Bombay HC Relief: Doctor held NOT GUILTY of conducting prenatal sex determination test

This came after the doctor approached the high court challenging the trial courts' decision after the court convicted him under the Pre Conception and Pre Natal Diagnostic Technique (PCPNDT) Act 1994. The doctor alleged that the decision of the trial courts was not supported by any evidence and hence the orders must be dismissed.

The doctor has been identified as a radiologist and an administrative medical officer at a hospital who had his own clinic at Pune as well. As per the Indian Express, the counsel for the doctor informed the court that in January 2006, the medical director of Pimpri Chinchwad Municipal Corporation sent a decoy patient to the doctor for knowing the gender of her unborn child after receiving a complaint from a social worker that the doctor was conducting illegal sex determination test in his clinic. Acting on the information derived from the decoy, a complaint was filed against the doctor alleging that he disclosed the gender of a fetus in the decoy patient's womb and had sought rupees 3000 for conducting the illegal test.

The Indian Express reports that he was charged under section 17 of the PCPNDT Act and he faced trial regarding the same in 2011. He was convicted by the magistrate; however, finding the order to be unjust, the doctor approached the session court in 2013. The session court also dismissed the doctor's plea which finally made him seek the help of the High Court.

The counsel for the petitioner mentioned several lapses in the whole conviction process and alleged that the medical director did not have the competent authority to initiate any kind of action against the doctor's clinic and thus he had acted against the boundary of his authority.

The petitioner also alleged that the director did not follow all the procedures of conviction. According to the normal procedure, the director should have received a written complaint about the social worker 15 days in advance and should have sent a decoy within two hours of receiving the complaint. He also alleged that the amount which was supposedly paid to the doctor was not recovered from his clinic but was found in another car which was owned by someone else and the doctor only used it sometimes, reports the daily.

The public prosecutor opposed the contentions stating that according to a 2006 notification, the medical officer has the authority to take action against the doctor under the PCPNDT Act. However, the medical officer admitted that he did not follow some of the procedures while receiving the complaint from the social worker and there might be lapses in the process.

The Indian Express reports that after hearing the submission of both the parties, the High Court observed that the magistrate and the session court both made some error in passing the conviction order and failed to take note of the lapses which took place during the whole process of conviction.

The court added that the trial courts would have taken cognizance of the fact that the complaint is 'defective' as it did not follow the standard protocol. Moreover, the doctor in charge also acted beyond his authority and the money was not recovered from the clinic originally.

Commenting on the previous orders, the bench stated, " such observation merits to be laughed at and wept over at one and the same time... Thus where powers have been given to do certain things in a certain way the things must be done in the way or not at all. The courts below have deviated from the set path..."