PRADEEP OHRI Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner, who had obtained the M. B. B. S. degree In the year 1990 and got himself registered as medical practitioner by the Punjab medical Council (hereinafter referred to as 'the Medical Council') in the year 1991 and subsequently also obtained the MD degree from Guru Nanak Dev University in the year 1996, has filed this petition challenging the order dated 7-11-2005 (Annexure P-4)passed by the Medical Council removing his name from the State Medical Register for a period of five years under Section 23 (2) of the Pre-coneeption and Pre-natal Diagnostic Techniques (Prohibition of Sex Selection)Act, 1994 (hereinafter referred to as 'the pndt Act, 1994') in view of his conviction under Section 23 (1) of the said Act. He has also challenged the subsequent order dated 21-8-2000 (Annexure P-5) whereby the medical Council re-affirmed its earlier decision to remove the name of the petitioner from the State Medical Register.

(2.) IN the present case, the petitioner was running Satyam Diagnostic Centre Inside ohri Nursing Home. On July 9, 2002, an inspection of the said ultrasound centre viz. Satyam Diagnostic Centre was made by the district Medical Authorities. During the inspection, it was found that the petitioner had violated Section 5 (a) (b) (c) of the PNDT Act, 1994 and Rules 9 (1) (4) and 10 of the Preconception and Pre-natal Diagnostic Techniques (Prohibition of Sex Selection) Rules, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules' ). On a complaint under the aforesaid provisions, he was prosecuted and convicted under Section 23 (1) for the offence committed under Section 5 (a) (b) (c)of the PNDT Act, 1994 and Rules 9 (1) (4) and 10 made thereunder. But, he was released on probation for a period of one year under Section 4 (1)of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 vide judgment dated September 24, 2004 delivered by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, amritsar. Since the petitioner was released on probation and not sentenced to any imprisonment, he was legally advised that It was not necessary for him to file an appeal against the conviction. Subsequently he was advised that he should contest the conviction by way of an appeal and accordingly he filed an appeal before the Sessions Court, amritsar along with an application under section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay in filing the appeal.

(3.) IT is pertinent to mention here that against the order of release of the petitioner on probation, the State filed a, revision petition in the high Court seeking enhancement of punishment by way of imposition of a sentence of imprisonment. We have also been informed that the appeal filed by the petitioner before the Sessions Court has now been transferred to this Court and the said appeal as well as the revision are still pending in this Court.