Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Delhi District Court

In Re vs ) State Of Nct Of Delhi on 30 May, 2017

                                                   Crl. Revision No.56384/2016

               IN THE COURT OF MS. SMITA GARG, 
             ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE­FTC, WEST, 
                   TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI. 

Crl. Revision No.56384/2016
In re:
       Dr. Jasveer Singh 
       S/o. Sh. Amar Singh, 
       R/o A­2/57 Rajouri Garden, 
       Tagore Garden, New Delhi­110027.
                                                                      ....... Revisionist
                                     Versus
   1) State of NCT of Delhi.                       

     2) The Station House Officer, 
        Police Station Khyala, New Delhi  ........Respondents
 

              Date of filing of revision petition                     : 08.11.2016
              Date of pronouncement of judgment                       : 30.05.2017

JUDGMENT:

1. This revision petition under Section 397 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 is directed against the order dated 12.07.2016 passed by Ld. M. M. (West) whereby the application for release of Ultrasound Machine with 3 probes and one computer CPU on superdari moved by the revisionist in case FIR No.132/2016 under Section 23 of The Pre­conception and Pre­natal Diagnostic Techniques (Prohibition of Sex Selection) Act 1994, P.S. Khayala was dismissed. 

2. The brief background relevant for the disposal of the petition is that pursuant to an information regarding sex determination of foetus being carried out at Josan Diagnostics, a raid was conducted by the team of designated Authority under PC & PNDT Act at the clinic of the revisionist on 02.03.2016 and one ultrasound machine with probes, one computer CPU and one DVR being used in the clinic were seized. On 18.04.2016, the revisionist moved the application for release of the above articles on superdari before the Ld. M. M. IO of the case filed a reply giving no objection to the release of the machine by stating that the hard disc of the ultrasound machine and computer CPU had already been removed and sent to FSL. However, the Ld. M. M. dismissed the application by observing that the revisionist was using the machine for the purpose of sex determination and there was an apprehension that he might use it again for the said purpose in case the machine is released to him. Aggrieved therefrom, the revisionist is before this court. 

3. The counsel for the revisionist has assailed the order by contending that the trial court erred in discarding the report filed by the IO and failed to appreciate that after the removal of hard disc, the ultrasound machine and computer CPU are only the statue of iron and are of no use for the purpose of trial. He has submitted that the machine in question is very expensive and sensitive and would be reduced to scrap if allowed to remain in the custody of police. Reliance has been Dr. Jasveer Singh v. State & Anr.  Page No. 2 / 5     Crl. Revision No.56384/2016 placed on decision rendered on 02.12.2013 by Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in W. P. (C) No.4482/13 titled as 'Rahul Yadav v. Govt. of NCT & Ors' & judgment dated 14.08.2009 passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Bombay in W. P. No.1587/09 titled as "Dr. Dadasahab v. State of Maharashtra'. 

  On the other hand, it has been urged by the Ld. APP that the impugned order does not suffer from any illegality or infirmity and thus no interference is called for. 

4. At the outset, it is important to note that the object of PC & PNDT Act is to prohibit pre­natal diagnostic techniques for determination of sex of the foetus leading to female foeticide. While the pre­natal diagnostic techniques like amniocentesis and sonography were developed for the detection of genetic or chromosomal disorders or congenital malformations or sex linked disorders etc. but it has been noticed that these techniques are being used on a large scale to detect the sex of the foetus and to terminate the pregnancy of the unborn child if found to be female. Now a days techniques are also being developed to select the sex of child before conception. These practices and techniques are clearly discriminatory to the female sex and affects the dignity and status of the women. With the object to regulate the use of such techniques for the dishonest and illegal purpose and to provide deterrent punishment to stop such inhuman act, PC & PNDT Act was enacted. Thus in the cases where the Dr. Jasveer Singh v. State & Anr.  Page No. 3 / 5     Crl. Revision No.56384/2016 doctors indulge in sex determination and misuse the modern technology, the prevention of the crime is best achieved by sealing and seizing the machine so that the repetition of such crime is curbed. 

  A perusal of the impugned order shows that considering the allegations against the revisionist that he was using the ultrasound machine for the purpose of sex determination and with a view to prevent the repetitive misuse of machine, the Ld. M. M. had declined to release the ultrasound machine on superdari. While doing so, he had also placed reliance upon the judgment dated 23.01.2012 of Hon'ble High Court of Bombay in W. P. No.4399/2012 titled as 'Dr. Vandana Ramchandra Patil v. State of Maharashtra & Anr.; judgment dated 17.11.2011 of Hon'ble High Court of Bombay in W.P. No.1939/11 titled as 'Radiological Imaging Association v. UOI & Ors.' and 'Voluntary Health Association of Punjab v. UOI' (2013) 4 SCC. In Dr. Vandana Ramchandra Patil's case (supra), dealing with a petition challenging the order of desealing of ultrasound machine passed by the Ld. JMFC, the Hon'ble Court set aside the order by observing that the offence under PC & PNDT Act is committed essentially with the use of USG machine and the prevention of crime is best achieved by sealing the machine. The power of the Magistrate to seal the machine is the most potent weapon in case of prevention and further incurrance of the offence and such power should be used in the interest of general public. In case the seal is opened, the Dr. Jasveer Singh v. State & Anr.  Page No. 4 / 5     Crl. Revision No.56384/2016 accused is facilitated to repeat the crime and therefore, the accused can not be allowed to use his machine until the trial is over. Considering the observations made in Vandanda Ramchandra Patil's case relied upon by the Ld. M. M., I find no infirmity in the impugned order. 

  Rahul Yadav's case (supra) & Dr. Dadasaheb's case (supra) relied upon by the counsel for the revisionist do not render any assistance to him as the facts of the case on hand are clearly distinguishable. While in the former case relied upon by the counsel for the revisionist, there was no allegation of misuse of machine for sex determination, in the latter case, the ultrasound machine was directed to be released as it was found that the machine had not been sealed in accordance with law. 

  As far as the apprehension of the revisionist that the machine would loose its worth if allowed to remain in the police custody is concerned, the same has already been taken care of by the trial court by directing the DCP and SHO concerned to keep it in safe and proper custody so as to avoid any harm to it.  

  For the foregoing reasons, the revision petition is found to be without merits and is, accordingly, dismissed.  

       File of the revision petition be consigned to record room.  

Announced in the open court                            (Smita Garg)
on 30.05.2017                             Addl. Sessions Judge­FTC,(West)
                                                 Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi.

Dr. Jasveer Singh v. State & Anr.                              Page No. 5 / 5