that he needy patients who cannot come to his clinic, for them he has to carry his 2D Echo machine, which is duly registered under the provisions of PCPNDT Act.Therefore he applied to the concerned authorities for getting permission to move the said machine at different places, but sa...
Read more