Section 29. Maintenance of records
(1) All records, charts, forms, reports, consent letters and all other documents required to be maintained under this Act and the rules shall be preserved for a period of two years or for such period as may be prescribed:
Provided that, if any criminal or other proceedings are instituted against any Genetic Counselling Centre, Genetic Laboratory or Genetic Clinic, the records and all other documents of such Centre, Laboratory or Clinic shall be preserved till the final disposal of such proceedings.
(2) All such records shall, at all reasonable times, be made available for inspection to the Appropriate Authority or to any other person authorised by the Appropriate Authority in this behalf.
How courts have applied section 29
- Section 29 does not mandate indefinite preservation of records or seized equipment; sealing beyond the statutory period was unjustified after acquittal.1
- Failure to maintain complete Form F under Rule 9(4) constitutes a violation of Section 29.2
- Cognizance is barred except on a complaint by the Appropriate Authority or an authorised officer; police FIRs are incompetent.3,4,5
- Non-compliance with inspection provisions does not make seized records inadmissible if relevant and proved.2
- At the discharge stage, the court need not assess probative value deeply where a prima facie case exists.6
- Allegations limited to non-maintenance of patient records supported grant of anticipatory bail.7,8
Read the full overviewShow less· 4 paragraphs
The judgements here invoke Section 29 of the PC&PNDT Act mostly as one of several provisions cited in criminal proceedings, rather than as the central issue. A recurring question is whether seized records and equipment must be preserved indefinitely during pending proceedings; courts have held that Section 29 does not prescribe an indefinite preservation period, and that keeping a seized sonography machine sealed for years after acquittal was unjustified. Non-maintenance of complete Form F, as required by the Rules, has been treated as a violation of Section 29. Where allegations were limited to non-maintenance or non-production of ultrasound patient records, anticipatory bail was granted to a doctor and a clinic proprietor, and regular bail was granted to an accused after a raid.1,2,9,7,8
A major theme is the procedural validity of complaints and cognizance. Courts have held that no court may take cognizance except on a complaint by the Appropriate Authority or an authorised officer, and police cannot register an FIR for offences under this Act; a complaint by an unauthorised person is incompetent. A complaint by the District Health and Family Welfare Officer, who was not the designated authority and had no sub-delegation, was not maintainable under Section 28. Conversely, where the complaint was filed by the Appropriate Authority as a public servant, the requirement of an accompanying affidavit laid down for Section 156(3) CrPC applications does not apply. A second revision petition by the same petitioner was held not maintainable under the BNSS.3,4,5,10
Courts also addressed related issues. Non-compliance with Section 30 and Rule 12 at inspection does not render seized records inadmissible if relevant and proved. At the stage of discharging an accused, the trial court need not go deep into the probative value of evidence; a prima facie case based on a forged registration certificate was sufficient. In bail matters, custodial interrogation was deemed unnecessary for vendors of sonography machines accused of supplying devices used for sex determination. A suspension of registration that was conditional on submission of required documents did not justify quashing proceedings where the condition was subsequently met. A complainant in a private complaint under the Act was held to be a 'victim' entitled to appeal against acquittal. The Act was also invoked in an employment termination case, where a contractual ANM's stigmatic termination was set aside.2,6,11,12,13,14,15
Two further orders concerned procedural relief: a petition seeking quashing on the ground of parity with co-accused was considered, and a court set aside the dismissal of a suspension-of-sentence application and directed consideration on merits. A writ petition sought desealing of a scan centre after inspection over non-storage of images, with proceedings ongoing.16,17,18
By court
Outcomes
Judgements applying section 29
The Supreme Court dismissed criminal appeals filed by the District Appropriate Authority challenging a Gujarat High Court order directing the unsealing of a sonography machine.
The 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.
AllowedOpenMaintainability 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;
Revision petition by an ultrasound clinic operator convicted for record-keeping violations under the PCPNDT Act. The High Court held Form F non-maintenance violated Section 29 and Rule 9(4), that improperly conducted search did not vitiate seized documents' admissibility, and dismissed the revision, upholding…
DismissedOpenQuashing 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
Show 6 more
Two connected petitions challenged an FIR and a complaint filed under the PCPNDT Act 1994 alleging sex determination offences. Holding cognizance permissible only via complaint by the Appropriate Authority or authorised officer, the High Court quashed FIR No. 2/2014 and Complaint No.
DisposedOpenContractual employment — Stigmatic termination — Opportunity of hearing — Article 311 inapplicable to contractual employees. Respondent, engaged as ANM on contract in May 2007 with renewals up to 31.03.2021, was discontinued w.e.f.
DisposedOpenDistrict Appropriate Authority Cum Civil Surgeon, Sangrur Vs State of Punjab and Ors.
Outcome: DisposedCRM-A-1599-2024 (O&M); Punjab & Haryana High Court; Sanjay Vashisth, J.; leave to appeal against acquittal dated 17.09.2024 (JMFC Sangrur) in PCPNDT Act, 1994 complaint (ss. 3, 4, 5, 6, 23, 29; Rules 9(1), 9(4), 9(6), 10(1A), 11(2), 18 of 1996 Rules); complainant as 'victim' under S.2(wa) Cr.P.C.;
DisposedOpenPCPNDT Act 1994 Sections 17, 17(1)(a), 22, 23, 28 and Rules 8, 9, 10, 17, 18; KPME Act 2017 Sections 19, 19A; 'appropriate authority'; delegation to Assistant Commissioner and bar on sub-delegation; maintainability of complaint by incompetent complainant; vitiation and quashing of cognizance;
AllowedOpenA medical practitioner sought quashing of cognizance taken against her under Section 25 of the PC & PNDT Act after an inspection found records not maintained. The High Court held that since the complaint was by a public servant acting in official duties, no supporting affidavit was needed; the petition was dismissed.
DismissedOpenJharkhand High Court, Ranchi; B.A. No.3142 of 2024; regular bail granted on 21.06.2024 by Justice Pradeep Kumar Srivastava; Telaiya P.S Case No. 32 of 2024; Koderma; offences under Sections 315, 511, 420, 467, 468 IPC and Sections 23(1), 25, 27, 29 P.C. & P.N.D.T. Act, 1994;
BailOpen
Madras High Court, Justice P.T. Asha (single judge), decided 06.01.2026. Writ petition under Article 226 (certiorarified mandamus) by a Sonologist against the Joint Director of Medical and Rural Health Services, Dharmapuri. Keywords: PC-PNDT Act 1994 Section 29 show cause notice;
AllowedOpenInterim stay on parity-based quashing plea. Application U/S 528 BNSS No. 49813 of 2025, Sahab Singh and another v. State of U.P. and another, Allahabad High Court, Court No. 78, Vivek Kumar Singh, J., 12.12.2025. Underlying case: Case no. 1233 of 2025 (State v. Riya Sahgal and others), Case Crime no.
Petitioner sought suspension of sentence dismissed by Appellate Court due to his non-appearance. The High Court set aside the dismissal, restored the petition, and directed the Sessions Judge to consider it on merits with stringent conditions including a Rs.50,000 deposit and appearance on a specified date.
AllowedOpenAnticipatory bail; CR. MISC. No.26156 of 2024; Patna High Court; Rajesh Kumar Verma; decided 07-05-2024; PCPNDT Act 1994 Sections 3(3) and 29(1); Rules of 1996 Rule 9 and Rule 17(2); Section 21 PNDT Act notice; ultrasound centre inspection Dumraon Buxar; Chief Secretary Bihar directive; Complaint Case No.
AllowedOpenAnticipatory bail; A.B.A. No. 568 of 2024; Jharkhand High Court Ranchi; Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi; Dr. Sanjay Kumar Choudhary; Telaiya P.S. Case No. 169 of 2023; Koderma CJM; Section 406 IPC; PCPNDT Act 1994 Section 25, Sections 29/30; Rule 9 and Rule 11 PCPNDT Rules 1996; ultrasound records; Form F;
AllowedOpenIn a criminal revision, the Allahabad High Court dismissed the challenge against an order rejecting a discharge application under the PCPNDT Act. Upholding the trial court's view that a prima facie case existed based on forged registration documents, the High Court found no ground for interference.
DismissedOpen
Show 4 more
High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging the dismissal of a discharge application under PCPNDT Act. The court held non-compliance with Form F is an offence, refused to treat prior regularization as condonation, and found the trial court did not erior in framing charges as prima facie case was made out.
DismissedOpenThe petitioner sought to quash a criminal complaint for violations of the PCPNDT Act under Section 482 CrPC, arguing lack of preliminary enquiry. The Court rejected the petition, holding that the statutory presumption places the burden on the accused to rebut it during trial, and such an exercise cannot be done in a…
DismissedOpenPetitioner sought quashing of FIR under PC&PNDT Act on grounds that cognizance was taken on a police chargesheet absent a complaint under Section 28. The High Court set aside the cognizance order as bad in law but refused to quash the FIR, holding that registration of FIR and police investigation are not barred, and…
The court disposed of an anticipatory bail application by accepting the counsel's submission to treat it as withdrawn. The applicant was directed to surrender before the lower court within four weeks, and the regular bail application filed thereafter would be decided in light of the Supreme Court guidelines in…
DisposedOpen