PCPNDT: Doctor cannot be held criminally liable for diagnostic centre's illegal acts merely because past registration was not cancelled, rules HC
Chandigarh: In a recent judgment, the Punjab and Haryana High Court held that a doctor cannot be prosecuted under the Pre-conception and Pre-natal Diagnostic Techniques (Prohibition of Sex Selection) Act, 1994 merely because his name was not struck off on a diagnostic centre's registration panel even after he had stopped being associated with it.
Granting relief to the doctor, who was booked under the PCPNDT Act, the High Court bench clarified that to fasten criminal liability, evidence of active involvement, physical participation or conspiracy in the alleged offence is required.
"It is settled law that a prima facie case requires some material of a substantive nature linking the accused to the offence, and mere administrative omissions or delayed updates of registration panels by the clinic owner or the health department cannot be elevated to the status of a criminal offence or a conspiracy. To bring an accused within the bracket of criminal prosecution under Section 23 of the PCPNDT Act or Section 420 IPC, the prosecution must establish a prima facie active role, physical participation, or meeting of minds (conspiracy) in the commission of the alleged illegal sex determination. Rather, the petitioner has not played any role in committing the offence as he was not present at the diagnostic centre at the time of raid," the HC bench comprising Justice Yashvir Singh Rathor observed.
"As the petitioner's name continued to remain on the panel of the clinic due to an administrative delay in striking it off after his departure in the year 2012, no criminal intent or conspiracy can be attributed to him for an incident occurring in 2016. A medical practitioner cannot be held criminally liable for the illegal acts of a diagnostic centre's owner or staff simply because of a past registration that was not got cancelled by the clinic or the appropriate authority," it further clarified.
Case Background:
The history of the case goes back to July 2016, when an FIR was registered after a raid by a joint team of health department officials at the Diagnostic Centre in Hasi, Haryana, after secret information was received regarding illegal prenatal sex determination.
Even though the petitioner's name was not in the FIR or the spot memo prepared by the raiding team on the date of the raid, and the ultrasound reports and the mandatory Form 'F' recovered from the spot mentioned another doctor's name as the performing radiologist, the petitioner-doctor was arrested after approximately one month.
In this disclosure statement, the petitioner stated that he had worked at the Diagnostic Centre only up to 05.11.2012 and thereafter, he shifted his practice to Delhi and Gurgaon.
However, during the investigation, the police recovered documents showing that on the date of the raid, the petitioner was employed as a consultant radiologist at the Diagnostic Centre under a valid registration till 14.10.2020. On the other hand, the attendance register of Civil Hospital, Gurgaon, was also taken into possession, which marked the petitioner as "present" on the day of the raid. Conversely, the attendance register of the Diagnostic Centre showed the presence of the other doctor and it did not contain the petitioner's name.
The petitioner was named in the report. However, after hearing the matter, the Court of Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Hansi, discharged the petitioner, holding that there was no substantive evidence of conspiracy or involvement of the petitioner on the date of occurrence as he was proved to be working in Gurgaon.
Aggrieved by this, the State filed a revision petition against the discharge order and the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Hisar, on 29.10.2018 allowed the revision petition and set aside the discharge order, directing the trial court to pass a fresh order on charge. The sole reasoning given by the revisional Court was that the petitioner's name continued to appear on the registration/panel list of doctors for the diagnostic centre and since his name had not been formally struck off by the authorities, he must be deemed to be on the panel of the clinic at the time of the raid. Further, the revisional court noted that being registered at two separate diagnostic centres across two districts constituted a violation of the PCPNDT Rules.
Following this, the petitioner-doctor approached the High Court. The counsel for the petitioner argued that the petitioner was not present at the scene of crime at the time of raid and was physically present at Civil Hospital, Gurgaon, on the date of the raid, as established from the attendance register and registration certificates seized by the police themselves.
He further contended that there was no allegation or evidence of any conspiracy under Section 120-B IPC or active participation of the petitioner in the sex determination procedure on 27.07.2016. Regarding the allegation of dual registration, the counsel contended that the operation of Rule 3(3)(3) of the PCPNDT Rules, 1996, which limits the registration of a medical practitioner to a maximum of two clinics, had been stayed by various High Courts.
Observations by High Court:
While considering the matter, the HC bench noted that the moot point to be decided was whether the existence presence of petitioner's name on the registration panel of the Diagnostic centre in Hansi, on the date of the raid, in the absence of his physical presence, active participation, or conspiracy, can attract criminal liability under the PCPNDT Act or the IPC, and whether dual registration in two separate districts constitutes a punishable offence under the Act.
For this, the Court examined Rule 3(3)(3) of the Pre-conception and Pre-natal Diagnostic Techniques (Prohibition of Sex Selection) Rules, 1996 and noted, "A bare perusal of Rule 3(3)(3) shows that the restriction on registration in maximum of two diagnostic centres is specifically confined to centres "within a district". There is no statutory bar or restriction under Rule 3(3)(3) or any other provision of the PCPNDT Rules preventing a qualified medical practitioner from being registered at two or more diagnostic centres situated in two separate districts or different States. In the present case, the petitioner was registered at Janta Diagnostic Centre in District Hisar and Health Map Diagnostic, Civil Hospital in District Gurgaon. Since these centres are situated in two separate districts, the registration does not violate the literal mandate of Rule 3(3)(3) of the PCPNDT Rules."
"Even otherwise, the constitutional validity of Rule 3(3)(3) was challenged before various High Courts, and its operation has been stayed," further noted the bench. Accordingly, referring to the judicial precedent, the bench held, "Consequently, on the date of the revisional Court's order, the restriction under Rule 3(3)(3) was not legally enforceable."
The bench observed that a prima facie case requires some material of a substantive nature linking the accused to the offence, and mere administrative omissions or delayed updates of registration panels by the clinic owner or the health department cannot be elevated to the status of a criminal offence or a conspiracy. It concluded that the petitioner has not played any role in committing the offence as he was not present at the diagnostic centre at the time of the raid.
Noting that after the petitioner's departure in 2012, no criminal intent or conspiracy can be attributed to him for an incident occurring in 2016, the bench set aside the revisional court's order, noting, "Under these circumstances, there is no prima facie case, against the petitioner for the commission of offences under the PCPNDT Act or the IPC. Learned trial Court had carefully perused the challan and the accompanying documents and rightly discharged the petitioner vide order dated 12.04.2017. However, the learned revisional Court failed to appreciate these vital facts and committed a grave error by reversing a well-reasoned order on purely technical and legally unsustainable grounds. The impugned order dated 29.10.2018 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Hisar, is unsustainable in the eyes of law and is liable to be set aside."
"As a result of the aforesaid discussion, the present revision petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 29.10.2018 passed by the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Hisar, is hereby set aside, and the order of discharge dated 12.04.2017 passed by the Court of learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Hansi, is restored," the order further mentioned.
To view the High Court's order, click on the link below:
https://medicaldialogues.in/pdf_upload/2026/07/16/drvstateofharyana-360103.pdf
