T.VASUDEVAN Vs. APPROPRIATE AUTHORITY FOR DISTRICT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition is filed to quash the complaint in connection with C.C.No.36 of 2015 pending on the file of learned Judicial Magistrate Court No.II at Cuddalore, Cuddalore District.

(2.) Petitioners are the accused in C.C.No.36 of 2015. This case was taken cognisance by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Cuddalore on the complaint given by the respondent. The complaint was filed under Ss. 23 (1) and 25 of the Pre-Conception and Pre-Natal Diagnostic Techniques (Prohibition of Sex Selection) Act (Central Act) No.57 of 1994 r/w Rules (3) (1) (b) and 3 (3) (1) (b) of Pre-Conception and Pre-Natal Diagnostic Techniques (Prohibition of Sex Selection) Rules 1996 r/w Sec. 200 CRPC.

(3.) The gist of the complaint is that the appropriate authority Dr.Vidyasankar, the Joint Director of Medical and Rural Health Services, Cuddalore, made a joint surprise visit to Shakthi Scan Centre, No.2, Leppolier street, Sorakalpet, Cuddalore-1, Cuddalore District on 3/2/2015 at about 10.30a.m. along with other officials. Shakthi Scan Centre is run by Dr.Vasudevan. Knowing fully well that Dr.Anusha, B.A.M.S. is not having required qualification as per Rule 3 (3) (1) (b) of Pre-Conception and PreNatal Diagnostic Techniques (Prohibition of Sex Selection) Rules 1996 has engaged her in conducting diagnostic techniques by using the machine and other equipment of ultra sound technology in the centre and thereby violated the provisions of Sec. 3 (2) that of the Pre-conception and Pre-natal Diagnostic Techniques (Prohibition of Sex Selection) Act 1994, r/w Rule 3(3) (1) (b) Pre-conception and Pre-natal Diagnostic Techniques (Prohibition of Sex Selection) Rules 1996. Dr.Anusha, knowing fully well that she does not possess qualification as mentioned above has done scan procedures and violated the provisions of Sec. 3 (2) of the Pre- Conception and Pre-natal Diagnostic (Prohibition of Sex Selection) Act 1994, Act r/w. Rules 3 (3) (1) (b) of Pre-conception and Pre-Natal Diagnotic Techniques (Prohibition of Sex Selection) Rules 1996. It was noticed during the surprise visit on 3/2/2015 that, scan procedures were done by Dr.Anusha. She has done scan procedures and issued scan report signed by her. She has committed an offence under Sec. 3 (2) of the PCPNDT Act, 1994. Shakthi Scan Centre is administered by second accused Dr.Jeyalakshmi, wife of first accused, Dr.Vasudevan. She permitted the first accused to run Sakthi Scan Centre within the premises of her hospital JVR Maternity Home, No.2, Leppolier street, Sorakalpet, Cuddalore. She also has the knowledge that third accused Dr.Anusha has no prescribed qualification for scanning and aided first accused in engaging Dr.Anusha in scan centre. After investigation, ultra sound machine and Form F Register, educational qualification records were seized. First accused Dr.Vasudevan contravened provisions by appointing unqualified third accused Dr.Anusha and thus, they committed the offences under Ss. 23 (1) and 25 of the Pre-Conception and Pre-Natal Diagnostic Techniques (Prohibition of Sex Selection) Act (Central Act) No.57 of 1994 r/w Rules (3) (1) (b) and 3 (3) (1) (b) of Pre-Conception and Pre-Natal Diagnostic Techniques (Prohibition of Sex Selection) Rules 1996. The first accused Dr.Vasudevan being a medical practitioner failed to comply with the provisions of the Act as per Sec. 3 (2), which is punishable under Ss. 23 (1) and 25 of the PCPNDT Act. Second accused Dr.Jeyalakshmi in connivance with first accused Dr.Vasudevan committed the offence and she is also punishable under Ss. 23 (1) and 25 of the Pre-Conception and Pre-Natal Diagnostic Techniques (Prohibition of Sex Selection) Act (Central Act) No.57 of 1994 r/w Rules (3) (1) (b) and 3 (3) (1) (b) of Pre-Conception and Pre-Natal Diagnostic Techniques (Prohibition of Sex Selection) Rules 1996.