PCPNDT ACT

"Another relief to Doctors under PCPNDT Act, against delayed and high handed action of AA" Hon. Rajasthan High Court dismissed the Petition of State of Rajasthan, as the Original Complaint itself was time barred and the allegations leveled were not of Sex Determination, but were relating to deficiencies in F Forms etc..,   Case Details: State of Rajasthan V/s. Dr. Kailsh Chandra Jain.  Cri. Rev. Appl. No.984/2013 See the Links : file:///C:/Users/Admin/Downloads/CRLR984201317_05_2017.pdf   or https://indiankanoon.org/doc/42032523/ Facts in short : 1. The AA Team in its complaint averred that on 29.06.2007 it inspected sonography center of the accused Doctor and found irregularities punishable under various Sections of the PCPNDT Act, but filed a compliant on 15.03.2011. Ld. Trial Court took the cognizance of compliant on 24/03/2011. 2. Being  aggrieved by the said order the Doctor-accused approached the Sessions Court and Sessions C...

Doctor's Personal court case cannot be the disqualification under PCPNDT Act for registration of a center or its renewal.. "Action of AA of refusal to renew registration of Center on the ground that Criminal Case relating to Matrimonial Relations is pending against the the Doctor ,was quashed by Hon. Rajasthan high Court". You may see the link... http://rhccasestatus.raj.nic.in/smsrhcb/rhbcis/judfile.asp … Case Details : Shipra Katta V/s. State of Rajasthan & anr. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3826 / 2017. The petitioner moved an application for renewal of registration of her center, which was refused by the AA relying upon the amended provisions of Rule 18-A(4)(ii) of the Rules of 1996. The amended rule goes as under : 18(4) All the Appropriate Authorities including the State, District and Sub-district notified under the Act, inter-alia, shall observe the following conduct for registration and renewal of applications under t...

"The Doctor got bail under PCPNDT Act, as the CTG machine was proved to be unfit for sex selection/determination" In the recent judgment, Hon. Rajasthan High Court, in the case of Dr. Sushila Khinchi vs State of Rajasthan, while granting to Bail to the Petitioner Doctor, raised the doubts over action of AA. The public prosecutor submitted the Inquiry report made by the Board consisting of experts on the subject. The report was signed by Joint Director of Medical and Health as well as Professor and the Head of Department of Oby & Gyn. After going through the report, His Lordship observed that "prima facie, offences slapped against petitioner under the PCPNDT Act are under serious clouds". The Report revealed that CTG machine, which was seized from the clinic of petitioner Dr. Sushila Khinchi, cannot be utilized for sex selection/determination of a foetus. . On this background the Doctor was granted Bail and with the stipulation to appear be...

"It's not an offense under the PCPNDT Act, if the computer generated reports are signed by the owner of the Hospital and not by the concerned Sonologist/ Radiologist"" - Hon. Bombay High Court "The Court can take cognizance of complaint under PCPNDT Act, only if it is filed by the duly appointed AA" The Hon. Bombay High Court ( Justice Smt. Anuja Prabhudesai) in its recent judgment in the case of Dr. Rajender Sujanyal & Dr. Shripad Inamdar V/s. State of Maharashtra, (W.P. No.4310/2015, Criminal), has given huge relief to Doctors against the highanded action of AA. Facts : 1. This case is from PCMC, Pune. The Petitioner No.1 is the Gynaecologist runs a “Stree Hospital”, with licensed Ultrasound sonography machines. Petitioner No.2 is the visiting qualified radiologist / sonologist in the said Hospital. 2. The Commissioner of PCMC, who is otherwise, AA, delegated his powers of Inspection, Search, Seizures and sealing of record and machines etc...

Competent Authority directed to de-seal and return the Sonography machines for want of proper & Valid order as envisaged under PCPNDT Act provisions ".... The Hon. Bombay High Court in its recently reported judgement of Janki Ultra Sound Centre V/S. Approximately. Authority under PCPNDT act ( 2015 (6) Mh.L.J. 886 ) W.P.No.1 of  2015  passed the above order. The factual Matrix is as under :  The Petitioner establishment is operated by Dr. Deelip Patil, a registered practitioner and having certificate under PCPNDT Act. In a visit on 13-08-2014, the appropriate authority after inspection of records, seized the machines. This action was impugned before High Court. It was contended that there were no allegations of sex determination also. The Authority contended that, their action is legal and the machine was sealed as the authority has "Reason to believe" that it may furnish evidence of offence under PCPNDT Act and further to prevent repetitive offence. The Hon...

Much required unique relief for Doctors in PCPNDT - The General Surgeon who was using Sonography Machine for diagnostic purpose received Rs.10,000/- ( though may be very less) from Appropriate authority for Illegal Sealing of Sonography Machines, by Division bench of Bombay High Court. (   Harishchandra  Madhavrao  Wange  vs The State Of Maharashtra & ors, Hon. bombay High Court, BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.11217 OF 2014, decided on 09/06/2016) https://indiankanoon.org/doc/155725829/ Facts : 1. The Appropriate Authority when visited the Petitioner's Clinic found that the room where the ultrasound Sonography machine was kept, was not put under lock and key. A show cause notice was also sent, but without waiting for receipt of explanation from the petitioner, proceeded to draw a panchanama and attached and sealed the machine. 2. The explanation given by the Petitioner that he uses the machine for diagnosis of cases for surgical purpose and does no...

“Filling of ‘F’ forms is a clerical work to be done by Clinic and not by a Radiologist” – Bombay High Court The Bombay High Court came to the rescue of Radiologists by ruling that it is not the duty of a radiologist to maintain details in Form  F. It is pure clerical work which is required to be done by the clinic, and the doctor can’t be prosecuted for non-maintenance of details in the form, the court observed while quashing a criminal complaint against two radiologists from Pune. (CRI. WRIT PETITION NO. 4194 OF 2014 Dr. Ranjeet Ghatge V/s The State of Maharashtra & Anr. ) Justice M.L. Tahilyani, in his nine-page order while quashing the prosecution initiated against Dr Ranjeet Ghatge and Dr Sanjay Kadyan, who were charged under section 25 and rule 9 (4) of the Pre-Natal Diagnostic Techniques Act, observed “In my opinion, they cannot be prosecuted for not maintaining particular record, which is required to be maintained by the genetic clinic.” The judge, after examini...