Appeal
Appeal against order taking cognizance was rejected by High Court
3. This appeal challenges the judgment and order of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Aurangabad Bench in CrWP No. 1363 of 2017, whereby the challenge to the order taking cognizance dated 9th June 2016 in RCC No.16 of 2016 passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Ardhapur was rejected.
Brief
Summons issued for the violation of Pre-Conception and Pre-natal Diagnostic Techniques (Prohibition of Sex Selection) Act, 1994
4. The Trial Court has directed the issuance of process under Section 204 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for the offences punishable under Section 23 of the Pre-Conception and Pre-Natal Diagnostic Techniques (Prohibition of Sex Selection) Act, 1994 for violation of Sections 4(3), 5, 6 and 29 of the Act and Rules 9, 8(5) and 18(9).
Also under challenge was the order dated 21st August 2017 which dismissed the Criminal Revision No. 82 of 2016 preferred by the appellant against the issuance of process.
5. In short, an Authority (delegation of power to whom is in fact, a point of challenge raised before us) conducted a search and seized the equipment belonging to the appellant and issued notice to him under Section 20(1) of the PCPNDT, calling upon him to offer an explanation. Pursuant to letter dated 18th March 2016 issued by such Authority, he also appeared before the Advisory Committee, constituted under the Act on 22nd March 2016. Having heard him, it was concluded that prima facie material existed in so far as the violations under PCPNDT were concerned. The suspension of the sonography center and seizure of the sonography machine was ordered by communication dated 23rd March 2016. Here itself, it may be noted that this seizure of machine was challenged as per law, and as on date it stands released in favour of the appellant as also registration thereof restored. The same is, therefore, a non- issue before us. Proceedings before the Trial Court, as already noted, were initiated on 28th April 2016. The order under challenge was issued on 9th June 2016.
6. A Revision Petition was preferred against this Order which was disposed of by judgment dated 21st August 2017. Both grounds raised, i.e., the competence of the Civil Surgeon, as the appropriate Authority and, the maintenance and updating of records being the responsibility of the hospital staff and not the responsibility of the appellant herein were rejected.
7. In the judgment impugned before us, the grounds of challenge raised by the appellant were two –fold. One, that Civil Surgeon was not the appropriate Authority under the Act and as such, the cognizance taken by the Magistrate was without basis; Two, it was urged that the errors or blanks in Form ‘F’ were technical errors and inadvertent. They were not errors backed by intention.
Regarding the first contention, notification dated 15th May 2015 was taken note of which made the District Civil Surgeon, the appropriate Authority under the Act, and as such, the instant proceedings were in accordance with law.
About the second contention, it was concluded by the Court that the errors in maintaining the records were not a trivial matter and compromises in maintaining the record apart from being a substantive offence under the proviso to Section 4(3), would also be offensive to the scope of the Act. The extent and manner of violations in maintaining the record is a question of trial and had to be determined in such proceedings. The order of the Magistrate suffered from no error.
8. The appellant, therefore, has carried the matter in appeal before this Court. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. The short question to be considered is whether the Magistrate was correct in taking cognizance.
Affirming and following the Hon’ble Supreme Court judgment Voluntary Health Assn. Of Punjab v. U.O.I
9. At the outset, we may profitably refer to the observations in Voluntary Health Assn. of Punjab v. Union of India, wherein this court observed:
“14. Female foeticide has its roots in the social thinking which is fundamentally based on certain erroneous notions, egocentric traditions, perverted perception of societal norms and obsession with ideas which are totally individualistic sans the collective good. All involved in female foeticide deliberately forget to realise that when the foetus of a girl child is destroyed, a woman of the future is crucified. To put it differently, the present generation invites the sufferings on its own and also sows the seeds of suffering for the future generation, as in the ultimate eventuate, the sex ratio gets affected and leads to manifold social problems. I may hasten to add that no awareness campaign can ever be complete unless there is real focus on the prowess of women and the need for women empowerment.”
Even after more than a decade our sentiment is similar.
11. Section 32 of the Act, although not reproduced supra, provides the rulemaking power. Under this Authority, the Central Government has framed the Pre-Conception and Pre-Natal Diagnostic Techniques (Prohibition of Sex Selection) Rules, 1996. The Scheme thereof was discussed in a recent judgment of this Court speaking through Bhuyan J., in Naresh Kumar Garg (Dr.) v. State of Haryana.
14. The provisions reproduced above and also the judicial interpretation thereof leave no room for doubt. The keeping of records is essential to the Act and its avowed purpose. It is true that in general terms, the declining sex ratio issue is better and has shown considerable improvement but, however, diluting the provisions of law, or letting infractions thereof slide cannot be countenanced. According to official Government of India data, the country’s sex ratio has shown clear signs of improvement in recent years, though the story is not entirely straightforward. The National Family Health Survey-5 (2019–21)11, conducted under the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, records the sex ratio to be 1,020 females per 1,000 males, compared to 991 in NFHS-4 (2015–16). At the same time, the sex ratio at birth, which reflects the number of girls born relative to boys in the five years preceding the survey, stood at 929 females per 1,000 males. As per Census Commissioner’s report, the position is as follows:
“….”
Conclusion
16. These schemes are indicative of continued efforts to eradicate the systemic bias suffered by the girl child in an inherently patriarchal system. Much progress has been made, and yet, much is left to be desired. In sum, while the situation is markedly better than it was in the mid-1990s, the data does not support complacency. The statistics referred to above show that the progress made is incomplete and uneven. Consequently, the integrity and strict enforcement of welfare-oriented legislation such as the PCPNDT Act remain essential along with efforts continued and earnest, till the time there is a widespread change in mentality and what till now, is perceived as the ‘inherent weakness’ of the woman, is replaced by true equality, when there will dawn a realization that efforts such as these are no longer required. This is not to say that the laws protecting women within legislation such as IPC/BNS will no longer be required but at least, there will no longer be a question on whether a girl child deserves to be born.
17. The appeal, in view of the cumulative assessment above, is bereft of merit and is accordingly dismissed. Pending applications (if any) shall be disposed of.
Resources
List of Judgments that are cited or involved
1. Voluntary Health Assn. of Punjab v. Union of India; Citation: (2013) 4 SCC 1
- Brief: This judgment is quoted to emphasize the severe societal impact of female foeticide. The Court observed that the practice is rooted in erroneous traditions and a perverted perception of societal norms. It noted that destroying a female foetus “crucifies a woman of the future,” negatively affects the sex ratio, and invites suffering for future generations. The judgment stresses that true awareness requires a focus on women empowerment.
2. Naresh Kumar Garg (Dr.) v. State of Haryana; Citation: 2026 SCC OnLine SC 295
- Brief: This judgment is cited briefly to reference a recent discussion by the Supreme Court regarding the scheme of the Pre-Conception and Pre-Natal Diagnostic Techniques (Prohibition of Sex Selection) Rules, 1996, which were framed under Section 32 of the Act.
3. Federation of Obstetrics & Gynaecological Societies of India v. Union of India; Citation: (2019) 6 SCC 283
- Brief: This case is quoted extensively to settle the debate on the essentiality of maintaining accurate statutory records, specifically Form ‘F’. The judgment firmly establishes that non-maintenance of records is not just a clerical error but a “springboard for commission of offence of foeticide.” It holds that the complete contents of Form ‘F’ are mandatory and that diluting these rules would defeat the Act’s purpose of preventing female foeticide and protecting a girl child’s right to life under Article 21 of the Constitution.
4. Suo Motu v. State of Gujarat; Citation: 2008 SCC OnLine Guj 294
- Brief: A Gujarat High Court decision referenced for having previously echoed the authoritative position settled in the Federation of Obstetrics case regarding the strict necessity of record-keeping under the PCPNDT Act.
5. Sai v. State of Maharashtra; Citation: 2016 SCC OnLine Bom 8812
- Brief: A Bombay High Court decision cited alongside the Gujarat High Court case. It is referenced to show that prior to the Supreme Court’s definitive ruling, High Courts had already established similar stances on the indispensable nature of forms and records for the proper functioning of the Act.
Party
Dr. Ramesh vs the State of Maharashtra & Anr - Criminal Appeal No. 3064 of 2026 - 2026 INSC 635 - June 11, 2026 – Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Karol and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra.
