Bombay HC dismisses criminal case against two Pune doctors

Mumbai: In a relief to two Pune-based doctors, the Bombay high court quashed a criminal case registered against them under the Pre-Conception and Pre-Natal Diagnostic Techniques (Prohibition of Sex Selection) Act (PCPNDT).

Justice Anuja Prabhudessai dismissed the criminal case registered against Rajender Sujanyal, a gynaecologist, who runs a hospital in Pimpri, and Shripad Inamdar, a radiologist, who visits the hospital to conduct sonography on pregnant women. The high court observed that subjecting the applicants to unnecessary criminal prosecution is nothing but an abuse of the process of the law.

The case was registered against the two doctors in June 2012, after an officer of the Pimpri Chinchwad Municipal Corporation visited the hospital to check if provisions of the PCPNDT Act were being followed. After a month, the medical officer sealed the ultra-sound machine in the hospital claiming violations in the maintenance of Form ‘F’ which is filled and signed by the radiologist before a sonography is conducted on pregnant women. The case was registered after the medical officer claimed that the gynaecologist signed the forms, which were supposed to be signed by the radiologist.

The petitioners moved the Bombay high court against the medical officer’s action, stating that the hand-written forms are signed by radiologist, but the computer generated forms were printed with Sujanyal’s signature as he is the head of the hospital. They argued that the discrepancies and deficiencies alleged in the complaint do not constitute an offence under the Act.

Justice Prabhudessai after hearing the case observed that the authority has not been able to point out any provision of the Act which stipulates that the computer printout of the Form ‘F’ are required to be signed by the radiologist and that omission of this signature is breach of the Act. The judge observed, “PCPNDT Act, which has been enacted with an avowed object of preventing female foeticide, confers wide powers to the appropriate authority to ensure that the diagnostic techniques are not misused for sex selection.”

However, the high court noted that in the present case, the medical officer exercised his powers in a very “cursory manner” without paying heed to the explanation given by the doctors.