#PCPNDT - A Task Force does automatically become A.A. - Trial Courts Cannot not take cognizance of alleged complaints of A.A. without any authority. Adv. ROHiT ERANDE. ©

#PCPNDT - A Task Force does automatically  become A.A. - Trial Courts Cannot  not take cognizance of alleged complaints  of A.A. without any authority. 

Adv. ROHiT ERANDE. ©

Case Details :

Dr. Rajendra Vitthalrao Prakashey V/s. Dr. Savita Ranjit Meshram & ors.

Before Hon' Bombay high Court, Nagpur bench, . CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 426 OF 2016

Judgment Link :

https://indiankanoon.org/docfragment/172368856/?formInput=pcpndt%20%20sortby%3A%20mostrecent

Facts of the Case in Short :

1. The Petitioner challenged the order of Sessions Court which confirmed the order of  Issue Process passed by JMFC Court  against the Petitioner based on the complaint filed by Respondent AA for various alleged violations of provisions of PCPNDT Act.


2.  The short point involved is whether the Respondents - AA were  legally competent to file the complaint under Section 28 of the PCPNDT Act. It would be material to note that Section 28(1) of the said Act is couched in a negative language and mandates that no Court shall take cognizance of an offence under this Act, except on a complaint made by (a) the appropriate authority concerned or (b) any officer authorized in this behalf by the State/Central Govt. and (c) any officer authorized by the appropriate authority. 

3. It is contended that the complainant/Respondent was not the appropriate authority, as for the purpose of being appointed as an appropriate authority under Section 17(2) of the PCPNDT Act, there has to be gazette notification published in the official gazette in this regard.

Held :

1. At the outset, the Ld. Advocate for the Respondent fairly admits that there is no such gazette notification published in the official gazette by which Respondent/original complainant can be said to have been appointed as the appropriate authority. The notification dated 13.10.2011 (page 19) does not, according to him relate to the appointment of Respondent No.1 as an appropriate authority and therefore it is of no use. He contends that only on the basis of notification dated 11.9.1997, as it stood modified by the notification dated 9.12.1997, the complaint has been filed. 

2. It is however, material to note that these two notifications would be applicable only to a place where there is no Civil Surgeon. Admittedly, the present matters relate to Nagpur City and it is not disputed by  learned counsel for the respondent that at the relevant time a Civil Surgeon was duly appointed and functioning. 

3. His Lordship observed that the position is no more res integra, but is covered by the decision of the Division Bench at the Aurangabad Bench of this Court in Criminal Writ Petition No. 250/2015 (Dr. Paayal Shreekant Choube V/s. State of Maharashtra and others) decided on 16.10.2015, in which it has been categorically held that unless the complaint under Section 28 of the  PCPNDT Act is filed by the person as required by Section 28(1)(a), the Court shall not take cognizance of the same.

4. It was further held that since the only question is and as  it is admitted that there is no notification appointing Respondent No.1 as an appropriate authority under Section 17(2) of the PCPNDT Act, nor is there any authorization in favour of Respondent No.1 as required by Section 28(1)(a) of the said Act, the complaint lodged by the Respondent No.1 clearly should not have been taken cognizance of by the learned JMFC. 

5. It was further observed before quashing the complaints and cognizance taken by Lower Courts that,  that the learned Sessions Court in its impugned judgment clearly ignores this position and misdirects itself in relying upon the notification dated 13.10.2011, which merely relates to appointment of a Task Force and nothing else, considering which the same cannot be sustained. 


Yet again, the Hon. High Court has rushed to the rescue of the Doctors against high handed actions under PCPNDT Act. However, who will bear the costs of such Litigation and mental pain and agony and loss of business ? There should be a section to that effect in the Act itself.  The law is very settled that "If a law requires anything is to be done in a particular way, then it should be done in that way else shouldn't be done at all. "

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