Genuine doctors suffer due to non-application of mind by authorities probing cases under PCPNDT Act: Gujarat High Court

The Gujarat High Court Wednesday voiced concern over the fact that the Police authorities most of the times, fail to 'apply their minds' and end up wrongly arresting doctors under the Pre-Conception and Pre-Natal Diagnostic Techniques (Prohibition of Sex Selection) Act (PCPNDT Act) [Pappu Kumarsinh vs Dharmesh Bharatbhai Patel]..Single-judge Justice Sandeep Bhatt said that due to lapses on part of the police authorities, genuine doctors often suffer and their careers come to a standstill."Sometime, they may be right in taking action against erring doctors, but many a time, their action proves their non-application of mind and the genuine doctors are the sufferers. We know that the remedial measures available in such cases are time-consuming and bring the career of an individual to a standstill," the Court said.It opined that a many a time, authorities are eager to act and therefore takes steps without applying their mind. "This Court fails to understand the manner and method of the officers to register the complaint under the Act. Many a time, the authorities are very eager to act promptly and without application of mind and therefore, their prompt action results into vitiation of the whole proceedings," the judge said in his order.This Court hopes that wisdom may prevail to the appropriate authorities in future, he added..The observations were made while hearing a revision application filed by the police authorities challenging an order of a sessions court in Rajkot on April 8, 2019. The sessions court had discharged a Gynaecologist, booked in February 2014 for breaching several provisions of the PCPNDT Act. As per the prosecution, the discharged doctors had failed to maintain records, had not taken consent signatures of the pregnant women subjected to ultra-sound, and even did not display the registration certificate at the diagnostic centre.These 'violations' were unearthed after the authorities conducted an inspection at the clinic and found several 'clerical' irregularities..The Court observed that the object of the PCPNDT Act is to provide for the prohibition of sex selection, before or after conception, and for regulation of pre-natal diagnostic techniques for the purposes of detecting genetic abnormalities or metabolic disorders or chromosomal abnormalities or certain congenital malformations and for the prevention of their misuse for sex determination leading to female foeticide."The effective implementation of the Act has painted a grim picture of the Act. The Act was enacted with an intent to prohibit prenatal diagnostic techniques for determination of the sex of the foetus leading to female foeticide. The preliminary object of this Act was to put a check on female foeticide. The Act is legislated in a manner that it should be a deterrent for those indulging in sex determination. The unfortunate decline in the male-female sex ratio has brought in stringent measures," the bench observed..Further, the bench noted that the accused Gynaecologist was on visiting terms and therefore as per the Act, a visiting doctor need not maintain the records and instead it is the staff of the clinic who should maintain the entire records."Further, respondent No.1 can also not be liable for not displaying of certificate of registration under the Act in the hospital. Further, to maintain register showing in serial order and to keep copy of the Act and Rules in the hospital are the duty of the owner and staff of the concerned nursing clinic and not of the visiting Gynaecologist and therefore, respondent No.1 cannot be held liable for breach of the provisions," the bench heldThe bench referred to the rulings of various High Courts and also the Supreme Court and underscored that courts have clarified that if there is no breach of the object of the Act, the accused cannot be held liable for the offence under the Act.With these observations, the bench upheld the sessions court's order..Advocate RV Acharya appeared for the Gynaecologist.Additional Public Prosecutor Soaham Joshi represented the State..[Read Judgment]