Section 23. Offences and penalties
(1) Any medical geneticist, gynaecologist, registered medical practitioner or any person who owns a Genetic Counselling Centre, a Genetic Laboratory or a Genetic Clinic or is employed in such a Centre, Laboratory or Clinic and renders his professional or technical services to or at such a Centre, Laboratory or Clinic, whether on an honorary basis or otherwise, and who contravenes any of the provisions of this Act or rules made thereunder shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years and with fine which may extend to ten thousand rupees and on any subsequent conviction, with imprisonment which may extend to five years and with fine which may extend to fifty thousand rupees.
1[(2) The name of the registered medical practitioner shall be reported by the Appropriate Authority to the State Medical Council concerned for taking necessary action including suspension of the registration if the charges are framed by the court and till the case is disposed of and on conviction for removal of his name from the register of the Council for a period of five years for the first offence and permanently for the subsequent offence.
(3) Any person who seeks the aid of any Genetic Counselling Centre, Genetic Laboratory, Genetic Clinic or ultrasound clinic or imaging clinic or of a medical geneticist, gynaecologist, sonologist or imaging specialist or registered medical practitioner or any other person for sex selection or for conducting pre-natal diagnostic techniques on any pregnant women for the purposes other than those specified in sub-section (2) of section 4, he shall, be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years and with fine which may extend to fifty thousand rupees for the first offence and for any subsequent offence with imprisonment which may extend to five years and with fine which may extend to one lakh rupees.
(4) For the removal of doubts, it is hereby provided that the provisions of sub-section (3) shall not apply to the woman who was compelled to undergo such diagnostic techniques or such selection.]
How courts have applied section 23
- Evidence seized during an illegal search is not automatically excluded if relevant and admissible.1
- A search under Section 30 requires the multi-member Authority to have a rational basis for belief, and the decision must be collective.2
- Bail is often granted to accused with peripheral roles (sweeper, vendor) and no antecedents.3,4
- Bail is refused where allegations show direct involvement in illegal procedures or witness intimidation.5,6
- Proceedings can be quashed if the charge-sheet lacks sufficient material or the issue is already settled.7,8
- A second revision petition is barred under Section 438(3) BNSS.9
Read the full overviewShow less· 4 paragraphs
The judgements here mostly concern bail, quashing of proceedings, and challenges to conviction under Section 23 of the PCPNDT Act. Courts frequently granted anticipatory bail to accused persons whose alleged roles were peripheral, such as a sweeper, a daily-wage employee, or a vendor of sonography machines, when custodial interrogation was deemed unnecessary and the accused had no criminal antecedents. Conversely, bail was refused where the allegations involved direct participation in illegal sex determination or termination, risk of witness intimidation, or where the accused was found running an ultrasound clinic without valid registration.3,10,11,4,5,6
A recurring issue is the validity of search and seizure operations. The Supreme Court held that a search authorized by a single member of the District Appropriate Authority is illegal, relying on precedent, but distinguished that evidence seized during such an illegal search is not automatically excluded and can be relied upon if relevant and admissible. Another Supreme Court decision emphasized that the condition precedent for search is that the multi-member Appropriate Authority must have 'reason to believe' an offence has been committed, and the decision to act must be a collective one.1,2
Courts also examined the scope of liability under Section 23. The Madras High Court sustained a conviction under Section 23(1) on one count where the witness turned hostile, but set aside convictions under the MTP Act and IPC for lack of evidence. Quashing of proceedings occurred where there was insufficient material in the charge-sheet, such as when the accused was not named in the FIR and the sole alleged role was speculative, or where the issue was already decided by a prior judgment.12,8,7,5
The provision's interplay with other statutes was noted. Bail applications under Section 23 were considered alongside offences under the BNS and MTP Act. A procedural bar was applied where a second revision petition was not maintainable under the BNSS.13,14,15,9
By court
Outcomes
Judgements applying section 23
The Supreme Court dismissed an appeal seeking to quash a criminal complaint under the PCPNDT Act. The Court held that while a search conducted by a single authority member was illegal under Section 30, the seized evidence remained admissible.
Pre Conception and Pre-natal Diagnostic Techniques (Prohibition of Sex Selection) Act, 1994 – ss. 30(1), 17, 2(a) – 'has reason to believe' – Search and seizure of a Genetic Clinic: the condition precedent for search is that the multi-member Appropriate Authority must have reason to believe that an offence under the…
AllowedOpenSupreme Court of India, SLP(Crl.) No. 380 of 2021, decided 21.01.2021 (Shantanagoudar J.): bail under s.439 CrPC denied in a PC&PNDT Act (ss.6, 23, 27) sex-determination/sex-selective abortion case; sting operation and seizure of unregistered ultrasound machine showed prima facie case; no parity with co-accused;
DismissedOpenFederation of Obstetrics and Gynecological Societies of India (Fogsi) versus Union of India and Others
Outcome: DismissedFOGSI v. Union of India (W.P.(C) 129/2017, decided 03-05-2019; Arun Mishra & Vineet Saran JJ.): Supreme Court upheld the constitutional validity of Sections 23(1) and 23(2) of the PCPNDT Act, 1994 and the proviso to Section 4(3).
DismissedOpenThe High Court allowed an anticipatory bail application filed by a sonography machine vendor accused under the PCPNDT Act and BNS for supplying a machine used for fetal sex determination. The court granted bail subject to bond and reporting conditions.
AllowedOpenThe High Court allowed an anticipatory bail application filed by a sonography machine vendor accused under the PCPNDT Act and BNS for supplying a machine used for fetal sex determination. The court granted bail subject to bond and reporting conditions.
AllowedOpen
Show 6 more
The High Court of Karnataka allowed two bail petitions under Section 482 CrPC (Section 528 BNSS) filed by hospital staff. Quashing orders against the petitioners in two separate criminal cases were passed by relying on a previous judgment of this Court, holding that privilege for fee levy does not crystallize on penal…
DisposedOpenDr Vijaya Raghava Reddy Vs Deputy Commissioner and District Appropriate Authority (Daa)
Outcome: DisposedPetitioners faced criminal proceedings under PC&PNDT Act. Court disposed of cross criminal petitions by allowing them and quashing proceedings, relying on an earlier decision where the legal issue was already answered, directing state to issue notice and regulate procedure.
DisposedOpenFather-in-law of a woman who died after an allegedly illegal sex-determined termination of pregnancy sought regular bail. Court found his presence at the hospital significant, noted gravity of allegations and risk of witness influence, and dismissed the bail application.
The petitioner sought regular bail in a case involving illegal sex determination and termination of pregnancy resulting in death under BNS and PCPNDT Act. The High Court dismissed the bail application, noting the gravity of allegations, the role of the husband, and the risk of witness intimidation.
Maintainability of second revision petition; Section 438(3) Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) bar on further application by same person once revision filed to High Court or Sessions Judge; PCPNDT Act, 1994 charge under Sections 23 and 25 for violating Rules and Sections 4, 5 and 29;
Telangana High Court (Justice T. Madhavi Devi), order dated 21.05.2026 in Criminal Petition No.7841 of 2026: pre-arrest bail under Section 482 BNSS 2023 granted to doctor/accused No.6 in Crime No.62 of 2026 of Inavolu Police Station, Warangal District;
AllowedOpen
Patna High Court anticipatory bail rejection; ultrasound centre run without valid registration certificate; missing Pollution Control, Fire Safety and Biomedical Waste Management certificates; secret prenatal sex determination tests; S.318(4) BNS 2023;
DismissedOpenPCPNDT Act discharge restored; Rule 3(3)(3) PCPNDT Rules 1996 stay of operation; dual registration two districts not an offence; registration panel stale entry no criminal liability; sex determination raid Janta Diagnostic Centre Hansi FIR No.534/2016; Section 23 PCPNDT Act; Section 420 IPC;
AllowedOpenanticipatory bail; A.B.A. No. 2916 of 2026; Mithun Kumar; Panki PS Case No.128 of 2025; section 319(2) 318(4) BNS 2023; Section 15(2)(B) Indian Medical Council Act; section 23 PCPNDT Act; Ultrasound Centre Sweeper; Care-taker anticipatory bail ABA No.7521 of 2025; Dr. Ravi Shankar Kumar; no criminal antecedent;
AllowedOpenPatna High Court (Chandra Shekhar Jha, J., 09-06-2026) allows anticipatory bail in Crl. Misc. No. 37288 of 2026 arising from Daudnagar P.S. Case No. 126 of 2026 (Aurangabad) under BNS 2023 ss. 318(2), 319(2), 271, 272 and PCPNDT Act ss. 4, 18, 23; owner of unlicensed ultrasound clinic;
AllowedOpenSatish s/o Balasaheb Gaware (medical practitioner) v. State of Maharashtra and Dr. Amarjyoti Jayant Shinde (informant) - Criminal Application No.684 of 2025, High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Bench at Aurangabad, 2026:BHC-AUG:17341-DB, Coram S.G. Chapalgaonkar J., decided 20 April 2026.
AllowedOpenK.Ramachandran Vs Appropriate Authority for Sub District Under Pre Conception
Outcome: Partly allowedMadras High Court (G.K. Ilanthiraiyan J.), CRL RC No. 1005 of 2021, decided 24-03-2026: Criminal revision under Sections 397/401 CrPC against conviction under Sections 23(1) (2 counts) and 25 of the PCPNDT Act, 1994, Sections 5(2) and 5(3) of the MTP Act, 1971 and Section 312 IPC, confirmed in appeal (Crl.A.No.13 of…
Partly allowedOpen
Show 4 more
Anticipatory bail granted despite earlier cancellation; Madras HC CRL OP No.7166 of 2026, Justice C.KUMARAPPAN, decided 23-03-2026; petitioner D.Satheesh Kumar S/o. Devaraj; offences under Sections 6(a), 6(b) r/w. 23 of PCPNDT Act 1994 (sex-determination scans);
AllowedOpenSection 528 BNSS quashing application; PCPNDT Act 1994 Sections 3, 4, 23, 25; interim stay of complaint proceedings; summoning order dated 11.02.2022; Complaint Case No.6691 of 2022 (Dr.Sunil Tyagi vs. Dr.D.S.Mavi); Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ghaziabad; P.S. Loni Border; Allahabad High Court; Justice Deepak Verma;
Satish s/o Balasaheb Gaware (medical practitioner) v. State of Maharashtra and Dr. Amarjyoti Jayant Shinde (informant) - Criminal Application No.684 of 2025, High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Bench at Aurangabad, 2026:BHC-AUG:17341-DB, Coram S.G. Chapalgaonkar J., decided 20 April 2026.
AllowedOpenQuashing of PC&PNDT Act complaint under Section 482 CrPC; suspension notice dated 4.3.2014 'till submission of required registration with State Medical Council'; automatic revocation of suspension on submission of registration on 7.3.2014; formal revocation 29.3.2014 immaterial;
DisposedOpen
Related subjects
- Quashing and FIR4,33,347
- Constitutional and Fundamental Rights21,58,139