(1.) IN this case, the question of law, which requires consideration, is :
(2.) IN this case, both the petitioners are qualified practising Doctors. Petitioner No. 1 is running a Scan Centre whereas petitioner No. 2 is practising as a Gynaecologist. She is also running a Nursing Home. A complaint under Section 23 of the Pre-Natal Diagnostic Technique Regulation and Prevention of Misuse Act, 1994 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) has been filed by the Senior Medical Officer, Incharge, Civil Hospital, Malerkotla, against the petitioners, on the allegations that on 17.3.2003, the complainant constituted a team, comprising of certain doctors, for the purpose of inspection of ultra sound scan centres running in Sub-Division, Malerkotla. The said team inspected the genetic clinic of petitioner No. 1. During the inspection, they found that the petitioners had violated certain provisions of the Act. The Pre-Natal Diagnostic tests were found being carried out without ensuring the compliance of the provisions under Sections 4(1), (2) and (3) of the Act. There was no proper record being maintained under the aforesaid Sections. The petitioners had not displayed the Certificate of Registration on the conspicuous place of its business. They even did not display a notice board in the local language on its premises stating that here pre-natal determination is not done and disclosure of the sex of foetus is prohibited. The petitioners were not maintaining the record as per rule 9 of the Pre-Natal Diagnostic Technique (Regulation and Prevention of Misuse) Act, 1996.
(3.) THE Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Malerkotla, vide his order dated June 09, 2003, rejected this contention of the petitioners, while observing that the instant case is covered under Section 200 of the Code which provides that when a complaint is made in writing by a public servant acting or purporting to act in the discharge of his official duties, then the Magistrate need not to examine the complainant and the witnesses.