Gurugram: 19 years ago, a doctor couple from Hisar, Haryana, booked under the prohibition of the Sex Selection Act, were acquitted on the basis that in 2006, appropriate procedures were not followed while registering the case against them.
In his order on Thursday, HC Mahendra Kamboj and Dr. A complaint against Renu Kamboj, which was not established by pre-concept and pre-economic diagnostic (prohibition of sex, or PC and PC Act, or Act, or Act, or PC for PC, or PC for directors of Renu Kamboj.
Justice Jasjit Singh Bedi emphasized that under Section 17 (3) (B) of the Act, the District Appropriate Authority (DAA)-which is responsible for regulating and implementing the provisions of the Act within a district and filing such complaints-should be a three-member committee appointed through a official notification.
Show full article
“In the immediate case, the complaint was filed alone by Dr. SK Naval (then Civil Surgeon) and was filed by a three-member committee, which was appointed by a notification under Section 17 of the PC and PNDT Act. The same has not been done, a lot of complaint is not maintained, it is not worth maintaining themselves and therefore, the proceedings and confidence said.
The matter returned in October 2006, when after the report at various media outlets, the then civil surgeon from Hisar formed a team, which inspected the campus of Kamboj Ultrasound and Diagnostic Private Limited.
The team seized the record and sealed four ultrasound machines, accusing several violations of compulsory records keeping in mind the requirements through Form F through PC and PNDT Act.
Both doctors were convicted by Hisar Chief Judicial Magistrate in January 2008.
He was sentenced to three years rigorous imprisonment and fined Rs 5,000 every Rs 5,000 for alleged violations of Section 4 (3) of the Act – read with sex determination, Rule 9, which makes it mandatory to keep a record of the process in a fixed manner.
Doctors received an additional two -year imprisonment and a fine of Rs 5,000 for violating Section 5 (1) (B) of the Act, which mandates written consent to the pregnant woman in a prescribed format before conducting a sex determination test.
Although his sentence by the Sessions Court declined by two years in August 2008, doctors challenged the sentence in the High Court, where his sentences were pending on the final decision.
The High Court’s verdict rested on several earlier decisions, especially in the Help Welfare Group Society vs. State of Haryana case, the 2014 verdict clarified that when appointed for part of a state, the district appropriate authority should be a multi-physical body in which three officers are met.
The court rejected the state’s argument that the interpretation came only in 2014 and should not be applied in these cases.
Justice Bedi cited an example to establish the Supreme Court that “the interpretation of a provision is related to the date of the law and may not be possible for the decision”.
“When the court decided that the interpretation of a particular provision earlier was not legal, it declares the law as it was correct from the beginning of its campaign,” said, “Lily Thomas vs. India’s Union and Sarwan Kumar vs. Medal Medal Lal Gaggarwal case referring to the Supreme Court’s verdict.
The court further stated that Dr. The special holiday petition filed by the state against a uniform decision in the Ritu Prabhakar vs. State of Haryana case was rejected by the Supreme Court in November 2016, strengthening the interpretation that complaints under the PNDT Act should be filed by a three-member authority formed by a fairly formed three-member authority.
With this decision, the 19 -year case against doctor couple finally comes in a close, establishing an important example about procedural requirements for prosecution under the PNDT Act.
(Edited by Ajit Tiwari)