Background Matrix
In the significant matter of Pappu Kumar Singh v. Dharmesh Bharatbhai Patel a petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Indian Constitution against the order of Additional Sessions Judge, which reversed the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate order rejecting the respondent’s discharge application as a visiting physician and allowed the discharge application. For violating the Pre-conception and Pre-natal Diagnostic Techniques Prohibition of Sex Selection Act, 1994, and the Pre-conception and Pre-natal Diagnostic Techniques Prohibition of Sex Selection Rules, 1996, the petitioners filed a complaint against three people, including the owner of the hospital and two visiting doctors. The claims related to failure to comply with requirements for maintaining records and filling out forms. The accused was called by the Trial Court, and their revision motion was turned down by the Sessions Court. The criminal revision application was approved by the appellate court, which also overturned the trial court’s decision, giving rise to the current petition.
Analysis of Court order
Sandeep N. Bhatt, a single judge bench on the Gujrat High Court, rejected the plea and affirmed the Additional Sessions Judge’s discharge decision.
The Act, which attempted to outlaw prenatal diagnostic procedures used to determine a foetus’ gender and to commit female foeticide, was evaluated by the Court. The appeal court cleared the accused after concluding there was no prima facie evidence of a violation of Rule 10 of the Rules. The Court ruled that the clinic’s management and employees should keep records for Form “F” and that the in-house gynaecologist is not responsible for doing so. Form ‘F’ has to be signed by the person executing the process in accordance with the new Act of 2014. Because the alleged violation of Rule 9(4) happened before the 2014 modification, the alleged violator cannot be held accountable for failing to sign Form “F”. The owner and personnel of the nursing clinic, not the visiting gynaecologist, are responsible for keeping records and copies of the Act and Rules, the Court further stated. A violation of Sections 19(4) and 29 of the Act, as well as Rules 6(2), 9(1), 9(4), and 17(2) of the Rules, cannot thus be attributed to the accused.
The Court approved the accused’s plea for discharge after finding no fault with the contested order. It emphasised that only in accordance with the Pre-conception and Pre-natal Diagnostic Techniques Prohibition of Sex Selection Amendment Rules, 2014 did the Act prohibit doctors performing procedures from signing Form “F” themselves. The Court also talked about how officials and authorities file complaints in accordance with the Acts and Rules. The Court stated that occasionally processes are tainted by officials acting hastily and carelessly. The petition was denied in limine with the expectation that prudence will win out in the future.
CASE NAME – Pappu Kumar Singh v. Dharmesh Bharatbhai Patel, R/Special Criminal Application No. 8286 Of 2019