Introduction:

In a significant judgment reinforcing the strict enforcement framework of the Pre-Conception and Pre-Natal Diagnostic Techniques (Prohibition of Sex Selection) Act, 1994, the Punjab & Haryana High Court has upheld the conviction of a Barnala-based clinic owner for failing to maintain mandatory statutory records under the Act. The Court categorically held that deficiencies in maintaining Form ‘F’ records cannot be treated as mere procedural irregularities because such documentation lies at the heart of the legislative mechanism designed to prevent female foeticide and sex-selective practices.

The judgment was delivered by Justice Ramesh Chander Dimri in Pushap Lata v. State of Punjab & Another, wherein the petitioner, Dr. Pushap Lata Mittal, an 80-year-old medical practitioner and clinic owner, had challenged the concurrent findings of the trial court and appellate court convicting her under Section 29 of the PCPNDT Act, punishable under Section 23.

The Court dismissed the revision petition and upheld the sentence of rigorous imprisonment for one year, as already reduced by the appellate court, along with the fine imposed upon the petitioner.

The PCPNDT Act was enacted as a social welfare legislation with the primary objective of curbing the deeply entrenched practice of female foeticide and misuse of prenatal diagnostic technologies for sex determination. The law imposes strict obligations upon genetic counselling centres, laboratories, clinics, and medical practitioners to maintain detailed and accurate records of every prenatal diagnostic procedure conducted.

Among the most important statutory requirements under the Act is maintenance of Form ‘F’, which records crucial details regarding the pregnant woman, medical indications for conducting ultrasonography, declarations by the patient and doctor, and other procedural safeguards intended to prevent misuse of diagnostic technology for illegal sex determination.

In the present case, during inspection of the petitioner’s clinic, authorities allegedly recovered several Form ‘F’ records that were incomplete and lacked signatures of the concerned doctor. Based on these deficiencies, criminal proceedings were initiated under the PCPNDT Act.

The petitioner challenged the proceedings by contending that the search and inspection conducted by authorities suffered from procedural irregularities and that the alleged lapses in record maintenance were technical in nature, insufficient to justify criminal conviction.

However, the High Court rejected these submissions and held that maintenance of complete and accurate records is not a mere technical formality but a substantive statutory obligation central to the entire enforcement mechanism under the PCPNDT Act.

The ruling is important because it reiterates the judiciary’s strict approach toward compliance under the PCPNDT regime and reinforces that even procedural deficiencies in mandatory documentation can attract penal consequences due to the larger social purpose underlying the legislation.

Arguments of the Parties:

The petitioner, Dr. Pushap Lata Mittal, challenged the judgments of the trial court and appellate court primarily on the ground that the inspection and search conducted by authorities were procedurally defective and therefore the material recovered during such inspection could not be relied upon for sustaining criminal conviction.

Represented by Advocate Aman Bansal, the petitioner argued that the prosecution had failed to establish proper compliance with mandatory procedural safeguards governing inspection, seizure, and investigation under the PCPNDT Act and the Rules framed thereunder.

It was contended that the alleged deficiencies in Form ‘F’ records were at best technical or clerical lapses that did not establish any deliberate intention to violate the provisions of the Act or facilitate sex determination practices.

The petitioner further argued that the prosecution had failed to prove actual misuse of prenatal diagnostic techniques for the purpose of sex selection or female foeticide. According to the petitioner, mere absence of signatures or incomplete documentation should not automatically result in criminal liability in the absence of evidence demonstrating illegal sex determination activities.

The petitioner also sought interference from the High Court on the ground that both the trial court and appellate court had allegedly failed to properly appreciate the evidence on record and had mechanically convicted her without considering the surrounding circumstances.

An additional plea for leniency was advanced on the basis of the petitioner’s advanced age. It was submitted that the petitioner was over 80 years old and therefore deserved compassionate consideration by the Court, particularly because the alleged violations were documentary in nature and not accompanied by allegations of direct involvement in female foeticide.

On the other hand, the State of Punjab, represented by Additional Advocate General Kuljeet Singh, strongly opposed the revision petition and supported the concurrent findings of the lower courts.

The State argued that the PCPNDT Act imposes stringent obligations upon medical practitioners and diagnostic centres because maintenance of records constitutes the primary safeguard against illegal sex determination practices. It was contended that incomplete or defective Form ‘F’ records directly undermine the regulatory framework established under the statute.

The prosecution emphasized that during inspection of the petitioner’s clinic, authorities recovered multiple Form ‘F’ records lacking signatures of the concerned doctor and containing deficiencies in mandatory particulars required under the Act and the 1996 Rules.

According to the State, these violations were not minor procedural irregularities but substantive breaches attracting penal liability under Section 29 read with Section 23 of the PCPNDT Act.

The State further argued that the petitioner had never disputed recovery of the records from her clinic and therefore the evidentiary basis of the prosecution stood firmly established.

With regard to the challenge against procedural irregularities in search and seizure, the prosecution contended that even assuming certain irregularities existed, the evidence recovered during inspection could not be discarded if otherwise relevant and admissible in law.

The State also opposed the plea for leniency, arguing that violations under the PCPNDT Act have serious societal consequences because they directly impact enforcement efforts against female foeticide and gender discrimination.

The prosecution therefore urged the High Court not to interfere with the concurrent findings recorded by the courts below.

Court’s Judgment:

Justice Ramesh Chander Dimri dismissed the revision petition and upheld both the conviction and sentence imposed upon the petitioner under the PCPNDT Act.

At the outset, the High Court emphasized the social purpose and legislative intent underlying the PCPNDT Act. The Court observed that the statute is a crucial piece of social welfare legislation enacted to combat the alarming practice of female foeticide and preserve the dignity and right to life of the girl child.

The Court noted that Parliament intentionally designed the law with strict compliance requirements because illegal sex determination practices often occur in secrecy and are difficult to detect through direct evidence.

According to the Court, maintenance of proper records under the Act forms the backbone of the entire regulatory framework. The Bench observed that Form ‘F’ is not an empty procedural formality but a substantive statutory safeguard intended to ensure transparency and accountability in prenatal diagnostic procedures.

Justice Dimri held that any deficiency in maintaining Form ‘F’ records strikes directly at the object of the legislation and therefore attracts penal consequences.

Rejecting the petitioner’s argument that the deficiencies were merely technical lapses, the Court observed that proper maintenance of records is indispensable for effective implementation of the Act. The Bench noted that incomplete or unsigned forms create serious gaps in the regulatory mechanism and weaken enforcement against illegal sex determination practices.

The Court further held that the prosecution had successfully established that several Form ‘F’ records recovered from the petitioner’s clinic lacked mandatory signatures of the concerned doctor, thereby constituting clear violation of statutory requirements under the Act and the Rules of 1996.

Importantly, the Court observed that the petitioner had not disputed the recovery of the documents from her clinic. Therefore, the factual foundation of the prosecution case remained substantially unchallenged.

Addressing the petitioner’s challenge to the legality of the search and inspection process, the High Court held that even if certain procedural irregularities existed during search and seizure, such irregularities by themselves would not render otherwise admissible evidence inadmissible.

The Court emphasized that material collected during inspection cannot be discarded solely on account of procedural defects if the evidence remains relevant and legally admissible.

Justice Dimri observed that the seized documents clearly demonstrated non-compliance with mandatory statutory requirements and therefore constituted sufficient evidence to sustain conviction.

The Court also referred to settled principles governing revisional jurisdiction. Relying upon precedents of the Supreme Court, the High Court reiterated that revisional powers are limited in scope and do not permit reappreciation of evidence merely because another view may be possible.

The Court observed that interference in revision is warranted only where there exists manifest illegality, perversity, or miscarriage of justice in the findings recorded by subordinate courts.

In the present case, the High Court found no such infirmity in the concurrent findings of the trial court and appellate court. The Court noted that both courts had carefully examined the material on record and correctly concluded that the petitioner had violated mandatory provisions of the PCPNDT Act.

The plea for leniency based on old age was also specifically rejected by the Court. Justice Dimri observed that the nature and seriousness of violations under the PCPNDT Act do not justify reduction of sentence merely on compassionate grounds.

The Court emphasized that offences under the PCPNDT Act have far-reaching societal implications because they directly affect efforts to prevent gender discrimination and female foeticide.

Accordingly, the High Court dismissed the revision petition and upheld the conviction along with the sentence of one year rigorous imprisonment and fine imposed upon the petitioner.

The judgment once again reinforces the judiciary’s consistent approach that strict compliance with documentation requirements under the PCPNDT Act is mandatory and that violations cannot be trivialized as technical or procedural defects.

The ruling also highlights the broader constitutional and social concerns underlying the legislation, particularly the need to protect the dignity, equality, and survival of the girl child in Indian society.