Allowed

Pradeep Jaiswal v. the State of Jharkhand

Jharkhand HC14 Aug 2023W.P.(Cr.)/9/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court quashed criminal proceedings against the petitioner under the PNDT Act, 1994. It held that the proceeding was vitiated because no valid notification of the Appropriate Authority existed at the time the complaint was filed, violating Section 28 of the Act which mandates cognizance only from such authority. Prior orders dismissing similar quashing petitions were noted.

What did the court decide?

The entire criminal proceeding in Complaint Case No. 4045 of 2017, including the order of taking cognizance dated 23.07.2018, is quashed.

Pradeep Jaiswal Vs the State of… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Jharkhand HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND, RANCHI

¶3

W.P.(Cr.) No.09 of 2023

¶4

----

¶5

Pradeep Jaiswal @ Pradeep Jaisawal .... Petitioner -- Versus -- The State of Jharkhand and Another .... Respondents ----

¶6

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI

¶7

For the Petitioner :- Mr. Nitin Kumar Pasari, Advocate Mr. Shubham Choudhary, Advocate Mr. Gaurav Kaushalesh, Advocate For the State :- Mr. Ravi Prakash Mishra, Advocate ----

¶8

/14.08.2023 Heard Mr. Pasari, the learned counsel for the petitioner and

¶9

¶10

Mr. Mishra, the learned counsel for the respondent State.

¶11

This petition has been filed for quashing of the entire criminal proceeding including the order taking cognizance dated 23.7.2018 arising out of Complaint Case No.4045 of 2017, pending before the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ranchi.

¶12

The complaint case as emerges from the Complaint petition filed before the Trial Court is that the Complainant is designated authority under Pre-conception and Diagnostic Techniques (Prohibition of Sex Selection) Act, 1994 and a complaint was made by one Mr. Pranav Kumar Babbu, Advocate on 05.05.2017 before the deputy Commissioner, Ranchi, on the basis of which the Circle Officer, Chanho visited the hospital on 12.05.2017 to see irregularity and found that the Hospital is performing Ultrasound activities without registration under the act and sealed and seized the documents found in the USG Room and sent a report to the Civil Surgeon's Office, Ranchi vide letter No.209 dated 12.05.2017 to take appropriate action alleging violation of provisions of the said Act. The complainant on seeing the said report organized a meeting of advisory committee on 31.05.2017 and on the basis of the decision, an inspection

¶13

was made on 02.06.2017 by a committee comprising of Dr. Sunita Jha,

¶14

Dr. Sunita Mishra, Dr. Sudakshna Lala, Dr. Neelam Choudhary and

¶15

¶16

Sachchidanand Prasad. The registration certificate being No. 337/17 under the Act was issued on 24.04.2017, but it is alleged that without awaiting the registration certificate from the office of the Civil Surgeon, Ranchi, the Hospital was performing Ultrasound activities in the hospital and thereafter when during an inspection by the Circle Officer, Chanho on 12.05.2017, the demand of registration certificate was made, the owner of the Hospital failed to produce the same and on 13.05.2017, the owner of the Hospital came to the Office of the Civil Surgeon, Ranchi and obtained the certificate. As such, it is alleged that there is a violation of Section 18 of the Act. On 02.06.2017 when an inspection was carried on, again demanded copy of Form-F which the Hospital staff was unable to present. It is further stated on scrutiny of Form-F which was given by the Circle Officer, same was found to be incomplete as Column No. 10 was not ticked properly and the said Form-F was maintained by Dr. Baila Ekka and this was not signed by the Doctor performing Ultrasound activities, which is in violation of Rule 9(4) of the Pre-Conception and Pre-Natal Diagnostic Techniques (Prohibition of Sex Selection) Rules, 1996.

¶17

It has been further stated that there was no display board in English mentioning that disclosure of sex of fetus is prohibited under law. It has been further stated that the Act Book was not available in the premises. It has been further stated that there was two OPD register having patient's name only and date and other details of the patients have not being aggrieved by the said order filled up and the said register did not bear page number and date started from 01.04.2016 to 31.03.2017 and 01.04.2017 to 01.06.2017 which is incomplete. No referral slip is mentioned for ultrasound on pregnant women, which is in violation of Rule 9(1) of the said Rules 1996. During inspection on 12.05.2017, it is stated that the complainant found three USG report of pregnant women, but on demand of Form-F by the inspecting team,

¶18

¶19

Hospital staff were unable to present the same. Inspecting team found that educational certificates of Indu Bhushan Kumar but when asked the Hospital staff, who is performing USG and in whose name Form-A the registration of Hospital was applied under the Act, they replied that it is Dr. Sweta Narayan and the inspection report of the Circle Officer enclosed educational qualification of Dr. Sweta Narayan. It is further stated that when the news regarding the said inspection was published, Dr. Sweta Narayan sent a letter to the Civil Surgeon, Ranchi mentioning that she is innocent and does not know how her educational certificates were given to Preriton Ki Rani Hospital, Chanho, however, on further inspection, it was confirmed by the concerned, who notorized the affidavit that the same bore signature of Dr. Sweta Narayan.

¶20

Mr. Pasari, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that for quashing of the said proceeding and the order taking cognizance in Cr.M.P.No.144 of 2019 and Cr.M.P.No.1518 of 2019 another co-accused has moved respectively and the said petitions were allowed by this Court by orders dated 12.10.2022 and 31.03.2022 respectively. He submits that the case of the petitioner is fully covered in light of the two orders passed by this Court as the petitioner is also one of the co-accused in the said case.

¶21

The learned counsel for the respondent State fairly submits that the case is covered in light of two judgments contained in Annexure3 of the petition.

¶22

The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is only proprietor of M/s Pravin Brothers and was supplying medical equipment to different hospitals. He submits that the complainant was not authorized in terms of section 17 of the Act and as such order taking cognizance itself is bad in law and the same has been admittedly considered by this Court in two of the quashing petitions

¶23

¶24

which has been relied upon. He submits that the case of the petitioner stand on better footing.

¶25

In view of the above submissions of the learned counsel appearing for the parties, the Court has gone through the materials on the record. Admittedly, the complaint case has been filed by one Sheo Shankar Harijan. In the complaint petition, notification or authorization is not annexed. Section 28 of the Act, 1994 speaks of cognizance of

¶26

offences, which reads as under:

¶27

“ 28. Cognizance of offences.- (1) No court shall take cognizance of an offence under this Act except on a complaint made by-

¶28

(a) the Appropriate Authority concerned, or any officer authorised in this behalf by the Central Government or State Government, as the case may be, or the Appropriate Authority; or

¶29

(b) a person who has given notice of not less than fifteen days in the manner prescribed, to the Appropriate Authority, of the alleged offence and of his intention to make a complaint to the court.

¶30

Explanation.--For the purpose of this clause, "person" includes a social organisation.

¶31

(2) No court other than that of a Metropolitan Magistrate or a Judicial Magistrate of the first class shall try any offence punishable under this Act.

¶32

(3) Where a complaint has been made under clause (b) of subsection (1), the court may, on demand by such person, direct the Appropriate Authority to make available copies of the relevant records in its possession to such person.”

¶33

Section 2(a) of the Act, 1994 provides that the appropriate authority means the appropriate authority appointed under Section 17 of the Act, 1994. Section 17(2) of the Act, 1994 provides that the appointment shall be made by notification in the official gazette. Section 17 of the Act, 1994 reads as under:

¶34

“17. Appropriate Authority and Advisory Committee.(1) The Central Government shall appoint, by notification in the Official Gazette, one or more Appropriate Authorities for each of the Union territories for the purposes of this Act.

¶35

(2) The State Government shall appoint, by notification in the Official Gazette, one or more Appropriate Authorities for the whole or part of the State for the purposes of this Act having regard to the intensity of the problem of pre-natal sex determination leading to female foeticide.

¶36

¶37

(3) The officers appointed as Appropriate Authorities under sub-section (1) or subsection (2) Shall be,-

¶38

(a) When appointed for the whole of the State or the Union territory, consisting of the following three members

¶39

(i) an officer of or above the rank of the Joint Director of Health and Family Welfare Chairperson;

¶40

(ii) an eminent woman representing women’s organization; and

¶41

(iii) an officer of Law Department of the State or the Union territory concerned: Provided that it shall be the duty of the State or the Union territory concerned to constitute multi-member State or Union territory level Appropriate Authority within three months of the coming into force of the Pre-natal Diagnostic Techniques (Regulation and Prevention of Misuse) Amendment Act, 2002:

¶42

Provided further that any vacancy occurring therein shall be filled within three months of that occurrence.

¶43

(b) When appointed for any part of the State or the Union territory, of such other rank as the State Government or the Central Government, as the case may be, may deem fit.

¶44

(4) The Appropriate Authority shall have the following functions, namely:-

¶45

(a) To grant, suspend or cancel registration of a Genetic Counselling Centre, Genetic Laboratory or Genetic Clinic;

¶46

(b) To enforce standards prescribed for the Genetic Counselling Centre, Genetic Laboratory and Genetic Clinic; (c) To investigate complaints of breach of the provisions of this Act or the rules made thereunder and take immediate action;

¶47

(d) To seek and consider the advice of the Advisory Committee, constituted under sub-section (5), on application for registration and on complaints for suspension or cancellation of registration;

¶48

(e) To take appropriate legal action against the use of any sex selection technique by any person at any place, suomotu or brought to its notice and also to initiate independent investigations in such matter;

¶49

(f) To create public awareness against the practice of sex selection or prenatal determination of sex;

¶50

(g) To supervise the implementation of the provisions of the Act and rules;

¶51

(h) To recommend to the CSB and State Boards modifications required in the rules in accordance with changes in technology or social conditions;

¶52

(i) To take action on the recommendations of the Advisory Committee made after investigation of complaint for suspension or cancellation of registration.

¶53

(5) The Central Government or the State

¶54

¶55

Government, as the case may be, shall constitute an Advisory Committee for each Appropriate Authority to aid and advise the Appropriate Authority in the discharge of its functions, and shall appoint one of the members of the Advisory Committee to be its Chairman.

¶56

(6) The Advisory Committee shall consist of—

¶57

(a) Three medical experts from amongst gynaecologists, obstetricians, paediatricians and medical geneticists;

¶58

(b) One legal expert;

¶59

(c) One officer to represent the department dealing with information and publicity of the State Government or the Union territory, as the case may be;

¶60

(d) three eminent social workers of whom not less than one shall be from amongst representatives of women's organisations.

¶61

(7) No person who has been associated with the use or promotion of pre-natal diagnostic technique for determination of sex or sex selection shall be appointed as a member of the Advisory Committee.

¶62

(8) The Advisory Committee may meet as and when it thinks fit or on the request of the Appropriate Authority for consideration of any application for registration or any complaint for suspension or cancellation of registration and to give advice thereon: Provided that the period intervening between any two meetings shall not exceed the prescribed period.

¶63

(9) The terms and conditions subject to which a person may be appointed to the Advisory Committee and the procedure to be followed by such Committee in the discharge of its functions shall be such as may be prescribed.”

¶64

Admittedly, in light of Section 28, 2(a) and 17 of the Act, 1994, prescribed procedure is not followed in filing the case against the petitioners. There was no notification at the time of filing of the complaint case. The notification has been recently published in official gazette on 04.08.2022. Section 28 of the Act, 1994 speaks that no court shall take cognizance unless it is filed by the appropriate authority. If the power is vested in particular authority, that authority is required to file the case.

¶65

In para-9 of the Cr.M.P. No. 3655 of 2019, it is observed as under:-

¶66

“9. The entire case of the State raised upon the communication dated 06.06.2012, which has been received by Mr. Agarwal, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State, which has been transmitted to the Court and the same is taken on record. The said letter has not been published in official gazette and it was not published earlier in official

¶67

¶68

gazette and that will be enforced only on 04.08.2022, the date on which the notification has been published in official gazette and that notification has got no retrospective force.”

¶69

In view of the aforesaid facts, reasons and analysis and considering that appropriate authority constituted by the State Government or the Central Government has not filed the case, the entire proceeding is vitiated. Accordingly, the prayer made in the petition is allowed. The entire criminal proceeding in Complaint Case No. 4045 of 2017, including the order of taking cognizance dated 23.07.2018, whereby cognizance under Section 23(1)(3) of the Pre-Conception and Pre-Natal Diagnostic Techniques (Prohibition of Sex Selection), Act, 1994 has been taken against the petitioner, pending in the court of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ranchi, is hereby, quashed.

¶70

In view of the above terms, this petition stands disposed of.

¶71

Interim order dated 04.08.2023 is vacated.

¶72

Pending I.A., if any, stands disposed of.

¶73

( Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.)

¶74

SI/;

Pradeep Jaiswal v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pradeep Jaiswal v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Kanika Bansal Vs the State of Jharkhand

Mansa Ram Mahato Vs the State of Jharkhand

Keshav Prasad Vs The State Of Jharkhand

M/S P.D.Agarwal Vs S.A.I.L.

P.D.Agarwal Vs Sail

Rajesh Kumar Vs Union of India through C B I Acb