Dismissed

Lal Babu Yadav v. State Of Bihar and Anr.

Patna HC18 Dec 2014CR. MISC./50639/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This Criminal Miscellaneous application sought quashing of a warning order under the PNDT Act against a petitioner for operating an ultrasound clinic after his registration lapsed. The petitioner argued filing for renewal before expiry triggered a deemed renewal mechanism. The court rejected this, noting the application was filed post-expiry.

What did the court decide?

Application for quashing of warning order under Section 28 of PNDT Act dismissed for lack of merit.

Lal Babu Yadav Vs State Of Bihar and Anr. — Medical Negligence | Patna HC (2014)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Miscellaneous No.50639 of 2014

¶2

Arising Out of PS.Case No. -28 Year- 2013 Thana -GOVERNMENT OFFICIAL COMP. DistrictDARBHANGA ====================================================== Lal Babu Yadav son of Nageshwar Yadav, R/o village- Sah Ganj Benta, P.S.- Laheriasarai, District- Darbhanga, Owner of Hari Om Ultrasound Clinic Benta Laheriasarai Darbhanga .... .... Petitioner/s Versus 1. The State of Bihar 2. Dr. U. K. Choudhary Son of Ramavtar Choudhary Chief Medical Officer of the District- Darbhanga cum Appropriate Authority under P.N.D.T. Act Authorize Officer Darbhanga .... .... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Jitendra Kumar Pandey For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Anil Kumar Singh 1(App) ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE JITENDRA MOHAN SHARMA ORAL ORDER 2 18-12-2014 The instant application has been filed for quashing the order dated 16.5.2013 passed by the learned C.J.M., Darbhanga in G.O. Case No. 28of 2013 T. R. No. 891 of 2013 whereby and whereunder cognizance has been taken against the petitioner for committing the offence under Sections 23, 24 and 25 of Pre Natal Diagnostics Techniques (Regulation and Prevention of Misuse) Act, 1994 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) read with Rules of 1996 and Section 200 of Code of Criminal Procedure. The petitioner was running Hari Om Ultrasound Clinic bearing Regd. No. 60 of 2007 and the validity was only up to 31.3.2012 and within that period the petitioner did not applied for

¶3

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.50639 of 2014 (2) dt.18-12-2014

¶4

¶5

renewal of his registration number but he filed application with bank draft on 17.4.2012 and on that ground the Chief Medical Officer, Darbhanga being appointed as an appropriate authority under the Act cancelled the Registration No. 60 of 2007 of the petitioner and that was communicated to the petitioner through Memo No. 1042 dated 6.4.2013 but in spite of that it appears that the petitioner did not close the business of Hari Om Ultrasound Clinic and then the Chief Medical Officer being the appropriate authority under the Act submitted a complaint under Section 28 of the Act read with Rules 1996 and Section 200 of the Cr.P.C. against the petitioner. After perusing and applying the mind, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Darbhanga passed the order dated 16.5.2013 after finding prima facie case to be made out.

¶6

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that under Rule 8 of the Act an application for renewal of certificate of registration has already been made and after one year the same was cancelled. Sub-Rule 6 of Rule 8 of the Act provides that in the event of failure of the appropriate authority to renew the certificate of registration or to communicate rejection of application for renewal of registration within a period of 90 days from the date of receipt of application for renewal of registration, the certificate of registration shall be deemed to have been renewed and as such the

¶7

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.50639 of 2014 (2) dt.18-12-2014

¶8

¶9

impugned order being illegal is fit to be quashed because continuation of this case will amount to misuse of process of law. Learned APP on the other hand submits that vide Annexure-4 it is crystal clear that the petitioner applied for renewal of the registration certificate after expiry of the date as the registration was valid only up to 31^st March, 2012 and after expiry of that period on 17.4.2012 the petitioner applied for renewal and as such a dead horse cannot be made alive, so there is no illegality in the impugned order.

¶10

Having considered the submissions urged at the bar, going through the records and after going through the application and its annexures and finding that the petitioner failed to file application for renewal before 31^st March, 2012 and as such the application filed for renewal on 17.4.2012 with bank draft was rightly not considered by the appropriate authority and further as the petitioner did not file application on or before 31.3.2012, as such the petitioner cannot take advantage of provision of Sub-Rule 6 of Rule 8.

¶11

In the result, finding no merit, this application is hereby dismissed.

¶12

(Jitendra Mohan Sharma, J)

¶13

avin/U T

Lal Babu Yadav v. State Of Bihar and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Lal Babu Yadav v. State Of Bihar and Anr.

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

Shri Ram Sah Vs The State Of Bihar

Sachiv Kumar Yadav @ Radhy Shyam Yadav and Ors. Vs The State Of Bihar

Sidheshwar Yadav Vs The State Of Bihar

Avinash Kushwaha Vs State Of Bihar and Anr.

Chhotelal Ram @ Chhotelal Harizan Vs The State Of Bihar

Manjay Ram Vs The State Of Bihar