PCPNDT : A Private complaint filed without any legal authority was quashed relying upon Hon. Supreme Court Judgment. Adv. ROHiT ERANDE ©

PCPNDT : A Private complaint filed without any legal authority was quashed by Hon. Telangana High Court, relying upon the Judgement of Hon. Supreme Court.

Adv. ROHiT ERANDE ©


Facts of the case in short :

1. The Respondent No.2 herein filed a complaint under Section 28 of the PCPNDT Act & by an order, dated 11.12.2019, the learned III-Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate at Hyderabad, has taken cognizance of the offence against the Accused and ordered for issuance of summons against which  the present Criminal Petitions are filed by A-1, A-2 and A-5 to A-7 before Hon'ble Telangana High Court.

2. The only contention raised on behalf of the Petitioner Doctors was that as per Sec.28 of the PCPNDT Act, the Court can take cognizance of an offense only on a complaint made by the concerned appropriate authority and as the Respondent No.2 is not the appropriate authority  he has no authorization to file the complaint, therefore, the proceedings against the petitioners are liable to be quashed. 

3. The Petitioner's Ld. Advocate relied upon the Judgment of Hon. The Supreme Court in the matter of Dr.Mallannagouda v. The State of Karnataka (W.P.No.200185 of 2018), wherein Hon'ble Apex Court quashed the complaints which were filed through private advocate without any authorization of appropriate authority representing the complainant or Government Authorization. In the same judgment, their lordships also referred to the famous judgment of Hon'ble Bombay High Court (Aurangabad Bench) in the case of  Dr. Sai w/o Santosh Shiradkar v/s The State of Maharashtra and another in Criminal Writ Petition No.1381/2015, (which was later on confirmed by Hon. Apex Court in Special Leave to Appeal (Crl) CRL.M.P.No.5636/2017 on 17.04.2017.) wherein similar action was challenged on the ground of violation of principles of natural justice. It was contended that before filing of complaint, the Appropriate Authority should have given opportunity to the alleged defaulters and taken their explanation, sought the compliance.

4. In that case court held that having regard to scheme of the Act, Sections 17(4), (a), 28, 29 and Rule- 9, whenever any omissions or commissions in compliance of Act and Rules are found, the appropriate authority has to seek explanation of the defaulters to find out, whether there is any criminal intention in such violation. It was further held that, if there is scope for correction, no criminal intention is found, compliance can be permitted. Over all it is stated that an opportunity shall be given to defaulters, before taking recourse to prosecution of the defaulters. 

5. In the instant case also, it is nowhere stated in the private complaint that the 2nd respondent is an appropriate authority and that he was authorized by the 'appropriate authority' to file the said complaint and to prosecute the petitioners and thus the Petitions were allowed and the criminal action against Doctors were quashed down as same were an abuse of process of law.

6. Yet another important judgment. The Legal principle is very clear that says that “If law requires a particular thing to be done in a particular way, then it should be done in that way only, otherwise it should not be done at all”. 

Case Details : Judgment of Hon. Telangana High Court.  (Coram : Hon. Justice G. Sri Devi), 06/05/2020

Smt. Dr. Kiran Kumar And 2 Others vs State Of Telangana And Another

Judgment Link :

https://indiankanoon.org/doc/181704754/


Thanks and Regards,

Adv. ROHiT ERANDE

Pune. ©


Comments

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