Delhi District Court
Aruna Jain vs Vk Sehdev on 27 November, 2025
IN THE COURT OF SH. KARANBIR SINGH, JMFC-02,
CENTRAL DISTRICT, TIS HAZARI COURT, DELHI
Dr. ARUNA JAIN VS. Dr. VK SEHDEV
Case No. 512553/2016
PS: TIMARPUR
Date of institution of the case : 03.08.2006.
Date of judgment reserved : 07.11.2025.
Date of commission of offence: 31.07.2006.
Name of the complainant : Dr. Aruna Jain.
Name of accused and address: Accused No. 1 Dr. VK Sehdev S/o
Late Sh. RK Sehdev aged about 71
years, R/o 43, Inder Enclave, Rohtak
Road, Delhi.
Accused No. 2, Anil Grover S/o Late
Sh. GR Grover, R/o 1767, Outram Lane,
GTB Nagar, Delhi.
Accused No. 3, Manish Gupta S/o Sh.
RD Gupta R/o B-96, Derawal Nagar,
Delhi.
Offence complained of : Section 29 (2) PC & PNDT Act, 1994,
Section 23 PC and PNDT Act, Rule-9
of PC and PNDT Rules, Rule-13 RW
Rule 9 (5) of PC and PNDT Rules,
1996, Rule-4 of PC and PNDT Rules
1996.
Plea of the accused : Pleaded not guilty
KARANBIR Dr. Aruna Jain Vs. Dr. VK Sehdev and Ors. Case no. 512553/2016 PS Timar Pur 1/72
SINGH
Digitally signed by
KARANBIR SINGH
Date: 2025.11.27
17:26:21 +0530
Date of Judgment : 27.11.2025.
Final order : Acquitted.
JUDGMENT
Vide this judgment, I shall dispose of one of the oldest cases pending before the court and the oldest case of PC and PNDT Act in the Central District.
CASE OF THE COMPLAINANT:
1. The complainant's case as averred in the complaint is that:
(i) That the complainant Dr. Aruna Jain D/o Mr. MC Gupta aged about 48 years functioning as Appropriate Authority under Pre Conception and Pre Natal Diagnostic Technique (PC & PNDT) (Prohibition of Sex Section Act, 1994 and implementing Authority under MTP Act.
(ii) Dr. VK Sehdev R/o Main Burari Road, Sant Nagar, Delhi-84 is Medical Director, Sant Hospital Main Road Burari, Sant Nagar, Delhi-84. The Hospital is registered under PC & PNDT Act with effect from 22.10.2002 to 21.10.2007 for ultrasonography vide registration no. 1385 by Dr. Avinash Kaur Mehta, Director, Directorate of Family Welfare, Delhi the State Appropriate Authority for PNDT Act.
(iii) The Hospital is registered under MTP Act, as per the list provided by Directorate of Family Welfare at serial no. 341.
(iv) The hospital is irregular in sending the reports under PC & PNDT Act and MTP Act, and record keeping is in-complete and in-proper.
(v) Dr. VK Sehdev has mentioned in form A about equipment available as Logiq alpha 100-V4 which is a mobile ultrasound machine. Ultrasonologist is Dr. Anil Kumar Grover (MD Radio Diagnosis), but he has not informed about Dr. Manish Kr. Gupta and Dr. Sandeep Jain who have been visiting the hospital for ultrasonography as is evident from the reports sent to us.
(vi) Non maintenance of records amounts to violation of the PC & PNDT Act and MTP Act. The hospital had been issued notices for non maintenance of records.
KARANBIR SINGH Dr. Aruna Jain Vs. Dr. VK Sehdev and Ors. Case no. 512553/2016 PS Timar Pur 2/72 Digitally signed by KARANBIR SINGH Date: 2025.11.27 17:26:31 +0530
(vii) During the visit by the Appropriate Authority with her team constituted by Addl. CDMO, Programme Officer, Medical Officer, CMO (PNDT) DFW and a doctor from DFW, some of the records were seized. List of the records seized is indicated in the inspection report, the copy of which is annexed. The seized records are kept in the office of Chief District Medical Officer.
(viii) The Hospital failed to produce the following records:
(i) Ultrasound Register.
(ii) Form-F for the month July 2006 (only two forms were shown).
(iii) Record of deliveries conducted.
(iv) PNDT Act not available in the premises.
9. On scrutiny of records it was found that records were incomplete and blank consent forms have been signed for surgical procedures. Case records are incompletely and improperly maintained. Form F, a mandatory requirement for ultrasound done on pregnant females, are thoroughly incomplete. The record maintenance is not as per PC & PNDT Act and MTP Act. Incomplete and improper maintenance of records are indicative of the fact that ultrasound is being done without keeping proper records for concealment of facts so that unwanted pregnancies for a particular sex are being terminated. There is thus clear violation of PC & PNDT Act and MTP Act.
10. Considering gross negligence in maintenance of records under PC & PNDT Act and MTP Act, the under signed has suspended the registration of Sant Hospital Main Road Sant Nagar, Burari under PC & PNDT Act and MTP Act in public interest.
11. The matter is put before this Hon'ble Court that has the jurisdiction to try the present matter.
KARANBIR SINGH Dr. Aruna Jain Vs. Dr. VK Sehdev and Ors. Case no. 512553/2016 PS Timar Pur 3/72 Digitally signed by KARANBIR SINGH Date: 2025.11.27 17:26:34 +0530 COURT PROCEEDINGS :
2. Upon filing of complaint, Ld. Predecessor of this court took cognizance of the offence vide order dt. 28.10.2006 and the aforesaid doctors were summoned.
All the accused were admitted to bail on 23.11.2006. Copy of complainant along with accompanying documents was supplied to all the accused persons. Thereafter, the matter proceeded on recording of evidence.
3. In order to substantiate its case, complainant has examined following witnesses.
4. Testimony of CW-1 Dr. Aruna Jain, Chief District Medical Officer, North District, Delhi:
She deposed that she was the appropriate authority under the PC & PNDT Act in the year 2006. She deposed that the present complaint was filed by her in the capacity of the appropriate authority against Sant Hospital situated at Burari, Sant Nagar, Delhi. She deposed that the hospital was registered under the PC & PNDT Act and the MTP Act. She deposed that it was observed that the hospital was irregular in sending the statutory reports under both the aforesaid Acts. She deposed that she, along with other officers working under the Directorate of Health Services and from the Directorate of Family Welfare, inspected the hospital in the last week of July or the first week of August 2006, and that she does not remember the exact date. She deposed that the inspecting team included herself, Dr. Vineet Swaroop, Addl. CDMO, Dr. Shelly, Programme Officer, Dr. Mital, CMO, PNDT, DFW, and one more doctor from DFW whose name she does not remember. She deposed that on inspecting the hospital record, it was found that the hospital was not maintaining the requisite records under the PC & PNDT Act and the MTP Act. She deposed that Form-F, a mandatory KARANBIR SINGH Dr. Aruna Jain Vs. Dr. VK Sehdev and Ors. Case no. 512553/2016 PS Timar Pur 4/72 Digitally signed by KARANBIR SINGH Date: 2025.11.27 17:28:13 +0530 requirement for ultrasound done on pregnant ladies, were thoroughly incomplete. She deposed that the records for surgical procedures had been irregularly sent to the office of the CDMO. She deposed that the following records were found to be deficient:
1. Ultra Sound Register
2. Form-F
3. Records of deliveries conducted at the hospital
4. Copy of PNDT Act was not available, which is mandatory as per the Act She deposed that the records seized from the hospital were seized vide memo Ex.CW1/A bearing her signature at point A. She deposed that thereafter, the registration of the hospital under the PC & PNDT Act was reviewed and the following records were seized from Sant Hospital:
1. MTP Register w.e.f. 03/04/2006 containing 10 filled-up pages, collectively Ex.P1
2. Cash Receipt Book w.e.f. 05/07/2006 having 59 used receipts, the same is Ex.P2
3. OPD Register w.e.f. 01/04/2006 having 119 used pages, the same is Ex.P3
4. O.T. Register w.e.f. 04/12/2005 having 5 filled pages, which is Ex.P4
5. Admission Register w.e.f. 01/11/2005 having 115 filled pages, Ex.P5
6. Admission Register w.e.f. 01/07/2006 having 12 filled pages, no entry was there for 01/07/2006, which is Ex.P6
7. Form-F which are 32 in number (most of the Form-F are in original, few forms are in copies with signature of doctor in original, most of the Form-F are incomplete), all the same are collectively Ex.P7
8. 69 Case Records in original collectively Ex.P8, one blank letterhead, one blank OPD Card, and one Visiting Card of the hospital collectively Ex.P9 She deposed that along with the complaint, she had filed a copy of the notification, a copy of which is Ex.CW1/F bearing her signatures at point A. She deposed that the office copy of a letter on the same subject requiring the filing of Form-F for the period July 2004 to February 2005 is marked D, and that it does not bear her KARANBIR SINGH Dr. Aruna Jain Vs. Dr. VK Sehdev and Ors. Case no. 512553/2016 PS Timar Pur 5/72 Digitally signed by KARANBIR SINGH Date: 2025.11.27 17:28:18 +0530 signatures. She deposed that copies of office directions issued from CDMO North District requiring Sant Hospital authorities to appear along with specific PNDT records are collectively marked E. She deposed that inspection reports collectively marked F pertain to the dates of visit 10/03/2005 and 01/07/2006 indicating irregularities. She deposed that the constitution of the inspection team as referred to in the complaint is Ex.CW1/G bearing her signatures at point A. She deposed that the copy of the Show Cause notice under the PNDT Act Ex.CW1/H bears her signatures at point A.
5. Testimony of CW-2 Dr. Shelly Kamra, State Programme Officer for PNDT, Delhi:
She deposed that on 31.07.2006 at about 12:00/12:30 pm, a team from DHS North District and Directorate of Family Welfare Delhi comprising herself, Dr. Aruna Jain, Dr. Vinit Harneja, Dr. Ashok Mittal, and Dr. Arvind Goyal had visited Sant Hospital, Burari, Delhi, and had inspected the hospital. She deposed that earlier on 01.07.2006, the hospital was also visited by them and it was found that the record was not properly maintained and there was no intimation of two radiologists, namely Dr. Manish Gupta and Dr. Sandeep Jain, and to this effect a show cause notice was given to the hospital on 25.07.2006. She deposed that no reply was received at their office with respect to the said show cause notice to the hospital, so the hospital was inspected again on 31.07.2006 by a team comprising the doctors mentioned above. She deposed that on inspection, it was found that the Ultrasound register was not available, there were incomplete Form-F which have to be mandatorily filled as per the provisions of the PNDT Act. She deposed that the hospital was registered under the MTP Act but the records which were necessary to be maintained were not maintained and records pertaining to the delivery were also not maintained. She KARANBIR Dr. Aruna Jain Vs. Dr. VK Sehdev and Ors. Case no. 512553/2016 PS Timar Pur 6/72 SINGH Digitally signed by KARANBIR SINGH Date: 2025.11.27 17:28:23 +0530 deposed that during examination, it was also found that the consent forms were signed by the doctors but the details were incomplete.
6. Testimony of CW-3 Dr. Vineet Swaroop, CMO (R&H), CGHS, North Zone, Delhi:
He deposed that on 31.07.2006, he was posted at the office of CDMO, North District, Govt. Of NCT of Delhi. He deposed that on that day, an inspection team was constituted under the authority of CDMO, North District, Dr. Aruna Jain, including himself, Dr. Shelly Kamra, Dr. A.K. Mittal, and Dr. Arvind Goyal. He deposed that on that day, the team visited Sant Hospital, Burari, Delhi, owned by Dr. V.K. Sehdev. He deposed that the hospital was registered under the PC and PNDT Act and also under the MTP Act. He deposed that the team asked for various records pertaining to PC, PNDT, and MTP Acts, and the following records were produced:
(i) Case record of 69 patients
(ii) Form-F (32 in number)
(iii) OPD register
(iv) Admission register
(v) MTP register
(vi) Cash book
(vii) Some blank letterheads of the hospital, etc.
He deposed that the following records were not produced by Dr. V.K. Sehdev:
(i) Ultrasound register
(ii) Copy of PC, PNDT Act
KARANBIR
SINGH
(iii) Case record of deliveries
Dr. Aruna Jain Vs. Dr. VK Sehdev and Ors. Case no. 512553/2016 PS Timar Pur 7/72 Digitally signed by KARANBIR SINGH Date: 2025.11.27 17:28:29 +0530 He deposed that the remaining records were not produced completely and were incompletely maintained. He deposed that notices were sent to Sant Hospital regarding non-maintenance of records which were found in the earlier inspections in the year 2005-2006. He deposed that the said hospital was also irregular in sending the reports to the office of CDMO North in time, and that these facts were briefed to them before proceeding for inspection by CDMO North. He deposed that it was also informed that some Form-F were signed by Dr. Manish Gupta and Dr. Sandeep Jain, whose names were not intimated to the office of CDMO North, and that only the name of Dr. Anil Grover was registered with the CDMO North along with his mobile ultrasound machine. The witness correctly identified the accused persons, namely Dr. V.K. Sehdev, Dr. Manish Gupta, and Dr. Anil Grover, who were present in the court. He deposed that the records which were seized from Sant Hospital are as under:
(i) MTP Register w.e.f. 03.04.2006 containing 10 filled-up pages, already Ex.P1 collectively
(ii) Cash receipt book w.e.f. 05.07.2006 having 59 used receipts, already Ex.P2
(iii) OPD Register w.e.f. 01.04.2006 having 119 used pages, already Ex.P3 collectively
(iv) O.T. Register w.e.f. 04.12.2005 having five filled pages, already Ex.P4 collectively
(v) Admission Register w.e.f. 01.11.2005 having 115 filled pages, already Ex.P5 collectively
(vi) Admission Register w.e.f. 01.07.2006 having 12 filled pages, no entry was there for 01.07.2006, already Ex.P6 collectively
(vii) Form-F which are 32 in number (most of the Form-F are copies with signatures of doctors in original, three forms are in original without bearing any signatures of doctor concerned, most of Form-F are incomplete), all the same are already Ex.P7 collectively KARANBIR Dr. Aruna Jain Vs. Dr. VK Sehdev and Ors. Case no. 512553/2016 PS Timar Pur 8/72 SINGH Digitally signed by KARANBIR SINGH Date: 2025.11.27 17:28:34 +0530
(viii) 69 case records in original, already Ex.P8 collectively, one blank letterhead, one blank OPD card, and one visiting card of the hospital, already Ex.P9 collectively CROSS-EXAMINATION AT THE STAGE OF PRE-CHARGE EVIDENCE
7. Testimony of CW-1 Dr. Aruna Jain (Recalled for Cross-
Examination):
7.1 Cross-Examination by Sh. Avadh Bihari Kaushik, Learned Counsel for Accused V.K. Sehdev.
She deposed that presently she is posted at CGHS, Wellness Centre, Paschim Vihar, Delhi as CMO In-charge. She deposed that she was posted at CDMO, North District, Gulabi Bagh upto December, 2006. She deposed that she does not remember the date of joining. She deposed that she remained there approximately for two years as CDMO. She deposed that it is correct that earlier she was posted in Tihar Jail as Medical Superintendent. She deposed that she is M.B.B.S. She deposed that she has ever since dealt with higher qualified professionals. She deposed that the complaint Ex.CW1/B has been drafted by herself while having assistance of her other officers. She deposed that she has not filed the complaint in her individual name. She deposed that she had not obtained any permission from any Govt. Authority before filing the complaint as the same was not required. She deposed that since she is the appropriate authority under PC & PNDT Act and also under MTP Act. She deposed that it is wrong to suggest that she filed the present complaint in her personal name just to satisfy her ego and to implicate innocent highly qualified professionals/doctors in the present case just to show that she is superior to them. She deposed that on behalf of CDMO office legal help KARANBIR SINGH Dr. Aruna Jain Vs. Dr. VK Sehdev and Ors. Case no. 512553/2016 PS Timar Pur 9/72 Digitally signed by KARANBIR SINGH Date: 2025.11.27 17:29:17 +0530 was sought from Delhi Govt. and Directorate of Health in pursuance to which Ms. Saphaya Advocate was appointed to appear in Court in the present matter. She deposed that she does not recollect the date or month as to when the said letter was sent to Delhi Govt. or Directorate of Health. She deposed that she had not filed the copy of said letter along with the complaint or subsequently till she remained posted as CDMO. She deposed that the legal assistance was sought after filing the complaint. She deposed that since the complaint was to be filed within the stipulated period therefore, legal aid could not be sought earlier to filing the complaint. She deposed that she does not remember the exact figures of the hospitals/medical centres registered under PC and PNDT Act with CDMO, North during her tenure. She deposed that she also does not remember the number of MTP centres registered under CDMO, North under MTP Act.
She deposed that as far as she remembers approximately 50 to 60 medical centres were registered under CDMO, North while she was posted there but she cannot give any approximate figure in respect of registered MTP centres. She deposed that she does not remember how many medical centres were defaulter under PC & PNDT and MTP Act during her tenure. She deposed that it is a matter of record and can be verified from the record. At that stage, the documents obtained from office of CDMO, North through RTI dated 27.06.2007 were placed on record for cross examination. She deposed that the document Ex.CW1/DA running in 9 pages is put to her and she states that these documents have been prepared after she was relieved from CDMO Office. She deposed that she does not want to comment about the correctness supplied by CDMO office. She deposed that she does not know whether Dr. B N Acharya was appointed as CDMO, North as he was working at such post on 18.06.2007. She deposed that she is aware that Dr. B N Acharya was looking Digitally Dr. Aruna Jain Vs. Dr. VK Sehdev and Ors. Case no. 512553/2016 PS Timar Pur 10/72 signed by KARANBIR KARANBIR SINGH SINGH Date:
2025.11.27 17:29:22 +0530 after the present case when he was CDMO, North. She deposed that she cannot identify the signatures of Dr. B N Acharya appearing on page two of Ex.CW1/DA. She deposed that she does not remember whether during her tenure there were 18 medical centres registered under MTP Act and 50 medical centres were registered under PC & PNDT Act. She deposed that she does not remember whether out of said 18 medical centres 9 were defaulter during her tenure. She deposed that she does not remember the approximate number of defaulting medical centres under MTP Act nor she remembers the number of approximate defaulter centres under PC & PNDT Act. She deposed that she cannot say today that the Sant Hospital of Dr. V.K. Sehdev/accused No. 1 was not in defaulter under MTP Act during her tenure as CDMO, North. She deposed that she does not remember whether any notice was served upon Sant Hospital under MTP Act at any time during her tenure. She deposed that he cannot tell whether their department prepares any list of those medical centres which do not comply with the provisions/requirements of MTP and PC & PNDT Act. She deposed that the programme officer individually sent notice which was signed by CDMO to such medical centres who was not complying with provisions/requirements of the Act. She deposed that he cannot tell that there were 30 medical centres who were defaulters under PC & PNDT Act while she was CDMO. She deposed that since it is a matter of record. She deposed that while she was CDMO, North she conducted raids at Sant Hospital and Nanak Hospital only during her tenure as CDMO, North. She deposed that she has filed three complaints against the three separate hospitals namely, Sant Hospital, Nanak Hospital and Roop Nagar Hospital during her tenure as CDMO, North. She deposed that she does not know how many complaints had been filed under PC & PNDT Act and also under MTP Act by office of CDMO, North prior to her joining there as CDMO, North.
KARANBIR SINGH Dr. Aruna Jain Vs. Dr. VK Sehdev and Ors. Case no. 512553/2016 PS Timar Pur 11/72 Digitally signed by KARANBIR SINGH Date: 2025.11.27 17:29:26 +0530 She was asked by learned counsel whether there were more hospitals who were at the same footing in default as was seen in Sant and Nanak Hospital during her tenure as CDMO, North. She deposed that there were other hospitals also but the magnitude of default/irregularities in sending report in case of other medical centres was different. She deposed that the magnitude of default in case of Sant and Nanak Hospital was more as compared to the others. She deposed that it is wrong to suggest that she had conducted raids and taken action against only these two hospitals because she was having dishonest and malafide intention against them or that she intended to harass and blackmail them. She deposed that Sant Hospital is registered under MTP and PC & PNDT Act with their department but she cannot recollect since how long it is so registered. She deposed that no complaint whatsoever under both of these Acts was received against Sant Hospital during her tenure. She deposed that nor any such complaint was brought to her notice pertaining to period prior to her joining as CDMO. She deposed that she does not know what are the qualifications of Dr. V.K. Sehdev. She deposed that it is correct that Dr. V.K. Sehdev is neither a gynecologist nor a radiologist. She deposed that she cannot say without checking the record whether Dr. V.K. Sehdev had conducted any MTP. She deposed that Form-F sent by Sant Hospital were signed in some cases and unsigned in other cases. She deposed that she cannot say without checking the record whether the Form-F from Sant Hospital were bearing signatures of Dr. Anil Grover or of Dr. M.K. Gupta or of some other doctors. 7.2 She deposed that she herself was the appropriate authority to file complaint under PC & PNDT Act from 2005 to December 2006. She deposed that however she cannot recollect the exact dates. She deposed that no prior notice for inspection for Sant Hospital was sent. She deposed that notices were sent regarding not sending the required reports. She deposed that the two KARANBIR SINGH Dr. Aruna Jain Vs. Dr. VK Sehdev and Ors. Case no. 512553/2016 PS Timar Pur 12/72 Digitally signed by KARANBIR SINGH Date: 2025.11.27 17:29:29 +0530 hospitals were inspected including Sant Hospital and Nanak Hospital on the same day. She was asked by learned counsel whether any irregularities were found committed by the other hospital also. She deposed that during her tenure, she had filed three complaints against different hospitals under PC & PNDT Act which are pending adjudication in competent courts of law. She deposed that by incomplete case record, it is meant that details are not recorded completely for a particular patient. She deposed that she does not remember the names or particulars of any particular patient qua whom the case records were found incomplete. She deposed that Form-F is a report form which is to be filled for any pregnant patient who undergoes ultrasonic examination test.
She deposed that by irregularity in sending Form-F, she means to say that Form-F were not sent every month which is required under PC & PNDT Act. She deposed that as per the provision of the Act, all units are to keep a copy of PC & PNDT Act in the premises. She was asked by learned counsel whether she found the copy of the PNDT Act in other hospital inspected on the same day. She deposed that one of the aspects of the magnitude of the default being committed by Sant Hospital was that it was irregular for sending the requisite records for months together. She deposed that again she said that Sant Hospital was not sending reports for months together for which reminders had been sent even by her predecessor Dr. K. D. Bharadwaj. She deposed that reminders were also sent for regularly sending the reports during her tenure as well. She deposed that she does not remember numbers and dates of reminders sent by Dr. K. D. Bharadwaj and even by her but they are mentioned in the records of CDMO's office. She deposed that she does not remember as to whether the requisite record as per the notices and reminders were immediately submitted by Sant Hospital to the CDMO office.
She deposed voluntarily that the record might not have been KARANBIR Dr. Aruna Jain Vs. Dr. VK Sehdev and Ors. Case no. 512553/2016 PS Timar Pur 13/72 SINGH Digitally signed by KARANBIR SINGH Date: 2025.11.27 17:29:32 +0530 submitted as there are multiple reminders placed on record. She deposed that apart from Sant and Nanak Hospital she has also sent the reminders to other hospitals namely Roop Nagar Hospital and may be more which may be verified from the records. She deposed that during her tenure apart from Nanak and Sant Hospital, CDMO office had inspected other hospitals also by her team. She deposed that again she said the inspection was carried out by their office but not in herself capacity. She deposed that it is wrong to suggest that she or her staff during her tenure never inspected any hospital apart from Nanak and Sant Hospital. She deposed that she cannot tell as to whether Dr. V. K. Sehdev has conducted any MTP. She deposed that she does not remember as to whether purchase invoice of ultrasound machine mark C was in the name of Sant Hospital or in the name of Dr. V.K. Sehdev. She deposed that they did not check for ultrasound machine in the Sant Hospital during their inspection. She deposed that she does not remember as to whether any notice or circular was got issued by their office to the radiologists and gynecologists for disclosing their work places and movement of their ultrasound machine. She deposed that the documents mark CW1/D1 might have been issued by the office of CDMO North District but the same is not signed by her. She deposed that the documents mark CW1/D2 is a photocopy and she is not able to recognize the signatures done on her behalf and hence she cannot depose about the genuineness about these documents.
She deposed that she is aware about the guidelines issued vide documents mark CW1/D3 which is a photocopy. She deposed that she is not aware about the circular mark CW1/D4 which is a photocopy as it was issued after her transfer. She deposed that it is correct that in her show cause notice dated 25.07.2006, already mark G, she had given one week's time to Dr. V. K. Sehdev to furnish the requisite records. She deposed that she does not KARANBIR Dr. Aruna Jain Vs. Dr. VK Sehdev and Ors. Case no. 512553/2016 PS Timar Pur 14/72 SINGH Digitally signed by KARANBIR SINGH Date: 2025.11.27 17:29:35 +0530 remember by what means the above said notice was sent to Dr. V. K. Sehdev. After seeing the judicial record, she says that no proof of service of the aforesaid notice has been placed by her in the judicial file. She deposed that it is correct that the inspection at the Sant Hospital was conducted on 31.07.2006 at about 12:30 pm. She deposed that if we include 25 th of July and 31st of July both being the working days, it makes 7 days (one week). She deposed that it is wrong to suggest that she deliberately before expiry of one week time given through notice mark G conducted the inspection of 31st of July 2006 in order to avoid the record being submitted by Dr. V. K. Sehdev with malafide intention. She deposed that the CDMO office had visited and conducted inspection at Sant Hospital on 10.03.2005 and 01.07.2006 mark F and mark F placed together in judicial file. She deposed that she does not recall as to whether there was any ultrasound room at Sant Hospital at the time of her inspection on 31.07.2006 as there was no ultrasound being done at the said hospital at that time. She deposed that she does not remember whether she inspected medical record room and operation room of the Sant Hospital during her inspection. She deposed that voluntarily she said medical records were asked from the owner of the said hospital Dr. Sehdev. She deposed that it is wrong to suggest that she did not ask for any medical record of Sant Hospital from Dr. V.K. Sehdev or from any other doctor or staff of the hospital.
She deposed that she does not remember the numbers of rooms in Sant Hospital at the time of visit. She deposed that she does not remember the number of rooms that were inspected in the Sant Hospital. She deposed that she did not meet any patient at Sant Hospital during her inspection. She deposed that she did not search for the PNDT Act book in the hospital but it was asked to Dr. V.K. Sehdev to show the book. She deposed that it is wrong to suggest that the PNDT Act book was available in the hospital. She deposed KARANBIR SINGH Dr. Aruna Jain Vs. Dr. VK Sehdev and Ors. Case no. 512553/2016 PS Timar Pur 15/72 Digitally signed by KARANBIR SINGH Date: 2025.11.27 17:30:13 +0530 that Dr. V.K. Sehdev was irregular in sending the Form-F to the CDMO's office which is required as per PC and PNDT Act on 5 th of every month. She deposed that voluntarily she said Sant Hospital was not only irregular in sending records on 5th of every month regarding PC and PNDT Act but there was non-maintenance of records at Sant Hospital, copy of the Act was not available in hospital premises and information regarding radiologist working in the hospital was also not provided. She was asked by learned counsel what she means by "non-maintenance of record at Sant Hospital". She deposed that ultrasound register was not produced when asked, MTP records were not maintained and consent forms for MTP were either blank or incompletely filled.
She was asked by learned counsel what she means by "MTP records were not maintained". She deposed that certain forms are required to be filled for doing MTP and they were not filled. She deposed that she cannot tell the name or number of forms to be filled for doing MTP. She deposed that it is wrong to suggest that Dr. V. K. Sehdev was maintaining all the record and it was only a few days delay on his part to send the requisite record to CDMO's office. She deposed that since she was the appropriate authority and no permission of higher authorities was required for inspection. She deposed that in her inspection team on 31.07.2006 at the time of inspection of Sant Hospital, apart from her, Dr. Vineet Swaroop (Additional CDMO), Dr. Shelly Kamra (programme officer), Dr. Mittal and one more doctor from Directorate of Family Welfare and Dr. Rajeev probably. She deposed that she does not remember the complete name of Dr. Mittal and name of the doctor from the Directorate of Family Welfare. She deposed that Dr. Rajeev was the medical officer belonging to CDMO's office. She deposed that it is correct that there was no private complaint from any patient or person against Dr. V. K. Sehdev KARANBIR Dr. Aruna Jain Vs. Dr. VK Sehdev and Ors. Case no. 512553/2016 PS Timar Pur 16/72 SINGH Digitally signed by KARANBIR SINGH Date: 2025.11.27 17:30:17 +0530 or Sant Hospital or against any other doctor working or visiting to Sant Hospital till the date of her inspection. She was asked by learned counsel what was the record which she seized from the Sant Hospital during her inspection which Dr. V. K. Sehdev was required to send to CDMO office, but he had not sent. She deposed that Form-F only. She deposed that it is incorrect to suggest that copies of Form-F which were seized by them during inspection had already been sent by Dr. V. K. Sehdev to their office. She deposed that the 32 Form-F which have been seized by them belong to the dates before July 2006. She deposed that she cannot say without seeing the record from CDMO whether these forms were sent to CDMO office. She deposed that it is correct that CDMO office had suspended the registration certificate granted to Dr. V. K. Sehdev under MTP and PNDT Act on 04.08.2006 with retrospective effect from 31st July 2006. She deposed that voluntarily she said Dr. V. K. Sehdev was given a copy of inspection report on 31.07.2006 which also mentions that his registration was suspended and the same was received by Dr. V. K. Sehdev. She deposed that the notices in terms of section 20(1) of PC and PNDT Act were issued to Sant Hospital.
She deposed that she can say about the sending the matter for revocation certificate to the Advisory Committee in terms of 20(2) of the Act only after going through the records of CDMO's office. She deposed that one of such notice placed on the file mark G was issued in terms of the requirement of section 20(1) of the Act. She deposed that it is wrong to suggest that no such notice in terms of section 20(1) was ever issued. She deposed that the matter was not sent to advisory committee as it was not necessary to send it to advisory committee. She deposed that she is not aware as to whether any list in the office is prepared regarding list of hospitals defaulting under the Act. She deposed that Form-F contains the name of doctor performing the KARANBIR SINGH Dr. Aruna Jain Vs. Dr. VK Sehdev and Ors. Case no. 512553/2016 PS Timar Pur 17/72 Digitally signed by KARANBIR SINGH Date: 2025.11.27 17:30:21 +0530 ultrasound and thus she cannot say as to whether Dr. V. K. Sehdev performed any ultrasound. She deposed that the name of surgeon performing MTP should be given in the concerned register and therefore she cannot tell as to whether Dr. V. K. Sehdev performed any MTP or not. She deposed that she does not know as to whether Dr. V. K. Sehdev is not a radiologist or gynecologist. She deposed that it is correct that there was no private complaint against Sant Hospital or Dr. V. K. Sehdev or against any other doctor working or visiting there in respect of ultrasound or MTP.
She deposed that it is wrong to suggest that there was no illegality or irregularity in maintaining the record in Sant Hospital and there was no violation of any provision of MTP and PC and PNDT Act at Sant Hospital.
She deposed that it is correct that at the time of her visit on 31.07.2006, no ultrasound or MTP was found to be conducted at Sant Hospital by Dr. V. K. Sehdev or any other doctor. She deposed that it is wrong to suggest that there was no deficiency or irregularity in the record of Sant Hospital and the same was regularly being sent at CDMO office. She deposed that it is wrong to suggest that the documents seized were only the photocopies as the originals of the same had already been submitted by Dr. V. K. Sehdev to her office. She deposed that it is wrong to suggest that the record pertaining to the year 2006 was complete in all aspect and therefore she has deliberately not produced the same in the court as the same had already been furnished in her office. She deposed that it is wrong to suggest that her entire exercise to conduct the inspection at Sant Hospital was malafide due to extraneous reasons. She deposed that it is wrong to suggest that after giving one week's notice she conducted the premature inspection in order to deprive Dr. V. K. Sehdev to put forth his defence. She deposed that it is wrong to suggest that she has filed a false complaint and deposing falsely in the court against Sant KARANBIR SINGH Dr. Aruna Jain Vs. Dr. VK Sehdev and Ors. Case no. 512553/2016 PS Timar Pur 18/72 Digitally signed by KARANBIR SINGH Date: 2025.11.27 17:30:25 +0530 Hospital and its doctors only in order to harass and humiliate the doctors as they did not fulfill her illegal demands.
She deposed that it is wrong to suggest that this was only the reason that she selected the Sant Hospital only to file the present false complaint.
7.3 Cross-Examination by Sh. Amit Goyal, Learned Counsel for Accused Dr. Manish Gupta She deposed that the initial complaint lodged by them was only against Dr. V.K. Sehdev. She deposed that she does not remember whether Dr. Manish Gupta was the visiting doctor in the Sant Hospital for conducting ultrasound. She deposed that she did not inquire that Dr. Manish Gupta continued visiting Sant Hospital from March 2005 to January 2006. She deposed that it is correct that it is the duty of the hospital to maintain record and send the requisite reports to the concerned authority. She was asked by learned counsel whether at the time of seizure of documents Dr. Manish Gupta was not present at the hospital. She deposed that she did not meet or seen Dr. Manish Gupta on the date of inspection in the hospital, he may or may not have been present in the premises. She deposed that it is correct that she did not send any reminders/correspondence/show cause notice to Dr. Manish Gupta regarding this case before the inspection dated 31.07.2006. She deposed that it is correct that most of the radiologists visit more than one hospital. She deposed that it is correct that no such private complaint/any complaint with respect to irregularity ever came to her regarding Dr. Manish Gupta. She deposed that she is not aware as to the other hospital visited by Dr. Manish Gupta as radiologist. She deposed that she cannot say as to why Dr. Sandeep Jain was not made the co-accused in the present case. She deposed that she is KARANBIR SINGH Dr. Aruna Jain Vs. Dr. VK Sehdev and Ors. Case no. 512553/2016 PS Timar Pur 19/72 Digitally signed by KARANBIR SINGH Date: 2025.11.27 17:30:28 +0530 not aware of the period of working of Dr. Manish Gupta in Sant Hospital. She deposed that it is incorrect to suggest that Dr. Manish Gupta was falsely implicated in the present case.
7.4 Cross-Examination by Sh. Saurabh Tiwari, Learned Counsel for Accused Dr. Anil Grover She deposed that it is correct that the application for registration of ultrasound is mentioned as Dr. Virender Kumar Sehdev. She deposed that it is correct that the name of radiologist is Dr. Anil Grover and it is also mentioned that he is doctor on call. She deposed that it is correct that the reports are to be sent by the hospital to the concerned authority. She deposed that it is correct that the hospital is solely responsible for depositing the reports as per the provision of PC & PNDT Act. She deposed that it is correct that all the correspondence/notices/show cause regarding irregularities of sending the reports were addressed to Dr. V.K. Sehdev of Sant Hospital. She deposed that it is correct that all the said above mentioned communications were delivered to Sant Hospital. She deposed that it is correct that no notice/show cause notice with regard to discrepancies in reporting under PC & PNDT Act was sent to Dr. Anil Grover. She deposed that it is correct that no private complaint was ever received by the concerned authority against Dr. Anil Grover under PC & PNDT Act. She deposed that the name of Dr. Anil Grover finds mentioned in para no. 5 of the complaint which mentions that Dr. Anil Grover is the radiologist at the time of taking registration and the information about other two radiologists have not been made. She deposed that she does not remember as to the two forms belonging to July 2006 who was the radiologist who did ultrasound. She deposed that it is wrong to suggest that she is deposing falsely.
8. Testimony of CW-2 Dr. Shelly Kamra (Recalled for Cross-Examination) KARANBIR SINGH Dr. Aruna Jain Vs. Dr. VK Sehdev and Ors. Case no. 512553/2016 PS Timar Pur 20/72 Digitally signed by KARANBIR SINGH Date: 2025.11.27 17:30:31 +0530 8.1 Cross-Examination by Sh. Avadh Kaushik, Learned Counsel for Accused Dr. V.K. Sehdev She deposed that on 01.07.2006 she had personally visited Sant Hospital where Dr. V.K. Sehdev himself informed her that Dr. Manish Gupta and Sandeep Jain were attached with the hospital to perform ultrasound. She deposed that the hospital itself at the time of registration had informed regarding the name of Dr. Anil Grover being attached at their hospital. She deposed that it is correct that they never received any complaint from private individual or patient against Sant Hospital or Dr. V.K. Sehdev, Dr. Anil Grover, Dr. Manish Gupta and Dr. Sandeep Jain. She deposed that it is correct that the names of concerned doctors performing the ultrasound namely Dr. Anil Grover, Dr. Manish Gupta and Dr. Sandeep Jain were to be mentioned through Form-F. She deposed that voluntarily she said the Forms were only having the signatures through which they could not have identified the names of concerned doctors. She deposed that the names of the concerned doctors were written in capital letters in the forms but the same could not have been matched with the signatures. She deposed that the complaint which has been filed by their office is only against Dr. V.K. Sehdev and the court has summoned the other accused namely Dr. Manish Gupta.
She deposed that she cannot say about the mode, date of dispatch and date of service of the notice dated 25.07.2006 mark G, the same can be verified through the office record. She deposed that as per the requirement of PC and PNDT Act the inspection notices were served upon the Sant Hospital for non-maintenance of record as per the reports which were submitted at their office. She deposed that the date of receipt of record from the hospital is mentioned in the register maintained at the office which is called diary register. KARANBIR SINGH Dr. Aruna Jain Vs. Dr. VK Sehdev and Ors. Case no. 512553/2016 PS Timar Pur 21/72 Digitally signed by KARANBIR SINGH Date: 2025.11.27 17:30:36 +0530 She deposed that she personally visited the ultrasound room at the hospital on the day of inspection. She deposed that she does not recollect who accompanied her during the visit to ultrasound room. She deposed that she also does not recollect where the said room was situated, probably it was on the ground floor. She deposed that due to lapse of time she is not able to recollect the exact location. She deposed that she has visited the Sant Hospital twice during her tenure. She deposed that it is incorrect to suggest that there was no room for ultrasound specifically at the hospital and the same was being done on the bed of the patient itself through mobile ultrasound machine. She deposed that no ultrasound machine was found in the room. She deposed that she does not recollect as to whether they had inquired from any patient as to performance of ultrasound at the hospital due to lapse of time. She deposed that they did not verify the fact of the ultrasound for sex determination from the patient whose name and address was mentioned in the form F seized by them. She deposed that voluntarily she said there is no such practice of calling the pregnant women for inquiry regarding ultrasound as she might lose the faith in the system. She deposed that the mere performance of ultrasound by a qualified doctor which is not done for sex determination is not an offence. 8.2 Cross-Examination by Sh. Saurabh Tiwari, Learned Counsel for Accused Dr. Anil Grover She deposed that on 01.07.2006 inspection was also conducted at Sant Hospital. She deposed that on that day, accused Anil Grover was not present there. She deposed that on 31.07.2006 accused Anil Grover was also not found at Sant Hospital. She deposed that it is correct that the ultrasound machine was a mobile machine registered in the name of Dr. Anil Kumar Grover. She deposed that it could be possible that the machine registered in the name of Dr. Anil Grover was brought by him whenever he visited the KARANBIR Dr. Aruna Jain Vs. Dr. VK Sehdev and Ors. Case no. 512553/2016 PS Timar Pur 22/72 SINGH Digitally signed by KARANBIR SINGH Date: 2025.11.27 17:30:48 +0530 hospital. She deposed that on above said both days the ultrasound machine was not found at Sant Hospital. She deposed that as per record Dr. V.K. Sehdev has shown Dr. Anil Kumar as visiting doctor. She deposed that it is correct that all the notices which were sent to Sant Hospital since the year 2004 were addressed to Dr. V.K. Sehdev only. She deposed that the notices were not sent to Dr. Anil Kumar as the notices were sent to the owner of the Sant Hospital and he was under liability to communicate the notice to Dr. Anil Kumar. She deposed that she cannot tell as to whether the said notices have been communicated by Dr. V.K. Sehdev to Dr. Anil Kumar. She deposed that the Ex. P7 collectively which are the forms F, out of which only form dated 12.01.2006 of patient Shashi is in the name of Dr. Anil Grover and bears the signatures of Dr. Anil Grover. She deposed that it is correct that the seized form F for the period pertains to January 2004 to July 2006. She deposed that it is correct that with respect to seized form F Dr. Anil Grover was not under liability to maintain the record. She deposed that she cannot say after seeing the seized form F that Dr. Anil Grover was not performing the ultrasound at Sant Hospital. She deposed that it is correct that radiologist is not responsible for maintaining the record under MTP Act. Hon'ble Court asked a question about PC and PNDT Act. She deposed that under PC and PNDT Act radiologist is responsible for maintaining records pertaining to Form-F and ultrasound register. She deposed that she cannot say as to whether Dr. Anil Grover has not performed any ultrasound at Sant Hospital for the period of two years prior to the date of inspection. She deposed that voluntarily she said the duty was upon the Dr. Anil Grover and the owner to intimate regarding the change of employment of radiologist and no such intimation has been given to the office. She deposed that it is correct that as per the provisions of the Act the responsibility of joining of any new radiologist or the previous one leaving KARANBIR SINGH Dr. Aruna Jain Vs. Dr. VK Sehdev and Ors. Case no. 512553/2016 PS Timar Pur 23/72 Digitally signed by KARANBIR SINGH Date: 2025.11.27 17:30:52 +0530 is upon the owner of the hospital. She deposed that voluntarily she said the doctor concerned radiologist is also not prohibited by the Act to intimate the same. She deposed that she does not remember whether any private person had lodged any complaint against Dr. Anil Grover prior to the date of inspection.
8.3 Cross-Examination by Sh. Avadh Kaushik, Learned Counsel for Accused Dr. V.K. Sehdev.
She deposed that there are total 32 form F seized out of which 14 have complete addresses of patients and 18 have incomplete addresses. She deposed that the incomplete forms have only names of villages and localities. She deposed that she cannot say as to whether the houses in the villages should not necessarily have the house numbers. She deposed that out of total 32 form F seized the 16 have the signatures of the patients. She denied the suggestions given by defence.
8.4 Testimony of CW-2 Dr. Vineet Swaroop (Recalled for Cross- Examination) Cross-Examination by Sh. Saurabh Tiwari, Learned Counsel for Accused Dr. Anil Grover He deposed that as far as his knowledge the team for inspection was constituted on 31.07.2006. He deposed that none of the member of the team was either Gynecologist or Radiologist or Ultrasonologist. He deposed that he has no knowledge as to whether any of the team member was having qualification of MS or MD. He deposed that they reached at Sant Hospital at about 12:30 pm and it was a normal working day. He deposed that he does not know as to whether Dr. Grover was present at the hospital on that day or not.
KARANBIR Dr. Aruna Jain Vs. Dr. VK Sehdev and Ors. Case no. 512553/2016 PS Timar Pur 24/72 SINGH Digitally signed by KARANBIR SINGH Date: 2025.11.27 17:30:56 +0530 He deposed that he did not meet him on that day. He deposed that he did not inquire about the ultrasound machine at the hospital. He deposed that he was not having any role in the scrutiny of the documents seized at the hospital including Form F (32 in No.). He deposed that the deficiencies in the Form F after the scrutiny were disclosed to them in the meeting at the office which was held by CDMO. He deposed that the Form F 32 in number placed in the judicial file as Ex.P7 collectively mostly are either carbon copies or photocopies signed in original. He deposed that after going through the form F placed in the file, there most of the same are of the year 2006. He deposed that some are of the year 2004 and 2005 and few of them are undated. He deposed that it could be correct that as most of the forms are photocopies or carbon copies, the originals of the same might have been deposited with the office of the CDMO.
He deposed that it is correct that he cannot say as to whether the show cause notices issued by their office were never addressed to Dr. Anil Grover. He deposed that after seeing the court record he can say that no notice was issued in the name of Dr. Anil Grover by their office. Hon'ble Court asked a question as to whom the notices are addressed by the office of CDMO regarding the requirements under the PC and PNDT Act. He deposed that the notices are always addressed to the owners of the hospital. He deposed that as per the requirement of the Act there is sole responsibility of complying with the provisions of the Act is upon the owner of the hospital. He deposed that he has no knowledge as to whether any complaint was received at their office against Dr. Anil Grover. He deposed that it is correct that Dr. Anil Grover was working as Radiologist on call at the Sant Hospital. He deposed that it is correct that there are no allegation in the complaint against Dr. Anil Grover for MTP Act. He deposed that the main responsibility of the maintenance and KARANBIR SINGH Dr. Aruna Jain Vs. Dr. VK Sehdev and Ors. Case no. 512553/2016 PS Timar Pur 25/72 Digitally signed by KARANBIR SINGH Date: 2025.11.27 17:31:01 +0530 submission of the record is upon the hospital. He deposed that he cannot say as to whether there are no allegation against Dr. Anil Grover and he has been named as accused in routine manner.
8.5 Cross-Examination by Sh. M.P. Singh, Learned Counsel for Accused Dr. Manish Gupta He deposed that Dr. Manish Gupta was not there when they visited at Sant Hospital on 31.07.2006. He deposed that he did not contact Dr. Manish Gupta. He deposed that as he joined the said office of CDMO North in the last week of July 2006 and the inspection was carried out on 31.07.2006, he cannot tell about the proceedings conducted by the office prior to his joining. He deposed that he along with other members of the team were briefed by Dr. Aruna Jain prior to the inspection on 31.07.2006 itself that the forms F which were being received from Sant Hospital were having signatures of Dr. Manish Gupta and Dr. Sandeep Jain even though their names were not registered with the office. He deposed that the report regarding form F is to be submitted monthly which has to be submitted by fifth day of the next month. He deposed that he has no knowledge as to whether Dr. Manish Gupta was only the visiting doctor at Sant Hospital. He deposed that records relating to delivery reports were already submitted by the Sant Hospital in due course at the office of CDMO before the date of inspection. He deposed that he has no knowledge as to whether any complaint being lodged at the office of CDMO prior to the inspection regarding violation of the PC & PNDT Act and MTP Act against either Dr. V.K. Sehdev or Sant Hospital or against any doctor. He deposed that he cannot say as to whether there were only two ultrasounds conducted at Sant Hospital in the month of July 2006 as the ultrasound register was not produced. He deposed that it is correct that the two forms F of July 2006 which were KARANBIR Dr. Aruna Jain Vs. Dr. VK Sehdev and Ors. Case no. 512553/2016 PS Timar Pur 26/72 SINGH Digitally signed by KARANBIR SINGH Date: 2025.11.27 17:31:05 +0530 seized at the Sant Hospital were required to be submitted at the office of CDMO by 5th of August 2006 as per the rules under the Act. He deposed that he does not recollect as to whether he or any other team member visited the ultrasound room at Sant Hospital. He deposed that it is wrong to suggest that the ultrasound register was available at the ultrasound room and they never asked for the same to produce it. He deposed that he does not recollect as to whether there was any ultrasound machine available at the hospital during the inspection. He deposed that no procedure of sealing the ultrasound machine was done at Sant Hospital on that day. He deposed that the requisition for production of records was only done by Dr. Aruna Jain from the Hospital Authorities and he was present at that point of time at the reception area of the hospital. He deposed that voluntarily he said as he was new in the posting, he was not very much aware about the records under the PC & PNDT Act and MTP Act. He deposed that it is correct that the record which was not produced by the Sant Hospital has been written in the documents by Dr. Aruna Jain and she explained to them regarding the non-production of the said records. He deposed that he did not personally search the hospital premises for finding out the copy of the Act, but he cannot tell about the other members of the team. He deposed that it is wrong to suggest that the copy of PC & PNDT Act were available in the hospital premises and they never asked for the same.
He deposed that he is not aware as to whether any show cause notice being issued by the office of CDMO to Dr. V.K. Sehdev of Sant Hospital on 25.07.2006 giving him one week time for production of the record under the Act. He deposed that the said fact of issuance of show cause notice dated 25.07.2006 to Sant Hospital was never briefed to them by Dr. Aruna Jain before going for inspection. He deposed that the complaint has been moved by Dr. Aruna Jain and she named the accused in the complaint. He deposed that it Dr. Aruna Jain Vs. Dr. VK Sehdev and Ors. Case no. 512553/2016 PS Timar Pur 27/72 KARANBIR SINGH Digitally signed by KARANBIR SINGH Date: 2025.11.27 17:31:10 +0530 is correct that said form F is not required to be countersigned by the owner of the hospital. He deposed that as per the instructions and circulars of their department under the PC & PNDT Act, the visiting doctor (radiologist) is required to register the name of the radiologist with the office of CDMO for carrying out ultrasound. He deposed that the duty of the owner of the hospital is to inform regarding the name of the concerned radiologist and inform about the make/model/number of the ultrasound machine to the office of CDMO. He deposed that it is wrong to suggest that the owner of the hospital as per the circulars of 2006 is not required to inform about the make/model/number of the ultrasound machine to the office of CDMO. He deposed that he has no knowledge as to whether the record which was seized at the hospital on that day was cross-checked with the record already submitted by the hospital in the office of CDMO. He deposed that he has no knowledge as to whether the records which were already supplied by the Sant Hospital with CDMO office have been filed with the complaint or not.
He deposed that probably as a matter of routine, the blank letterhead, OPD Card, and visiting card of Sant Hospital were seized on that day. He deposed that it is wrong to suggest that the said irrelevant documents were seized so as to terrorize the hospital or Dr. V.K. Sehdev. He deposed that he did not call any of the patients whose ultrasound forms were incomplete so as to verify the facts as to whether the ultrasound was actually done or not, but he cannot tell about the other team members. He deposed that he does not remember as to whether the rough record pertaining to the year 2004 or 2005 was also seized at the hospital. He deposed that he cannot say that the incomplete forms F were of the patients who came at the hospital, but subsequently refused to get the ultrasound done. He deposed that it is correct that Dr. V.K. Sehdev is not the radiologist or ultrasonologist. He deposed that Dr. Aruna Jain Vs. Dr. VK Sehdev and Ors. Case no. 512553/2016 PS Timar Pur 28/72 KARANBIR SINGH Digitally signed by KARANBIR SINGH Date: 2025.11.27 17:31:14 +0530 as per the procedure while granting registration to a hospital under PC & PNDT Act, they mention three things:
1. Name of the hospital/center
2. Name of the radiologist/concerned doctor
3. Ultrasound machine with make/model/number, it may be of the hospital or of the radiologist He deposed that in the present case, the ultrasound machine was registered in the name of radiologist Dr. Anil Grover. He deposed that it is correct that Dr. V.K. Sehdev had already informed to the CDMO office in respect of Dr. Anil Grover as a radiologist and his machine. He deposed that it is wrong to suggest that Dr. V.K. Sehdev or Sant Hospital was very much regular in sending the report to the CDMO office. He deposed that it is further wrong to suggest that the record was being sent by Dr. V.K. Sehdev to CDMO office was complete in all respects. He deposed that it is wrong to suggest that the inspection of the CDMO office was illegal and malafide. He deposed that it is wrong to suggest that he is deposing falsely.
8.6 Vide order dt. 29.05.2015, charge was directed to be framed against the abovesaid accused persons. Vide order dt. 30.06.2015, accused Dr. Sandeep Jain was discharged by the Ld. Predecessor of this court. After framing of charge, the matter proceeded to post-charge evidence.
9. POST CHARGE EVIDENCE 9.1 Testimony of CW-1 Dr. Aruna Jain (Recalled for Cross-Examination) 9.1.1 Cross-Examination on behalf of accused Manish Gupta She deposed that she does not remember today the date of her posting as CDMO, North District, Delhi, however, the same might be in the month of October KARANBIR Dr. Aruna Jain Vs. Dr. VK Sehdev and Ors. Case no. 512553/2016 PS Timar Pur 29/72 SINGH Digitally signed by KARANBIR SINGH Date: 2025.11.27 17:31:18 +0530 2005. She deposed that she does not remember whether she had placed the order of her posting on the file along with her complaint in the court as CDMO. She deposed that she can produce the document in this regard. She submitted that the record regarding her posting as CDMO might be available in the office of CDMO North and the same may be summoned.
Sh. Harvinder Singh, Statistical Assistant in the office of CDMO North District, had appeared along with the summoned record regarding her posting as CDMO North District and has produced the document running into 5 pages along with a covering letter issued by CDMO North District. She deposed that the document Ex.CW1/DX1 (Colly.) is related to her posting as CDMO North District at the relevant point of time. She deposed that a genetic counselling centre, ultrasound clinic, genetic clinic, etc. are required to send the record as mentioned in Form-F to the office of CDMO of the concerned District, Delhi, as per the requirement of the PC & PNDT Act and rules framed under it. She deposed that in the year 2006, Sant Hospital was within the jurisdiction of CDMO North. She was asked by learned counsel whether any receiving is given to any hospital by the office whenever any Form-F is received in the office. She replied the same in negative. She deposed that she has not personally checked diaries/register to find out whether Sant Hospital had deposited the Form-F in the office of CDMO. She deposed that prior to filing of the present case in the court, she did not scrutinize the original Form-F regarding Sant Hospital which was deposited by Sant Hospital in CDMO Office. She deposed that there is a programme officer who is deputed to scrutinize the Form and compliance of other aspects of PC & PNDT Act. She deposed that she had scrutinized those Form-F which were seized from Sant Hospital during inspection. She deposed that she does not remember who was the programme officer before July 2006. She was asked by learned counsel whether, before July 2006, the concerned programme officer handed over to her in writing a report regarding scrutinizing the original Form-F deposited by Sant Hospital Dr. Aruna Jain Vs. Dr. VK Sehdev and Ors. Case no. 512553/2016 PS Timar Pur 30/72 KARANBIR SINGH Digitally signed by KARANBIR SINGH Date: 2025.11.27 17:31:22 +0530 with the concerned CDMO Office. She replied the same in affirmative. She was asked by learned counsel whether she filed any such report before this court along with her complaint or otherwise. She replied the same in negative. She was asked by learned counsel whether she can show from the court record that in the notices/communication sent to Sant Hospital, it is mentioned that she had received written report from the programme officer that original Form-F had been scrutinized by the programme officer. She deposed that the same is mentioned in the document mark G dated 25.07.2006 in which it is so mentioned. Hon'ble Court observed that the above-mentioned fact is not mentioned in mark G. She deposed that reports were being sent to them by Sant Hospital as stated by her in paragraph V of her complaint. She deposed that the reports were being sent by Sant Hospital irregularly. She deposed that all the reports sent by any hospital cannot be scrutinized by her but there is a team who were for it. She deposed that she does not remember today whether she had personally scrutinized the reports sent by Sant Hospital to them/CDMO North office. She deposed that she did not mention in the complaint that she has personally scrutinized the reports sent by Sant Hospital. She deposed that in routine manner, the reports sent to the office of CDMO used to be received at reception counter or by the PNDT staff and diary used to be maintained regarding the same at reception counter. She deposed that prior to filing of the present complaint, she had not filed any of the documents of reports including Form-F along with the complaint. She was asked by learned counsel whether she made any mention either in her inspection report dated 31.07.2006 or in the complaint to the effect that the documents alleged to have been seized by her and her team from Sant Hospital on 31.07.2006 were sealed by her or her team. She replied the same in negative. She deposed that the documents were not sealed. She deposed that they were got signed by the director of the hospital. She deposed that she was transferred to the central government in the month of December 2006 and has remained with the central KARANBIR Dr. Aruna Jain Vs. Dr. VK Sehdev and Ors. Case no. 512553/2016 PS Timar Pur 31/72 SINGH Digitally signed by KARANBIR SINGH Date: 2025.11.27 17:31:27 +0530 government till this date. She deposed that documents mentioned in Ex.CW1/H (report dated 31.07.2006) were handed over by her to the programme officer on that very day. She deposed that she does not remember whether any entry of handing over of documents or receipt of documents was obtained. She deposed that she cannot tell the number of ultrasonography conducted at Sant Hospital on pregnant ladies from the month of March 2006 up to July 2006. She was asked by learned counsel whether she can show from the record and tell whether any ultrasonography was conducted on a pregnant lady at Sant Hospital from the period March 2006 up to July 2006. She deposed that yes, ultrasounds were done in Sant Hospital in the aforesaid period. She deposed that the same is reflected in document mark CW1/X1. She deposed that it is wrong to suggest that she is not even aware how to read the contents of documents mark CW1/X1. She deposed that it is incorrect to suggest that they have planted these blank documents in order to support and create a false case upon the accused persons. She deposed that it is correct that she has not stated anything in her complaint that original of Form-F (Ex.P7) were not filed and only its copies were filed with the complaint. She deposed that it is wrong to suggest that all records were being maintained by Sant Hospital in original and all records including Form-F were completely filled in original and sent to them within the prescribed period of law. She deposed that it is incorrect to suggest that they intentionally and knowingly did not refer, scrutinize, or even file the original records including original Form-F before this Hon'ble Court and have with malafide reasons concocted and planted false and fabricated documents upon the accused in order to falsely implicate the accused persons. She deposed that it is incorrect to suggest that they have not issued any notices to Sant Hospital in this regard. She deposed that it is also incorrect to suggest that the averments made in the notices and documents are false and concocted. She deposed that it is incorrect to suggest that they were under an obligation to make a full and correct disclosure regarding the original Form-F/records Dr. Aruna Jain Vs. Dr. VK Sehdev and Ors. Case no. 512553/2016 PS Timar Pur 32/72 KARANBIR SINGH Digitally signed by KARANBIR SINGH Date: 2025.11.27 17:31:31 +0530 maintained by Sant Hospital but they very deliberately did not do so. She deposed that it is incorrect to suggest that the case is primarily based upon photocopies/copies of forged and fabricated documents. She deposed that it is incorrect to suggest that records were being regularly sent to them by Sant Hospital but they have intentionally overlooked the same and not made a mention of the same in the case. She deposed that it is incorrect to suggest that she is deposing falsely. 9.1.2 Cross-Examination on behalf of accused V.K. Sehdev She deposed that she does not remember the constitution of the Advisory Committee at the time of incident. She deposed, however, that the advisory committee had members from police, women organization, and medical specialist. She deposed that she does not recall the name and designation of said police official in the said advisory committee, however, it is a matter of record. She deposed that she cannot recall as to how many times she took the advice or recommendation from the advisory committee. She deposed that it is wrong to suggest that she had never called the meeting of advisory committee or sought advice from the advisory committee during her tenure and that is why no opinion or recommendation of the advisory committee has been placed on record in this complaint case. She deposed that she had not taken any opinion or recommendation from the advisory committee before issuing notice dated 25.07.2006. She deposed that it is wrong to suggest that the appropriate authority was not competent to act without the opinion of the advisory committee. She deposed that it is wrong to suggest that the appropriate authority was not competent to suspend or cancel the registration under PC and PNDT Act. She was asked by learned counsel whether she sought the recommendation or advice of the Advisory Committee before deciding the aforesaid notices. She deposed that no advice from the Advisory Committee was taken as it was not required. She deposed that here it is clarified that there was no question of let off as group was formed for KARANBIR Dr. Aruna Jain Vs. Dr. VK Sehdev and Ors. Case no. 512553/2016 PS Timar Pur 33/72 SINGH Digitally signed by KARANBIR SINGH Date: 2025.11.27 17:31:35 +0530 inspection and action was taken accordingly. Hon'ble Court observed that the witness is here to depose regarding the facts of this case and not to explain the reason for doing or not doing any act in a particular manner. Hence, question was disallowed. She was asked by learned counsel whether, during her tenure, she had issued 70 notices under PC and PND Act out of which 49 were let off and registration of license of remaining centers was cancelled/suspended, and whether she sought the recommendation or advice of the Advisory Committee before deciding the aforesaid notices. She deposed that it is a matter of record available in the office of CDMO/appropriate authority and she cannot comment on the aforesaid data. She deposed that no advice from the Advisory Committee was taken as it was not required. She deposed that here it is clarified that there was no question of let off and action was taken accordingly. She deposed that the group for inspection was formed orally and not in writing just to maintain the secrecy of the inspection on that particular day. She deposed that it is wrong to suggest that no group for inspection/raid was constituted. She was asked by learned counsel whether, once notices have been given, after inspection, there is no point of maintaining the secrecy of the inspection/raid on that particular day qua which notice has been issued. Hon'ble Court observed that the question has no bearing to the facts of this case and hence, disallowed. She deposed that no opinion of advisory committee was taken before inspection of Sant Hospital on that particular day as the same was not required. She deposed that it is wrong to suggest that the opinion of the advisory committee was required. She deposed that the group formed for inspection had representative from State appropriate authority also. She deposed that the group must have been formed some days in advance so as to ensure availability of the members of the inspection team. She deposed that one of the members of the group was CMO PNDT from the office of Directorate of Family Welfare. She deposed that the members were CDMO, Addl. CDMO, Dr. Vinit Swaroop, Programming Officer Dr. Dr. Aruna Jain Vs. Dr. VK Sehdev and Ors. Case no. 512553/2016 PS Timar Pur 34/72 KARANBIR SINGH Digitally signed by KARANBIR SINGH Date: 2025.11.27 17:31:39 +0530 Shelly Kamra, and two members from Directorate Family Welfare. She deposed that it is wrong to suggest that there were no members in the group from the office of State appropriate authority. She deposed that it is wrong to suggest that her action in this case was taken without the opinion of the advisory committee. She was asked by learned counsel whether, in whichever case she let off the centers registered under the MTP and PNDT Act, she did not take advice deliberately from the advisory committee and let off the centers on her own after they met with her ulterior demand. Hon'ble Court observed that question is very general and vague and without having any bearing on the facts of this case and hence, disallowed. She deposed that there was programme officer Dr. Shelly Kamra who used to go for regular inspection along with one or two doctors from the office of CDMO and for which no permission of CDMO/appropriate authority was required and on the basis of the inspection report, notices were issued. She deposed that it is correct that there was no order in writing for the inspection of 01.07.2006. She deposed that before Dr. Shelly Kamra, Dr. Kaushlya had been the programme officer but she does not remember their tenure. She deposed that the programme officers were authorised to inspect the centers under the direction of the appropriate authority. Hon'ble Court asked a question as to whether the authorization of the programme officer is required in orally or in writing from the appropriate authority. She deposed that the authorization may be oral or in writing. She deposed that the inspection report of the programme officer has to be put up before appropriate authority for issuing notice/advice. She deposed that it is correct that no written direction was given for inspection on 01.07.2006 as inspection is a continuous regular ongoing process. She deposed that it is wrong to suggest that Dr. Shelly Kamra went to Sant Hospital on 01.07.2006 on her direction given in individual capacity to make Dr. V.K. Sehdev to accede to her ulterior demands. She deposed that it is correct that during her tenure there was no complaint from any public person against Dr. V.K. Sehdev. She deposed that it is correct that she took no KARANBIR Dr. Aruna Jain Vs. Dr. VK Sehdev and Ors. Case no. 512553/2016 PS Timar Pur 35/72 SINGH Digitally signed by KARANBIR SINGH Date: 2025.11.27 17:31:44 +0530 advice from the advisory committee from 01.07.2006 to 25.07.2006 for issuing notice as the same was not required. She deposed that it is wrong to suggest that the advisory committee opinion/advice/recommendation was not required for issuing notice. She deposed that they have not issued notice to Dr. Manish Gupta and Dr. Anil Grover as it was the responsibility of the hospital to send the report before 5 th of every month. She deposed that it is wrong to suggest that she deliberately did not issue the notices to aforesaid doctors and to produce the documents. She deposed that it is correct that notice dated 25.07.2006 to Dr. V.K. Sehdev was issued to reply within a week. She deposed that she does not remember the exact date when the reply was received from Sant Hospital as they were very much irregular in sending the reports to the appropriate authority under the PNDT Act. She deposed that there was no record in the office before they left for Sant Hospital. She deposed that only the members of the inspection team knew about the inspection/raid and that is why no report was prepared. She deposed that no reasons of inspection are required to be recorded in writing before the inspection. She deposed that they are competent to visit the centers which are not even registered under PC and PNDT Act. She deposed that it is correct that on 31.07.2006 they had inspected two hospitals namely Sant Hospital and Nank Hospital. She deposed that she does not recall which hospital they visited first. She was asked by learned counsel whether she had reached at Nanak Hospital at about 1:00 pm. She deposed that since it is a 10-year-old case, therefore, she does not recall the exact time of reaching at Nanak Hospital. She deposed that it took about 2 hours to conclude the proceedings at Nanak Hospital. She deposed that she does not recall the exact time/distance from Sant Hospital to Nanak Hospital or vice versa. She deposed that they reached at Sant Hospital in the afternoon, however, she does not recall the exact time of reaching there. She deposed that it is correct that there were number of patients/public persons/staff members in Sant Hospital at the time of inspection. She deposed that they had not asked any public person to join the KARANBIR Dr. Aruna Jain Vs. Dr. VK Sehdev and Ors. Case no. 512553/2016 PS Timar Pur 36/72 SINGH Digitally signed by KARANBIR SINGH Date: 2025.11.27 17:31:47 +0530 inspection/raid/seizure and their joining is not mandatory. She deposed that it is wrong to suggest that deliberately did not join any public person in the inspection. She deposed that separate seizure list was not prepared and it was part of report prepared by the team. Hon'ble Court asked a question as to whether any separate seizure list was prepared or not. She deposed that separate seizure list was not prepared and it was part of report prepared by the team. She was asked by learned counsel whether she prepared joint inspection cum seizure memo for deficiency of stationary. Hon'ble Court observed that question is irrelevant and hence, disallowed.
She was asked by learned counsel why did she prepare the inspection memo cum seizure list cum suspension cum cancellation notice on single page. Hon'ble Court observed that question has no bearing to the facts of this case and irrelevant and hence, disallowed. She was asked by learned counsel whether it is correct that the team members had signed beneath the seizure list. She replied the same in affirmative. Hon'ble Court also recorded an observation that here it is clarified that the witness had stated that the signatures of the team members were taken on the end of the document which is a single paper two-page document back to back. She deposed that it is wrong to suggest that she got the signature of the team member in the second page at her office later on. She deposed that it is wrong to suggest that Dr. V.K. Sehdev had signed at the first page under the impression that it is merely inspection memo. She deposed that it is wrong to suggest that the said document Ex.CW1/H was partially filled from point X to X1. She was asked by learned counsel whether she can tell whether any space is left on the first page of Ex.CW1/H beneath the seizure list. Hon'ble Court observed that no space is left on the first page under the seizure list. She deposed that it is wrong to suggest that the signatures of attesting witnesses could not be obtained on the first page as no space was left. She deposed that the signatures of the witnesses were taken on the end of the document which is a single paper two-page document back to back. She deposed KARANBIR SINGH Dr. Aruna Jain Vs. Dr. VK Sehdev and Ors. Case no. 512553/2016 PS Timar Pur 37/72 Digitally signed by KARANBIR SINGH Date: 2025.11.27 17:31:54 +0530 that she had not written PTO (please turnover) on the first page of Ex.CW1/H. She deposed that she does not find any reason to explain as to why PTO was not written. She deposed that she cannot tell without seeing the document whether the attesting witnesses had signed after putting the date. She deposed that it is wrong to suggest that no date was put by the witnesses after the part X to X1 on Ex.CW1/H was filled later on. She deposed that in the year 2001, she was working in Delhi Government but not as a CDMO. She deposed that she was posted as CDMO probably in 2005. She was asked by learned counsel on which document she is relying to claim as appropriate authority under the PC & PNDT Act. Hon'ble Court observed that question has no bearing to the facts of this case and hence, disallowed. She deposed that the CDMO were appointed the appropriate authority vide notification dated 12.10.2001 and the same is already Ex.CW1/C. She deposed that it is wrong to suggest that she was not appointed as appropriate authority under PC & PNDT Act. She deposed that PC and PNDT are the same legislation and they are not separate Acts. She deposed that it is wrong to suggest that PC and PNDT are not the same Act. She deposed that she is not aware whether PC and PNDT Act was amended on 14.02.2003. She deposed that it is correct that in the notification the word PC or Pre- conception is not mentioned. Hon'ble Court observed that the PNDT Act after the year 2003 was named as the Pre-conception and Pre-Natal Diagnostic Techniques Act, 1994. She was asked by learned counsel whether PNDT and PC & PNDT are not the same legislation. Hon'ble Court observed that it is a question of law and not question of fact and witness is not required to answer it hence, question declined.
She was asked by learned counsel whether she has been appointed as appropriate authority under PC & PNDT Act. She deposed that it is a matter of record and can be verified from the office. She was asked by learned counsel whether she can produce any document after verification from the office that she was appointed under PC & PNDT Act as appropriate authority. Hon'ble Court observed KARANBIR Dr. Aruna Jain Vs. Dr. VK Sehdev and Ors. Case no. 512553/2016 PS Timar Pur 38/72 SINGH Digitally signed by KARANBIR SINGH Date: 2025.11.27 17:31:58 +0530 that the notification vide which the witness was appointed is matter of record and no further document as such is required. It is already observed that appointment was notified in the year 2001 when the Act was named as PNDT Act and later on it was amended and named as PC & PNDT Act. She was asked by learned counsel whether after the amendment in the year 2003, the appropriate authority consists of at least three persons. Hon'ble Court observed that it is a question of law and not question of fact and witness is not required to answer it hence, question declined. She was asked by learned counsel whether her personal name was mentioned in the notification. Hon'ble Court observed that the question is irrelevant as notification is always as per designation and not in name. Here the counsel was warned to ask the relevant questions. She was asked by learned counsel whether she had filed frivolous present complaint without being appointed as the appropriate authority. She deposed that it is incorrect. She deposed that it is incorrect to suggest that she had filed the present complaint without being appointed as appropriate authority. She deposed that it is wrong to suggest that she had filed the present complaint with malafide intention. She was asked by learned counsel whether all the members of the inspection team were her subordinates. She deposed that it is incorrect. She deposed that two members of the team were from the office of State appropriate authority. She deposed that the remaining members were working with her in her office and their designation is a matter of record. She deposed that it is correct that Dr. Vineet Swaroop was an Addl. CDMO and Dr. Shelly Kamra was a programme officer. She was asked by learned counsel whether both the aforesaid officers were junior in rank. Hon'ble Court observed that question is irrelevant and hence declined. Second warning was given to Ld counsel. She was asked by learned counsel whether, after issuance of show cause notice and before suspension and cancellation of the centers registered under MTP Act or under PC and PNDT Act, she ever sought the advice or recommendation of the advisory committee during her tenure. Hon'ble Court KARANBIR Dr. Aruna Jain Vs. Dr. VK Sehdev and Ors. Case no. 512553/2016 PS Timar Pur 39/72 SINGH Digitally signed by KARANBIR SINGH Date: 2025.11.27 17:32:02 +0530 observed that question is repetitive, general and very vague in nature and the counsel is warned last time not to ask irrelevant questions. She was asked by learned counsel whether any authorization in writing is there qua inspection dated 01.07.2006. She deposed that it may or may not be in writing. She deposed that it is wrong to suggest that no authorization as such in writing or oral was there so as to enable herself to hush up the case with convenience. She deposed that it is wrong to suggest that she telephonically called Dr. V.K. Sehdev in her office on 03.07.2006. She deposed that it is wrong to suggest that she threatened him to succumb. She deposed that there was no bar in inspection of hospital in cases where the hospital is irregular in sending reports. She deposed that it is wrong to suggest that the said hospital was not irregular in sending the reports as per the Act. She deposed that one week time was given to the hospital for submitting the report, however, the inspection was done because they were irregular in sending reports for long time despite repeated notices. She deposed that even if the hospital is sending the report, they can inspect the hospital. She deposed that it is wrong to suggest that no such notice was served upon Dr. V.K. Sehdev and that is why no service of notice was placed on record. She was asked by learned counsel whether it was mandate as per law to call the meeting of advisory committee on every 60 days or could be called at the instance of appropriate authority. Hon'ble Court observed that question is matter of law and not question of fact, hence, declined. She was asked by learned counsel whether she called the meeting of advisory committee before issuing notice dated 25.07.2006. Hon'ble Court observed that the question is repetitive and the witness already stated in the cross examination dated 20.02.2017 that she had not taken any opinion or sought any recommendation from the advisory committee and in the particular complaint case. Hon'ble Court further observed that the learned counsel continued to ask irrelevant and repetitive questions despite repetitive request and warning by the court. Therefore, in the attending facts and circumstances, the court was left with no other Dr. Aruna Jain Vs. Dr. VK Sehdev and Ors. Case no. 512553/2016 PS Timar Pur 40/72 KARANBIR SINGH Digitally signed by KARANBIR SINGH Date: 2025.11.27 17:32:30 +0530 option except to close the opportunity to further cross examine the witness. Learned counsel tendered his unconditional apology and sought permission to further cross examine the witness. Hon'ble Court observed further that since the counsel continued to ask irrelevant and repetitive questions despite repetitive request and warning by the court, therefore, in the attending facts and circumstances, the court was left with no other option except to close the opportunity to further cross examine the witness.
9.1.3 Cross-Examination by Sh. Tarun Walia, Learned Counsel for Accused Dr. Anil Grover She deposed that it is correct that she had not met Dr. Anil Grover on the day of inspection or before. She deposed that she does not know whether Dr. Anil Grover was a registered Radiologist and it is a matter of record. She deposed that it is correct that it is the responsibility of the hospital to send the report under PC & PNDT Act. She deposed that it is correct that the present complaint was not filed against Dr. Anil Grover or any other radiologist working in hospital. She deposed that it is also correct that notice under PC & PNDT Act was sent to hospital only and not to the radiologist doctor. She deposed that it is also correct that there was no private complaint against Dr. Anil Grover. She deposed that it is incorrect to suggest that she is deposing falsely.
9.2 Testimony of CW-2 Dr. Shalley Kamra (Post-Charge Evidence) 9.2.1 Cross-Examination by Sh. S.R. Mehta & Sh. G.R. Prasad, Learned Counsel for Accused V.K. Sehdev She deposed that she was appointed as programme officer in the year about 2004-2005 and thereafter she started assisting Dr. Aruna Jain, CDMO North.
KARANBIR Dr. Aruna Jain Vs. Dr. VK Sehdev and Ors. Case no. 512553/2016 PS Timar Pur 41/72 SINGH Digitally signed by KARANBIR SINGH Date: 2025.11.27 17:32:33 +0530 She deposed that CDMO herself (Dr. Aruna Jain) appointed her as programme officer. She deposed that she does not remember how many assistants were appointed with the CDMO. She deposed that it is correct that she remained as programme officer in CDMO (North). She deposed that as the programme officer, they were supposed to act in accordance to law. She deposed that it is correct that she was assisting CDMO (N) in implementing the PC & PNDT Act. She deposed that she was not looking after the programmes with regard to the information and publicity of UT. She deposed that she is aware of the provision of PC & PNDT Act. She deposed that as per the Act, the owner and radiologist are responsible for maintaining the record pertaining to the Form-F. She was asked by learned counsel whether she is aware about the difference between the provisions of MTP Act and PNDT Act. Hon'ble Court observed that the question has no bearing about the facts of the case, hence, disallowed. She deposed that the radiologist is responsible for filling up the Form-F. She deposed that apart from filling up the form, there are number of responsibilities which are provided for the owner of the hospital. She deposed that the responsibilities as per the Act are part of the Act and she cannot specify every responsibility here. She was asked by learned counsel how many members are there in appropriate authority at the time of raid. She deposed that only one member was the appropriate authority as per the notification and at the time of raid the only appropriate authority was the member and the member went for the alleged raid in this case. She deposed that today she cannot produce or show the said notification. She deposed that it is correct that CDMO(N) was the appropriate authority at the time of raid and she has filed the present case. She deposed that it is further correct that present complaint was not filed by the appropriate authority consisting of three members. She deposed that the complaint was not drafted by her. She deposed that she does not remember whether she had seen any MTP in the hospital at the time of raid. She deposed that it is correct that she had not met Dr. KARANBIR SINGH Dr. Aruna Jain Vs. Dr. VK Sehdev and Ors. Case no. 512553/2016 PS Timar Pur 42/72 Digitally signed by KARANBIR SINGH Date: 2025.11.27 17:32:36 +0530 Manish Gupta and Dr. Anil Grover on 31.07.2006. She deposed that it is correct that she was present in the court as per the order sheet dated 28.10.2006. She deposed that she had not made any submission on that day. Hon'ble Court observed that the order dated 28.10.2006 was passed by the court on the basis of the complaint and other material placed on the record. She deposed that she does not remember whether she called the meeting of any advisory committee regarding the alleged raid. She deposed that she also does not remember whether any meeting of advisory committee took place regarding this case. She deposed that it is correct that she along with Dr. Rajeev inspected Sant Hospital on 01.07.2006. She deposed that she does not remember whether she had met Dr. Manish Gupta and Dr. Sandeep Jain on that day. She deposed that she cannot admit or deny her meeting with aforesaid doctors on that day. She deposed that it is correct that Dr. V.K. Sehdev had informed her that Dr. Manish Gupta and Dr. Sandeep Jain and Anil Grover were visiting the Sant Hospital. She deposed that out of three doctors, Dr. Anil Grover was registered radiologist. She deposed that it is wrong to suggest that on 01.07.2006, Dr. V.K. Sehdev had submitted the relevant documents of aforesaid doctors during inspection. She was shown the inspection report dated 01.07.2006 mark F(Colly.) which bears her signature at point A. She deposed that the report does not bear the signature of Dr. V.K. Sehdev, owner of Sant Hospital. She deposed that she does not remember why the report does not have the signature of Dr. V.K. Sehdev who was owner of Sant Hospital. She deposed that it is wrong to suggest that she had prepared the inspection report later on at her office in order to falsely implicate the accused. She deposed that the discrepancies mentioned in her report were found during the raid conducted on 01.07.2006. She deposed that it is correct that no complaint was filed till 02.08.2006. She deposed that she does not remember whether she submitted the report before the advisory committee. She deposed that she was not supposed to send any such report to the advisory committee. She deposed that she was not the KARANBIR Dr. Aruna Jain Vs. Dr. VK Sehdev and Ors. Case no. 512553/2016 PS Timar Pur 43/72 SINGH Digitally signed by KARANBIR SINGH Date: 2025.11.27 17:32:41 +0530 competent person to receive the document of visiting or changing faculty of any hospital. She deposed that she was not competent to reissue the certificate of registration. She deposed that she was not supposed to receive the documents of changing faculty during the inspection of the hospital and she did not receive any documents from Dr. V.K. Sehdev. She deposed that it is correct that she was authorized by CDMO North to inspect the hospital on 01.07.2006. She deposed that it is correct that one show cause notice dated 25.07.2006 was given to Dr. V.K. Sehdev. She deposed that it is correct that she had submitted the inspection report dt. 01.07.06 on the same day in the office of CDMO North. She deposed that it is wrong to suggest that there were no lapses on the part of the hospital. She deposed that she does not have knowledge regarding any complaint against the said hospital prior to the present complaint. She deposed that she does not remember whether she found any lapses during the inspection on 01.07.06 and she has to go through the office file to state about the lapses, if any. She deposed that it is correct that there was no other complaint from 01.07.06 to 02.08.06. She deposed that she cannot admit or deny that there were any lapse on the part of the hospital on or before 01.07.06. She deposed that she does not know whether there was any recommendation from Advisory committee, appropriate authority or CDMO North to file any complaint against the said hospital before the present complaint. She deposed that she does not know whether there was any private complaint against the said hospital from 01.07.06 to 25.07.06. She deposed that show cause notice was given to the hospital by the competent authority and she was not concerned about that. She deposed that the decision to raid the hospital was of the appropriate authority. She deposed that the period of reply of the notice is given in the notice itself and it was 7 days. She deposed that she does not remember the date when the notice was delivered to Dr. V.K. Sehdev. She was asked by learned counsel whether the date of delivery of the notice can be established by the dispatch register. Hon'ble Court observed that KARANBIR Dr. Aruna Jain Vs. Dr. VK Sehdev and Ors. Case no. 512553/2016 PS Timar Pur 44/72 SINGH Digitally signed by KARANBIR SINGH Date: 2025.11.27 17:32:44 +0530 question is irrelevant and hence disallowed. She deposed that she cannot comment on the reasons of conducting raid before the expiry of 7 days of show cause notice. She deposed that she does not remember the exact time of reaching at the office on 31.07.06. She deposed that she must have reached around 9:30 am. She deposed that it is usual practice that team members are to be briefed about the inspection. She deposed that no requisition or consent is required to join the inspection team. She deposed that they do not make any entry for departure from the office in the cases of PNDT and the same was also not done on that day. She deposed that she cannot explain the reason of not making the departure entry. She deposed that the accompanying staff usually carries inspection performa, other relevant papers and requisite documents. She deposed that it is correct that the required documents and papers were available with the team. She deposed that no intimation was given to the Sant Hospital for inspection as the same was not required. She deposed that it is correct that the inspection of Sant Hospital was conducted after the inspection of Guru Nanak Hospital. She deposed that they reached at Guru Nanak Hospital around 12 noon. She deposed that it is correct that they reached at Sant Hospital in the afternoon. She deposed that she does not remember the exact time of reaching at Sant Hospital. She deposed that there were number of patients and hospital staff when they reached at the hospital. She deposed that she personally did not ask any public person or hospital staff to join the inspection. She deposed that she cannot say whether any other member of the team asked any public person or hospital staff to join the inspection. She deposed that it is correct that seizure list was prepared and it was the part of seizure memo. She deposed that she cannot comment whether the articles seized were put in a gunny bag as the same was not done by her. She deposed that she does not remember whether the seized articles were put in a gunny bag in her presence. She deposed that she does not remember the number of pages in which the seizure memo was prepared. She deposed that inspection report was prepared on the KARANBIR SINGH Dr. Aruna Jain Vs. Dr. VK Sehdev and Ors. Case no. 512553/2016 PS Timar Pur 45/72 Digitally signed by KARANBIR SINGH Date: 2025.11.27 17:32:48 +0530 separate paper. She deposed that it is correct that she signed the seizure memo. She deposed that she needs to see the record whether she signed any inspection memo on a separate sheet. She deposed that she does not remember whether she put the date on the seizure memo. She was shown the seizure memo and inspection report. She deposed that she did not put the date before her signature in the seizure memo cum inspection report. She was asked by learned counsel whether she can explain the specific reason for not putting the date. Hon'ble Court observed that the witness is supposed to depose on the facts and not to explain the reasons for not putting the date, hence, the question is disallowed. She deposed that it is wrong to suggest that she had not put the date on the documents because she signed the same later on in the office. She deposed that she prepared the seizure cum inspection report. She deposed that today she does not know as to why the report was not prepared on the performa. She deposed that most of the documents seized were signed by Dr. V.K. Sehdev. She deposed that many of the Form-Fs were signed by Dr. V.K. Sehdev. She deposed that only radiologist is authorized to sign Form-F but Dr. V.K. Sehdev had signed them despite being not authorized to do ultrasound and it shows that he was doing ultrasound unauthorizedly. She deposed that it is wrong to suggest that all the documents were scrutinized by the lower staff. She deposed that all the team members jointly scrutinized the documents and she was the member of that team. She deposed that the license of Sant Hospital under MTP and PC & PNDT Act was suspended immediately after the inspection and the same is mentioned in the inspection report. She deposed that the violation of MTP Act was found in the inspection. She deposed that today she cannot point out the exact violation of MTP Act. She deposed that it is wrong to suggest that there was no violation of MTP Act. She deposed that the register required to be maintained under the MTP Act was not complete. She deposed that the records of the patients of the MTP to be maintained by the hospital were not complete. She deposed that it is wrong to suggest that public KARANBIR Dr. Aruna Jain Vs. Dr. VK Sehdev and Ors. Case no. 512553/2016 PS Timar Pur 46/72 SINGH Digitally signed by KARANBIR SINGH Date: 2025.11.27 17:32:52 +0530 person and the hospital staff were not deliberately joined in the inspection so that the material seized could be manipulated by the team. She deposed that they seized all the Form-Fs handed over by the accused Dr. V.K. Sehdev. She deposed that it is wrong to suggest that Dr. V.K. Sehdev handed over ultrasound register. She deposed that all the Form-F for the month of July 2006 were seized. She deposed that as per the report, Dr. V.K. Sehdev had shown only two Form-F for the month of July. She deposed that it is wrong to suggest that Dr. V.K. Sehdev had handed over/shown more than 2 Form-F for the month of July which were duly signed by Dr. V.K. Sehdev on the instruction of CDMO North. She deposed that it is wrong to suggest that Dr. V.K. Sehdev had handed over all the record of delivery conducted in the hospital. She deposed that it is wrong to suggest that the documents/record handed over by Dr. V.K. Sehdev were not produced in the court as the same is not made the part of the complaint.
She deposed that it is wrong to suggest that separate seizure memo was prepared and same is not the part of the complaint. She deposed that it is further wrong to suggest that the documents seized from Dr. V.K. Sehdev were not deliberately sealed so that the documents may be disposed off in order to falsely implicate the accused. She deposed that it is wrong to suggest that the signature of Dr. V.K. Sehdev is obtained on inspection cum seizure report under the impression that the document was the inspection report only. She deposed that no separate reason sheet was prepared before suspending the license of Dr. V.K. Sehdev. She deposed that the seized documents during the inspection on 31.07.2006 remained in the custody of CDMO North. She deposed that she cannot say whether CDMO North had forwarded the suspension to the advisory committee. She deposed that it is wrong to suggest that she signed the inspection report only on the dictates of CDMO North without applying her own mind and discretion.
9.2.2 Cross-Examination by Sh. Amardeep Singh, Learned Counsel for Accused Dr. KARANBIR SINGH Dr. Aruna Jain Vs. Dr. VK Sehdev and Ors. Case no. 512553/2016 PS Timar Pur 47/72 Digitally signed by KARANBIR SINGH Date: 2025.11.27 17:32:55 +0530 Manish Gupta She deposed that she did not visit Sant Hospital for inspection before 01.07.2006. She deposed that in the year 2006, a genetic centre/ultrasound clinic/hospital were supposed to send original Form-F to the office of CDMO. She deposed that she personally did not scrutinize the original Form-F which were sent by Sant Hospital before 31.07.2006 to the office of CDMO North and therefore she also did not make any report regarding the scrutiny of said original Form-F. She deposed that she had not seen any ultrasound being conducted on the day of inspection in the Sant Hospital. She deposed that the office of CDMO did not have any intimation/information as to whether Dr. Manish Gupta was working as radiologist in Sant Hospital. She deposed that her statement regarding Dr. Manish Gupta as mentioned in her examination-in-chief recorded before this Hon'ble Court on 07.08.2012, was primarily and only based upon the information provided to them by Dr. V.K. Sehdev upon their visits to Sant Hospital.
9.2.3 Cross-Examination by Sh. Tarun Walia, Learned Counsel for Accused Dr. Anil Grover She deposed that it is correct that she had never met Dr. Anil Grover on or before 31.07.2006 in the Sant Hospital. She deposed that it is correct that Dr. Anil Grover is registered radiologist on call/visiting. She deposed that it is correct that registered hospital under PC & PNDT Act is responsible to intimate regarding any change in the employment of the radiologist. She deposed that there was no complaint of Dr. Anil Grover to her.
9.3 Testimony of CW-3 Retired Dr. Vineet Swaroop (Post-Charge Evidence) 9.3.1 Cross-Examination by Sh. Amardeep Singh, Learned Counsel for Accused Dr. Manish Gupta KARANBIR SINGH Dr. Aruna Jain Vs. Dr. VK Sehdev and Ors. Case no. 512553/2016 PS Timar Pur 48/72 Digitally signed by KARANBIR SINGH Date: 2025.11.27 17:33:00 +0530 He deposed that he joined the office of CDMO, North District as Additional CDMO in the last week of July, 2006 i.e. 3-4 days prior to 31.07.2006. He deposed that prior to this, he remained posted as In-charge Delhi Government Dispensary, Pulbangash for the period of approximately one year. He deposed that he had never visited the Sant Hospital before 31.07.2006. He deposed that he had neither met Dr. Manish Gupta on 31.07.2006 nor any time prior to that. He deposed that he had not seen the original Form-F pertaining to Sant Hospital prior to raid of 31.07.2006. He deposed that he has not seen or scrutinized the original Form-F or record of Sant Hospital at any point of time. He deposed that it is correct that condition is complied in case Form-F in original duly filled and signed is sent to the office of CDMO by the hospital within time. He deposed that he does not remember whether the documents seized from the hospital during raid were sealed or not. He deposed that it is correct that the documents were not sealed on 31.07.2006 and same is not mentioned in the seizure memo also. He deposed that he does not remember who was in actual possession of the documents seized from Sant Hospital. He deposed that he also does not remember whether the documents were sealed or not. He deposed that he was briefed by Dr. Aruna Jain. He deposed that Dr. Aruna Jain had briefed that some of the original Form-F sent by Sant Hospital bears the signatures of Dr. Manish Gupta. He deposed that he never seen the accused Manish Gupta putting his signature in his presence. He deposed that he can identify the original Form-F if shown to him, however, he cannot identify the signature of Manish Gupta on the form. He deposed that it is wrong to suggest that they planted false documents or false photocopies of Forms upon the accused persons in order to concoct a false case. He deposed that it is correct that they are obliged to see the original Form-F and in case original Form-F is incomplete then the offence under PNDT Act is made out and further no offence is made out on the copies of the documents. He deposed that it is wrong to suggest that he is deposing falsely.
KARANBIR SINGH Dr. Aruna Jain Vs. Dr. VK Sehdev and Ors. Case no. 512553/2016 PS Timar Pur 49/72 Digitally signed by KARANBIR SINGH Date: 2025.11.27 17:33:04 +0530 9.3.2 Cross-Examination by Sh. S.R. Mehta, Learned Counsel for Accused V.K. Sehdev He deposed that it is correct that he never attended any workshop for PC & PNDT Act or MTP Act. He deposed that he does not know whether any complaint or any recommendation from the advisory committee was received by the CDMO Office. He deposed that he does not know whether any intimation was given to the Sant Hospital prior to going to the inspection. He deposed that he personally did not see any complaint or intimation prior to the raid of Guru Nanak Hospital. He was asked by learned counsel what exactly he saw in the Sant Hospital which prompted him to become part of the raiding team which initially was constituted to inspect the hospital. He deposed that it was the decision of CDMO/head of the team and he acted on her command i.e. Dr. Aruna Jain. He deposed that it is correct that he had not found any suspicious activity apparently on the visit to the hospital. He deposed that it is correct that there were number of patients and hospital staff. He deposed that it is correct that no public person was asked to join the raid by him or in his presence by any member of the team. He deposed that he was not directed by any person to make such specific request to member of the public to join as a public witness. He deposed that a seizure list was prepared by Dr. Shelly Kamra which was signed by him, Dr. Aruna Jain, Dr. Shelly Kamra and by Dr. V.K. Sehdev beneath the seizure list. He deposed that he does not remember whether any memo of the seizure articles/documents was made or not. He deposed that the seized documents were not sealed. He deposed that it is correct that he put his signature only on the seizure list. He deposed that he needs to see the record whether he signed any inspection memo on a separate sheet. He deposed that he does not remember whether he put the date on the seizure memo. He was shown the inspection memo dated 31.07.06. He denied the suggestion that he put the signature on the document in the office and not KARANBIR SINGH Dr. Aruna Jain Vs. Dr. VK Sehdev and Ors. Case no. 512553/2016 PS Timar Pur 50/72 Digitally signed by KARANBIR SINGH Date: 2025.11.27 17:33:07 +0530 in the hospital. He deposed that it is correct that he signed the inspection memo dated 31.07.06 on the same day. He deposed that it is wrong to suggest that he signed the inspection memo without scrutiny of the document merely on the dictate of CDMO. He deposed that only one document was prepared that includes the seizure list and inspection memo. He deposed that it is correct that he has given statement on 06.08.2013. He deposed that the seizure memo was prepared by Dr. Shelly Kamra at the instance of Dr. Aruna Jain. He was shown the seizure list/inspection list and asked whether he signed the seizure memo. He deposed that only one document was prepared and he mentioned it in his evidence as seizure memo and it was in fact inspection cum seizure list. He deposed that no separate seizure memo was prepared. He deposed that it bears his signature as a witness. He deposed that it is wrong to suggest that one document i.e. seizure memo was prepared apart from the inspection cum seizure list. He was confronted with his statement recorded on 06.08.2013 at point A to A1 and asked whether the separate seizure memo other than the seizure list was prepared. He replied the same in negative. He deposed that it is correct that all the documents (whether blank or filled up) seized from V.K. Sehdev were got signed from the accused by Dr. Aruna Jain, CDMO. He deposed that it is correct that he put his signature after going through the documents. He deposed that the deficiencies were explained to him in the office later on by CDMO. He deposed that it is correct that he had not gone through the documents seized from the hospital and he was only briefed about the incomplete documents by the CDMO and thereafter, he put the signature. He deposed that it is wrong to suggest that he put his signature in the inspection cum seizure list later on at the office and not at the hospital and that is why he did not put date under his signature in the seizure list. He deposed that Dr. Aruna Jain asked V.K. Sehdev to produce the required documents but he does not know whether the request was made in writing or orally. He deposed that it is wrong to suggest that accused V.K. Sehdev not only produced but also handed over ultrasound Dr. Aruna Jain Vs. Dr. VK Sehdev and Ors. Case no. 512553/2016 PS Timar Pur 51/72 KARANBIR SINGH Digitally signed by KARANBIR SINGH Date: 2025.11.27 17:33:11 +0530 register, copy of PC & PNDT Act, case record of deliveries, apart from various Form- Fs and also acknowledgments dated 01.07.2006, in his presence and knowledge. He deposed that it is further wrong to suggest that a separate seizure list and seizure memo of the aforesaid documents was prepared and the same was concealed intentionally and was not made the part of the complaint. He deposed that it is wrong to suggest that the aforesaid documents were seized in a bag but intentionally no seal was affixed so that a false case can be made against the accused. He deposed that it is wrong to suggest that no public witness was joined in the raid despite the presence of many public persons so that the facts and documents can be manipulated. He deposed that it is wrong to suggest that the signature of V.K. Sehdev were taken on the document dated 31.07.2006 while it was blank and the narration of document was filled up later on and this is the sole reason that beneath the list of seized document he did not put his signature along with date. He deposed that he did not make resistance before the raid as the same was not required and he acted on the command of CDMO. He deposed that it is wrong to suggest that he did not join the raiding party and visited the hospital and he signed the documents later on at the office at the instance of CDMO. He deposed that it is wrong to suggest that he is deposing falsely.
9.3.3 Cross-Examination by Sh. Tarun Walia, Learned Counsel for Accused Dr. Anil Grover He deposed that he had never met Dr. Anil Grover on or before 31.01.2006 and thereafter he met him for the first time in the court. He deposed that as far as his knowledge is concerned, no complaint of Dr. Anil Grover came to CDMO. He deposed that it is correct that in the present complaint there were no allegations against the accused Anil Grover.
10. Statement of accused persons u/s 313 Cr.P.C. :-
KARANBIR Dr. Aruna Jain Vs. Dr. VK Sehdev and Ors. Case no. 512553/2016 PS Timar Pur 52/72 SINGH Digitally signed by KARANBIR SINGH Date: 2025.11.27 17:33:14 +0530 10.1 Statement of accused persons u/s 313 was framed on 30.09.2019and 24.03.2021, Dr. VK Sehdev submitted that there is no complaint against him or Sant Hospital from any patient or their relatives ever in his life. He submitted that the registration was canceled in the interest of public but there has never been any disinterest to the public on his part or on the part of the hospital on any aspect. He submitted that he is a qualified surgeon who spent 10 years in England with NRI Status and came back to the country to serve the poor people. He further submitted that it was the first hospital started in the rural area of Burari as there was no nearby hospital and the hospital was for service of public and patients. Dr. Aruna Jain and Dr. Shelly Kamra acted illegally as they are not even appropriate authority as per PC and PNDT Act. He submitted that they made his complaint with mala fide intention and misguided the court on the first appearance when they submitted complaint of another patient namely Neelam from other hospital for taking cognizance which had nothing to do with him. He admitted that inspection took place but stated that the time was earlier than 12:00 p.m. to 12:30 p.m. He further submitted that he is neither Radiologist nor an Ultrasonologist. He submitted that he does not own Sant Hospital or the ultrasound machines and has never conducted any ultrasound or any MTP. It has been submitted that the filling of form F is entirely the responsibility of the person who conducts the ultrasound and the consent to be taken on form F is also the responsibility of Ultrasonologist. He submitted that the proper and duly maintained and the registers were complete in all respects. He submitted that if some forms were unfilled, it was the responsibility of Radiologist. He denied the receipt of any show-
cause notice. He led defence evidence and examined himself and DW2 Naveen in his defence.
10.2. Dr. Anil Grover submitted that he was only authorized radiologist on call at the time of seeking registration by Sant Hospital but he had long stopped Digitally signed by Dr. Aruna Jain Vs. Dr. VK Sehdev and Ors. Case no. 512553/2016 PS Timar Pur 53/72 KARANBIR KARANBIR SINGH SINGH Date:
2025.11.27 17:33:21 +0530 visiting the hospital as he was no more being called. The same can also be verified from the testimony of complainant and her witnesses that he had not been visiting the hospital for doing ultrasound for more than six months prior to date of inspection. He further submitted that he had stopped visiting Sant Hospital since long back. He further submitted that there was no question of him being present at Sant Hospital on that day and time. He further submitted that he has no idea whether his machine was the only one used to perform ultrasound at Sant Hospital. He had long stopped to visit Sant Hospital for ultrasound. His machine registered under the Act was a portable machine which was brought by him to the hospital whenever he was called to do ultrasound and then taken back. His machine was never seized in this case. He submitted that he has been wrongly framed in this case and suffered a lot of mental anguish and stress for last 15 years. He and his entire family suffered a lot. He submitted that no complaint has ever been filed against him in this case and even the summoning order is flawed and based on facts of some other case. The case was filed only against the hospital. The complainant herself said that she did not file the case against the Radiologists. There is no specific allegation against him in the whole complaint. It is pertinent to mention that complainant and her witnesses have testified in their evidence that he was not working at the hospital since long back. He further submitted that they have also testified in their evidence that it was the duty of the hospital to maintain records and send monthly reports. It was the duty of the hospital to inform the PNDT Authorities when it discontinued calling him and started to call other radiologists and get necessary changes made in the registration certificate to the effect. It is further pertinent to mention that he had stopped working in the hospital at least 6 to 7 months prior to the date of inspection. He did not lead DE.
10.3 Dr. Manish Gupta denied each and every incriminating circumstance. He submitted that no complaint was ever filed against him and summoning order of this Dr. Aruna Jain Vs. Dr. VK Sehdev and Ors. Case no. 512553/2016 PS Timar Pur 54/72 KARANBIR SINGH Digitally signed by KARANBIR SINGH Date: 2025.11.27 17:33:26 +0530 case is based on facts of some other case. He stated that he is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. He did not lead defence evidence.
11. DEFENCE EVIDENCE
11.1 Testimony of DW-1 Dr. V.K. Sehdev He deposed that he is an Indian, a senior citizen, and a retired consultant surgeon entitled to his fundamental rights under Article 21. He deposed that he worked as a consultant surgeon since 1978. He deposed that his medical registration No. is 2788 which is Ex. DW-1/A. He deposed that he is neither an ultrasonologist nor a radiologist. He deposed that he does not own any ultrasound machine of any kind. He deposed that he has never conducted any ultrasonography on any pregnant women. He deposed that he has not been involved in any actual work being conducted during the procedures of ultrasonography. He deposed that he has not rendered any professional or technical services in the procedures of ultrasonography. He deposed that he has not had any communication with any pregnant women prior to or after the procedure of ultrasonography. He deposed that Form-F as per PC & PNDT Act is a very specialized and technical form which he cannot fill and he has never attempted to fill any of the sections of Form-F and other documentary formalities associated with Form-F. At this stage, he was shown Mark F and has submitted that he has informed and intimated about Dr. Manish Gupta and Dr. Anil Grover as visiting ultrasonologists in Sant Hospital to inspection team.
He deposed that the other document "Mark G" is a tempered document in which order number there is an overwriting done. He deposed that he had intimated the concerned department about Dr. Manish Gupta and his details. He was shown Mark F dated 10.03.2005 and Mark F 01.07.2006.
He deposed that Document Mark X is an order dated 04.12.2006 which KARANBIR Dr. Aruna Jain Vs. Dr. VK Sehdev and Ors. Case no. 512553/2016 PS Timar Pur 55/72 SINGH Digitally signed by KARANBIR SINGH Date: 2025.11.27 17:33:30 +0530 is originally under the power and possession of the concerned appropriate authority. He deposed that Circular Mark Y dated 01.10.2007 is originally under the power and possession of the concerned appropriate authority. He deposed that it is the responsibility of the ultrasonologist to maintain the record as per PC & PNDT Act. He deposed that Circular dated 20.02.2006 is Mark Z (Colly 1-2).
11.1.1 Cross-Examination by Ld. APP for the State He deposed that at the time of inspection of the PC & PNDT Authority, he was working as a consultant surgeon. He deposed that he is the owner of Sant Hospital. He deposed that it is correct that he is the Director of Sant Hospital. He was asked whether Sant Hospital was registered under the PC & PNDT Act or not. He replied the same in affirmative. He deposed that in his knowledge, no ultrasound machine was installed at Sant Hospital. He deposed that at the time of inspection which was conducted during the period between last week of July and first week of August 2006, he was present in the hospital. He deposed that it is correct that Sant Hospital was also registered under MTP Act. He was asked which forms are required to be filled under PC & PNDT Act. He deposed that he was working in a capacity of medical director and he did not deal with any of the forms; the concerned doctors who conduct ultrasound are duty bound to fill and send the requisite documents to the appropriate authority i.e., CDMO. He deposed that he has knowledge that Form-F is mandatory document to be prepared and maintained in respect of ultrasound of pregnant ladies. He deposed that it is correct that ultrasound registers were maintained at the hospital. He deposed that it is correct that the record of the deliveries was also maintained at the hospital. He was asked that in his cross- examination he firstly mentioned that no ultrasound machine was installed at the hospital and later on he stated that the concerned doctors who conducted the ultrasound are duty bound to fill the requisite forms, and it shows that ultrasound machines were installed at Sant Hospital. He replied that no ultrasound machines KARANBIR Dr. Aruna Jain Vs. Dr. VK Sehdev and Ors. Case no. 512553/2016 PS Timar Pur 56/72 SINGH Digitally signed by KARANBIR SINGH Date: 2025.11.27 17:33:33 +0530 were installed at Sant Hospital; however, the concerned doctors carried their portable ultrasound machines. He deposed that he had knowledge that the concerned doctors carried their portable ultrasound machines and he gave permission for the same. He deposed that it is correct that he had the knowledge that PC & PNDT Bare Act has to be present in the premises of the hospital. He deposed that it is correct that PC & PNDT Act was available at the time of inspection. He deposed that it is wrong to suggest that being a director of the Sant Hospital, he was duty bound to go through all the documents which were sent to the appropriate authority.
He deposed that it is wrong to suggest that there were multiple ultrasound machines installed at Sant Hospital. Accused is asked whether the Form-F (in toto 1-
30) bears his signatures or not. He replied that it bears his signature as Director of Sant Hospital. He deposed that he does not have any knowledge about the ultrasounds and had signed on Form-F at the instance of Aruna Jain as she threatened him for lodging of FIR and getting him arrested. He deposed that he did not make any written complaint regarding the threats given by Aruna Jain. He deposed that he has all the knowledge regarding the notification No. 764-E dated 04.07.2003. He deposed that he has given the said notification to depict that Aruna Jain was not the appropriate authority for conducting the raid. He deposed that Dr. Anil Grover was working in the capacity of Ultrasonologist to conduct ultrasounds and thereby other Dr. Manish Gupta was also authorized to conduct ultrasonology of the patient. He deposed that a person namely Naveen was assigned duty to deposit the Form-F to the office of CDMO. He deposed that being the director of the hospital, he did not check the forms prior to their submission as he was not duty bound to do the same, being the director of the hospital. He deposed that it is wrong to suggest that he being the director of Sant Hospital, it is his duty to check all the documents prior to sending them to the CDMO office. He deposed that it is wrong to suggest that he was aware of all the ultrasounds conducted at Sant Hospital. He deposed that it is wrong to KARANBIR SINGH Dr. Aruna Jain Vs. Dr. VK Sehdev and Ors. Case no. 512553/2016 PS Timar Pur 57/72 Digitally signed by KARANBIR SINGH Date: 2025.11.27 17:33:37 +0530 suggest that he is deposing falsely.
11.2. Testimony of DW-2 Naveen Divedi Examination-in-Chief:-
He deposed that he visited the hospital at about 12:30 and asked for the records from him and Dr. Sahab (Dr. V.K. Sehdev). He deposed that there were some patients along with their attendants and he was also present there. He deposed that they waited for about 10-15 minutes and they were in a hurry. He deposed that they collected IPD register, PNDT book, ultrasound register, delivery register, OPD register, OT register, emergency register and 2 Form-F. He deposed that they did not seal the same and went away. He deposed that one form which was partially filled was made to sign by Dr. Aruna Jain and staff members from sir twice on the front side and once on the backside. He deposed that they told the sir to sign the same failing which he would be sent behind bars and told him that form would be completed later on and they told sir that he can collect the same from the office. He deposed that he is maintaining the complete records since 1996. He deposed that again he said he is only keeping the records. He deposed that he signed under pressure.
11.2.1 Cross-Examination by Ld. APP for the State He deposed that he studied till class 9. He deposed that he can read little bit of English but he is not fully converse in it. He deposed that he is working in the capacity of record keeper, security personnel and maintenance of hospital and staff.
He deposed that he does not have any appointment letter through which he was appointed in the Sant Hospital. He deposed that he knows Dr. V.K. Sehdev since 1996. He deposed that the entries made in Indoor Patient Department and OPD register were filled by receptionist. He deposed that ultrasound register was filled by ultrasound persons. He deposed that delivery register and Operation Theatre register remain in OT and were filled by persons present in the OT. He deposed that KARANBIR SINGH Dr. Aruna Jain Vs. Dr. VK Sehdev and Ors. Case no. 512553/2016 PS Timar Pur 58/72 Digitally signed by KARANBIR SINGH Date: 2025.11.27 17:33:41 +0530 emergency register was filled by the sister at reception. He deposed that he did not have any knowledge regarding entries made in the above-mentioned registers. He deposed that it is wrong to suggest that he never worked in the capacity of record keeper, security personnel and maintenance of hospital and staff and this is the reason he cannot produce his appointment letter. He deposed that it is further wrong to suggest that he is an interested witness and he is deposing in the court room at the instance of Dr. V.K. Sehdev. He deposed that it is further wrong to suggest that all the registers were duly sealed by the concerned officials.
12. Arguments and submissions:
Ld. APP for the State submitted that the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt. It has been submitted that the Sant Hospital was irregular in sending the statutory reports and that the forms F which is a mandatory requirement for ultrasound were thoroughly incomplete. It has been submitted that the blank consent forms were got signed for surgical procedures and that the monthly reports sent to the office of CDMO were irregular. It has been submitted that the hospital failed to produce the ultrasound register, form F for the month of July 2006, record of deliveries conducted at the hospital. It has been submitted that the raid was conducted by the appropriate authority appointed as per law and that during the rate various violations were noted. It has been submitted that on failure to produce the aforesaid documents, accused VK Sehdev has violated Section 29(2) of PC & PNDT Act. It has been submitted that the case record of 69 patients and 32 form F were found incomplete in violation of Rule 9 of 1996 Rules and that the same amounts to offence u/s 23 of the Act. It was vehemently argued that Dr. Manish Kumar Gupta and Dr. Sandeep Jain (since discharged) were found to be visiting the Sant Hospital without their registration and the same is a violation of Rule 4 of 1996 Rules. It has KARANBIR SINGH Dr. Aruna Jain Vs. Dr. VK Sehdev and Ors. Case no. 512553/2016 PS Timar Pur 59/72 Digitally signed by KARANBIR SINGH Date: 2025.11.27 17:33:49 +0530 been submitted that the accused Anil Grover is liable to be convicted for offence u/s 23 of the Act as the OPD register, admission register and other documents were found incompletely filled up. It has been submitted that the accused Manish Gupta has violated Rule 4 of the 1996 Rules as he was working as Radiologist in the Sant Hospital without registration. It has been submitted that he has also committed offence u/s 23 of the Act and Rule 9 of 1996 Rules. Ld. APP for the State vehemently submitted that the accused persons have delayed the trial for the past 19 years by filing frivolous applications and by filing frivolous revision petitions. It was therefore submitted that their conduct during the trial has not been praiseworthy.
13. Contentions of accused Dr. Manish Gupta:-
13.1. It was submitted that the case set up by the prosecution/ complainant in its Complaint dated 02.08.2006 filed on the record, was totally silent as regards commission of any offence by the Co- Accused (Dr. Manish Gupta) and that was why he had also not been made an Accused in the said Complaint. Further, the only reference to the Co-accused was made in paragraph 5 of the Complaint which again was based on hearsay evidence i.e. information received from Accused Dr. V. K Sehdev, which again has never been proved nor was the same admissible in evidence.
Thus, when the Complaint dated 2.8.2006 was filed before this Hon'ble Court, there was no valid, legally admissible evidence/ allegation against Co-accused Dr. Manish Gupta and for the sake of repetition, he was not even made an accused in the said complaint case. Reliance was placed on the judgment of Bhagirath Versus State of Madhya Pradesh, reported in AIR 1976 SC 975 13.2. Further, it was submitted that was more shocking was that cognizance of this case against Co- accused Dr. Manish Gupta was taken vide Order dated 28.10.2006 and Accused persons accordingly summoned on the basis of averments KARANBIR SINGH Dr. Aruna Jain Vs. Dr. VK Sehdev and Ors. Case no. 512553/2016 PS Timar Pur 60/72 Digitally signed by KARANBIR SINGH Date: 2025.11.27 17:33:52 +0530 which were totally alien/ not germane to the present case at all. A perusal of the said passed against Co-accused Dr. Manish Gupta reflects that it suffers from serious illegality both on facts as well as on law. The said order states that Petitioner along with another accused was found violating the provisions of the said Act while conducting termination of pregnancy of one Neelam on 31.7.2006 at Sant Hospital whereas the said averments are not found anywhere in the entire case set up by the complainant/prosecution. The said alleged averments of termination of pregnancy, as stated in the said Order, are totally alien from the facts of this case/ the Complaint filed on record. Further, section 28 of PCPNDT Act, casts a very serious obligation on the filing of a Complaint against an accused without which the Court shall not take cognizance of any offence. Admittedly, the Complaint Dated 02.08.2006, does not even name Dr. Manish Gupta as an Accused and therefore no complaint as envisaged under section 28, was ever filed against Dr. Manish Gupta. It was submitted that the provisions of Section 28 of PCPNDT Act are mandatory and any non-compliance of it should vitiate the prosecution and all other consequential orders. It was submitted that no Court can assume cognizance of the case without such a complaint. In the absence of such a complaint, the trial should be void ab initio i.e. being without jurisdiction and thus for this reason also the benefit of the same should go to the Co- accused and he was ordered to be acquitted. Reliance was placed on Devendra Kumar Versus State (NCT of Delhi) and Another, reported in 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1753, 13.3. That even though it was clear from the record that no complaint was filed against the Co-accused Dr. Manish Gupta, nonetheless without prejudice to the same, it was submitted that "Complaint", as stated under section 28 of PCPNDT Act, was required to be made by the Appropriate Authority, which was defined under section 17 of the said Act, wherein sub clause 3 stipulates that the Appropriate authority under subsection 1 or subsection 2 shall be appointed for the whole of the State of the KARANBIR SINGH Dr. Aruna Jain Vs. Dr. VK Sehdev and Ors. Case no. 512553/2016 PS Timar Pur 61/72 Digitally signed by KARANBIR SINGH Date: 2025.11.27 17:33:57 +0530 union territory, consisting of the following three members..., Meaning thereby that the Appropriate Authority should be a three (03) members committee and not as a single person, as was the position in the present case at hand. Reliance was placed on the full bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case titled: Dr. Zoni Jain & Ors. Versus State of Punjab & Ors., Reported in: 2019 SCC OnLine P&H 6262, 13.4 It has been submitted that there is violation of Rule 12 and Section 30 of the Act as there is no independent witness during the search. It has been submitted that the documents were not sealed and the appropriate authority had no reason to believe that the offence under the Act was being committed. It has been submitted that the complaint was filed in August 2006 whereas the documents were filed much later on 02.09.2006. It has been submitted that the documents were never sealed and they have been filed in the court after much manipulation. It has been submitted that none of the witnesses deposed on oath that Dr. Manish was seen in the hospital on the day of raid. Reliance was placed on following judgments-
a) Bhagirath Vs. State of Madya Pradesh (1976) (1) Supreme Court Cases 20.
b) Bhupat Bhai Bachchu Bhai Chabda and Anr. Vs. State of Gujarat, 2024 SCC Online SC 523.
c) Tukaram Vs. State of Maharashtra, 2023, SCC Online BOM 2058.
d) Navi Mumbai Municipal Corporation Vs. M/s Manju Shree Diagnostic Centre and Anrs., Crl. Application No. 488/2013, Bombay High Court.
e) Dr. Govils Ultrasound Clinic Vs. State of Uttarakhand and Ors., 2013 SCC Online UTT 853.
f) Ravinder Kumar Vs. State of Haryana 2024 SCC Online P and H 6262.
g) Harbir Singh Vs. Sheeshpal and Ors., (2016) 16 Supreme Court Cases
418
h) Dinesh Vs. State 2025 SCC Online DEL 4586
KARANBIR Dr. Aruna Jain Vs. Dr. VK Sehdev and Ors. Case no. 512553/2016 PS Timar Pur 62/72
SINGH
Digitally signed by
KARANBIR
SINGH
Date: 2025.11.27
17:34:00 +0530
14. Contentions of Dr. Anil Grover:
14.1 It has been submitted that as per rule 13 of 1996 Rules, the intimation of
change in employees has to be given by the hospital. It has been submitted that the accused had left the hospital long back and it was the hospital which did not intimate the appropriate authority. It has been submitted that the accused was not named in the complaint and that even relying upon the testimony of witnesses, no role can be prescribed to the accused Anil Grover as the witnesses themselves have not deposed anything incriminating against the accused. It has been submitted that the offence with respect to irregularity in sending the reports, hospital records is made out only against the hospital and accused Anil Grover has nothing to do with the same. It has been submitted that Form F which is on record is a photocopy and the original documents were not produced by the complainant/ State. It has been submitted that the witnesses in their cross-examination has stated that accused was not given any notice and it was Dr. VK Sehdev who was under the liability to communicate. He relied upon the following judgments.
a) Dr. Ranjit Ghatge Vs. State of Maharashtra, Crl. Writ Petition No. 4194/2014, Bombay High Court.
b) Dr. Pratidnya Jayesh Shindey Vs. Appropriate Authority Jal Gaon, Crl. Application No. 3044/2012, Bombay High Court.
c) Pappu Kumar Singh Vs. Dharmesh Bharat Bhai Patel, Special Crl. Application No. 8286/2019, Gujarat High Court.
d) M/s Kamboj Ultrasound and Diagnostic Pvt. Ltd. and Ors. Vs. State of Haryana, 2025 PHHC 064378.
e) Ravinder Kumar Vs. State of Haryana, Crl. Appeal No. 3747/2024, Supreme Court of India.
KARANBIR SINGH Dr. Aruna Jain Vs. Dr. VK Sehdev and Ors. Case no. 512553/2016 PS Timar Pur 63/72 Digitally signed by KARANBIR SINGH Date: 2025.11.27 17:34:04 +0530
15. Contentions of Dr. VK Sehdev:
15.1 It has been submitted that the appropriate authority is not properly constituted. It has been submitted that the appropriate authority has not taken any advice from the advisory committee and the appropriate authority has not complied with Section 17d of the Act and the appropriate authority has failed to follow Section 17 (1) of the Act. It has been submitted that there is no private or public complaint against Dr. VK Sehdev and that Dr. Aruna Jain has almost issued 200 notices throughout her tenure and she let off various doctors on account of extraneous considerations and since Dr. VK Sehdev refused to fulfil her demands, she moved the present complaint solely to harass the accused. It has been submitted that Form F is not filled by a surgeon. It has been submitted that the documents seized on the day of raid were not sealed and that there is no public witness. It has been submitted that the statutory compliance of the present act is mandatory since the act is draconian in the sense that after the framing of charge, license of the doctor gets suspended. It has been submitted that since the statutory procedure has not been followed by the appropriate authority. Accused persons are entitled to be acquitted. 15.2 Reliance was placed on the judgment of State of Uttar Pradesh Vs. Akhil Sharda and Ors., MANU/SC/0841/2022, State of Uttar Pradesh Vs. Akhil Sharda, Crl. Appeal No. 840/2022, Supreme Court, Nazir Ahmed Vs. Emperor, PCA No. 11/1936, Ravinder Vs. State of Haryana (supra).
16. The aforesaid arguments of the Ld. Counsels were rebutted by the Ld. APP that the public witnesses rarely join the officials during the raids and that the same cannot be a sole ground to discard otherwise cogent testimony of the complainant. It has been submitted that even in the statements u/s 313 Cr.P.C. Dr. Anil Grover states that it was the responsibility of the hospital to comply with the act whereas Dr. VK Sehdev states that it was for the radiologist to fill the form F. It has KARANBIR SINGH Dr. Aruna Jain Vs. Dr. VK Sehdev and Ors. Case no. 512553/2016 PS Timar Pur 64/72 Digitally signed by KARANBIR SINGH Date: 2025.11.27 17:34:07 +0530 been submitted that the defence of accused persons is mutually contradictory. It has been submitted that the order taking cognizance and order on charge cannot be assailed at the time of judgment and that the constitution of appropriate authority has already been upheld by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Dr. Manish Gupta Vs. State Crl. MC No. 4556/2015. It has been submitted that the accused persons had sufficient time to challenge order taking cognizance and that a criminal court has no power to recall its own order.
17. Heard. Perused. Considered. I have gone through the detailed cross-examination of witnesses and case laws relied upon by all accused persons.
18. Section 23 of the Act is as follows:
23. Offences and penalties.- (1) Any medical geneticist, gynaecologist, registered medical practitioner or any person who owns a Genetic Counselling Centre, a Genetic Laboratory or a Genetic Clinic or is employed in such a Centre, Laboratory or Clinic and renders his professional or technical services to or at such a Centre, Laboratory or Clinic, whether on an honorary basis or otherwise, and who contravenes any of the provisions of this Act or rules made thereunder shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years and with fine which may extend to ten thousand rupees and on any subsequent conviction, with imprisonment which may extend to five years and with fine which may extend to fifty thousand rupees.
2. The name of the registered medical practitioner shall be reported by the Appropriate Authority to the State Medical Council concerned for taking necessary action including suspension of the registration if the charges are framed by the court and till the case is disposed of and on conviction for removal of his name from the KARANBIR Dr. Aruna Jain Vs. Dr. VK Sehdev and Ors. Case no. 512553/2016 PS Timar Pur 65/72 SINGH Digitally signed by KARANBIR SINGH Date: 2025.11.27 17:34:11 +0530 register of the Council for a period of five years for the first offence and permanently for the subsequent offence.
3. Any person who seeks the aid of a Genetic Counselling Centre, Genetic Laboratory, Genetic Clinic or ultrasound clinic or imaging clinic or of a medical geneticist, gynaecologist, sonologist or imaging specialist or registered medical practitioner or any other person for sex selection or for conducting pre- natal diagnostic techniques on any pregnant women for the purposes other than those specified in sub-section (2) of section 4, he shall, be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years and with fine which may extend to fifty thousand rupees for the first offence and for any subsequent offence with imprisonment which may extend to five years and with fine which may extend to one lakh rupees.
19. Much was said about the order taking cognizance. However, the court is of the view that the accused persons had sufficient time to challenge the said order and as such the same cannot be gone into at this stage. Further, the contention with respect to constitution of appropriate authority was also vehemently argued. The aforesaid contention was also taken by Dr. Manish Gupta and Dr. VK Sehdev before the High Court in Crl. MC No. 4556/2015 and the aforesaid contentions have been rejected by the Hon'ble High Court. The SLP against the said order is pending before the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the court deems it fit not to discuss the aforesaid contention. I have gone through the judgments relied upon by all the accused persons.
However, notice has already been issued by the Hon'ble Supreme Court by taking into consideration conflicting views of different High Courts. It was argued by the Ld. Counsel for the accused that the observations of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the aforesaid Crl. MC were only limited to quashing of complaint and that there is no bar on the undersigned to acquit the accused persons on the same ground. The KARANBIR Dr. Aruna Jain Vs. Dr. VK Sehdev and Ors. Case no. 512553/2016 PS Timar Pur 66/72 SINGH Digitally signed by KARANBIR SINGH Date: 2025.11.27 17:34:15 +0530 court is not inclined to accept the said contention as the argument with respect to constitution of appropriate authority has already been dealt with by the Hon'ble High Court and it is in the interest of judicial propriety that the law in this respect is settled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Accordingly, the court accepts the contention of Ld. APP with respect to the constitution of appropriate authority.
20. Now, I shall deal with the procedural compliance. All the accused persons took the defence that there have been violations of procedure by the appropriate authority. Ld. Counsels for the accused persons relied upon various judgments to buttress their submissions that violation of procedure is a ground for acquittal. Notably when the raid was conducted a document dt. 31.07.2006 was prepared. Firstly, this document is not made in duplicate. Secondly, there are no independent witnesses who have signed the aforesaid document. Thirdly, none of the documents mentioned in the aforesaid inspection document have been sealed in the presence of independent witnesses. Fourthly, the reference no. in the top left corner of the document is left blank. The witnesses were cross-examined at length on the aforesaid documents and no plausible explanation has come up in the testimony of the complainant regarding the non-compliance. CW1 in cross-examination deposed that the documents were not sealed. CW1 further deposed in cross-examination dt. 20.02.2017 that during the raid they did not ask any public person to join the inspection and she was not aware that the joining of public persons is mandatory.
21. It is noteworthy that Section 30 of the Act deals with power to search and seize records and Rule 12 of the 1996 Rules provides for the procedure of search and seizure. The seizure of any document, record, register from the Clinic shall be prepared in duplicate at the place of effecting the seizure and both the copies of such lists shall be signed on every page by the appropriate authority and by the witnesses Dr. Aruna Jain Vs. Dr. VK Sehdev and Ors. Case no. 512553/2016 PS Timar Pur 67/72 KARANBIR SINGH Digitally signed by KARANBIR SINGH Date: 2025.11.27 17:34:18 +0530 to the seizure. One copy thereof shall be handed over to the persons from whose custody the documents have been seized. In the present matter, no such procedure has been followed. In the case of Tukaram Vs. State of Maharashtra (supra), it has been held that reading Section 30 with Rule 12, the Section is mandatory. The Hon'ble High Court further held that when the law prescribes or requires a thing to be done in a particular manner it should be done in that manner and not at all. The aforesaid judgment is clearly applicable to the facts of the present case and as a result of violation of the mandatory procedure, the case of the complainant falls under a shadow of doubt and benefit of the lapse has to be given to the accused persons. The contention of Ld. APP that public persons rarely join is acceptable to the court as the provision is mandatory in nature.
22. Now, I shall discuss the second contention with respect to Section 17 of the Act and the non-compliance with respect to the advisory committee. It was argued by the Ld. Counsel for the accused Dr. Manish Gupta that the appropriate authority did not have a valid basis to form reason to believe before conducting the raid. I have gone through the cross-examination of the witnesses in this regard. CW1 in her cross- examination deposed that she cannot recall as to how many times she took advice from the advisory committee. She further stated that she has not taken any opinion from the advisory committee. She deposed that such advice was not required. She stated that before inspection of Sant Hospital, no opinion of advisory committee was taken. She deposed that she did not check or scrutinized the previous records submitted by Sant Hospital. She further submitted that she has not filed any report on record with respect to the scrutiny of documents of Sant Hospital. She deposed that reports which were sent by the Hospital used to be received at the reception counter and a diary with respect to the same was maintained. The inspection report dt. 31.07.2006 does not contain anything that opinion of advisory committee was taken KARANBIR SINGH Dr. Aruna Jain Vs. Dr. VK Sehdev and Ors. Case no. 512553/2016 PS Timar Pur 68/72 Digitally signed by KARANBIR SINGH Date: 2025.11.27 17:34:21 +0530 or that the hospital has been irregular in sending the reports previous to the date of inspection as well. Similarly, Dr. Shelly Kamra and Dr. Vineet Swaroop failed to depose anything to the effect that there was some basis to form reason to believe. From the aforesaid testimony of the witnesses, the court holds that there is a lapse on the part of appropriate authority to follow Section 17 RW Section 30 of the Act. The search and seizure could have been conducted only if there was a reason to believe that the offence under the 1994 Act has been committed. In the present facts, there is no document or deposition to show that the appropriate authority had reason to believe. No original diary of the earlier reports has been produced and no witness who actually scrutinized the earlier record has been examined so as to show that the department had some basis to conduct the raid.
23. It is noteworthy that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ravinder Kumar Vs. State of Haryana (supra) has held that if no legal decision is made by the appropriate authority under Sub Section 1 of Section 30, then the decision to carry out the search is an individual decision of the concerned Civil Surgeon and the action of search is itself vitiated. The aforesaid judgment is clearly applicable to the present facts. The relevant paragraph is:
12. The question is what meaning can be assigned to the expression "has reason to believe". Section 26 of the Indian Penal Code defines the expression "reason to believe", which reads thus:
"26. "Reason to believe".- A person is said to have "reason to believe" a thing, if he has sufficient cause to believe that thing but not otherwise." In the case of Aslam Mohammad Merchant v. Competent Authority & Ors.1, this Court had an occasion to interpret the same expression. In paragraph 41, this Court held thus: "41. It is now a trite law that whenever a statute provides for "reason to believe", either the reasons should appear on the face of the notice or they must be available on the materials which had been placed before him." However, interpretation of the KARANBIR Dr. Aruna Jain Vs. Dr. VK Sehdev and Ors. Case no. 512553/2016 PS Timar Pur 69/72 SINGH Digitally signed by KARANBIR SINGH Date: 2025.11.27 17:34:25 +0530 expression will depend on the context in which it is used in a particular legislation. In some statutes like the present one, there is a power to initiate action under the statute if the authority has reason to believe that certain facts exist. The test is whether a reasonable man, under the circumstances placed before him, would be propelled to take action under the statute. Considering the object of the 1994 Act, the expression "reason to believe" cannot be construed in a manner which would create a procedural roadblock. The reason is that once there is any material placed before the Appropriate Authority based on which action of search is required to be undertaken, if the action is delayed, the very object of passing orders of search would be frustrated. Therefore, what is needed is that the complaint or other material received by the appropriate authority or its members should be immediately made available to all its members.
After examining the same, the Appropriate authority must expeditiously decide whether there is a reason to believe that an offence under the 1994 Act has been or is being committed. The Appropriate Authority is not required to record reasons for concluding that it has reason to believe that an offence under the 1994 Act has been or is being committed. But, there has to be a rational basis to form that belief. However, the decision to take action under sub-section (1) of Section 30 must be of the Appropriate Authority and not of its individual members.
Relying upon the aforesaid observations, the court concludes that the act of search/ raid by the appropriate authority was in violation of Section 30(1) of the Act. It was without any valid reason to believe and hence the entire search is vitiated. Resultantly accused persons are entitled to be acquitted on this ground alone. Similarly, the procedure with respect to the advisory committee has not been followed and hence the benefit of the said lapse also goes to the accused persons.
24. It is noteworthy that in the case of Dr. Ranjeet Ghatge Vs. State of Maharashtra (supra) it has been held by the Hon'ble Bombay High Court that their responsibility to fill form F is not upon the visiting Radiologist but it is of the hospital. The aforesaid judgment is clearly applicable to the facts of the present case KARANBIR Dr. Aruna Jain Vs. Dr. VK Sehdev and Ors. Case no. 512553/2016 PS Timar Pur 70/72 SINGH Digitally signed by KARANBIR SINGH Date: 2025.11.27 17:34:28 +0530 and as such the contention of Dr. Anil Grover that he was not responsible for filling form F is acceptable to the court. He is entitled to be acquitted on this ground as well.
25. In the complaint, there are no averments with respect to the role of Dr. Anil Grover and Dr. Manish Gupta. In fact, the complaint has been filed without any affidavit. Filing of the complaint without the affidavit is a serious lapse in the case of complainant. The benefit of the same is also given to the accused persons. The appropriate authority has placed on record form F which is Ex. P7 but the aforesaid forms are not original. No application to lead secondary evidence was filed by the complainant and the aforesaid forms cannot be read into evidence. There is no evidence on record that the show-cause notice dt. 25.07.2006 was actually delivered at the Sant Hospital. The aforesaid show-cause notice is marked as Mark G on record. Firstly, the show-cause notice is not original. Secondly there is no postal receipt or any evidence to show that the same was actually delivered to Dr. VK Sehdev. There is a over writing in the aforesaid notice and as such this notice does not inspire confidence. The burden to prove the offence beyond reasonable doubt was upon the complainant and complainant has clearly failed to discharge the said burden. Resultantly, accused persons are entitled to be acquitted for offence u/s 23 of PCPNDT Act RW Rule 9, Rule 4, Rule 13 of the 1996 Rules. Let their licenses be restored as per law and they be allowed to practice the medicine. Pending applications if any be disposed of and pending cost if any be waived of. Original documents if any be returned to the rightful claimants against acknowledgment.
KARANBIR SINGH Dr. Aruna Jain Vs. Dr. VK Sehdev and Ors. Case no. 512553/2016 PS Timar Pur 71/72 Digitally signed by KARANBIR SINGH Date: 2025.11.27 17:34:34 +0530 This judgment consists of 72 pages and each and every page of this judgment is digitally signed by me. Digitally signed by KARANBIR KARANBIR SINGH SINGH Date:
2025.11.27 17:34:45 +0530 ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN (Karanbir Singh) COURT ON 27th November, 2025. JMFC-02, Central District Tis Hazari Courts/27.11.2025.
Dr. Aruna Jain Vs. Dr. VK Sehdev and Ors. Case no. 512553/2016 PS Timar Pur 72/72