Delhi District Court
Cr No.12/2015 vs Dr. Aruna Jain on 15 October, 2015
IN THE COURT OF SANJAY GARG-I:
SPECIAL JUDGE-IV, (PC ACT) CBI: DELHI.
1. CR No.12/2015
ID No. 02401R0338062015
Dr. Anil Grover
S/o. Lt. Shri G.R. Grover
R/o. 1767, Outram Lines,
Delhi ............. Petitioner
Versus
Dr. Aruna Jain
Chief District Medical Officer,
Appropriate Authority, North District,
Office of Chief District Medical Officer,
Delhi Government Dispensary Building
Gulabi Bagh, Delhi ........... Respondent
2. CR No.13/2015
ID No. 02401R0341552015
Dr. V.K. Sehdev
S/o. Late Shri R.K. Sehdev,
C/o. Sant Hospital,
Main Burari Road,
Sant Nagar, Delhi-110084 ....... Petitioner
Versus
State .........Respondent
3. CR No. 24/2015
ID No. 02401R0330852015
Dr. Manish Gupta
S/o. Shri R.D. Gupta
R/o. B-96, Derawal Nagar,
Delhi-110009 .....Petitioner
Versus
CR Nos.12/15, 13/15 & 24/15 Page1 of 17
Dr. Aruna Jain
Chief District Medical Officer,
Appropriate Authority, North District,
Office of Chief District Medical Officer,
Delhi Government Dispensary Building
Gulabi Bagh, Delhi ........... Respondent
Date of Institution : 03.07.2015, 04.07.2015 &
30.06.2015 respectively
Date of conclusion of
Final Arguments : 06.10.2015
Date of Judgment : 15.10.2015
ORDER:
1 All these three Petitions are challenging the order dated 29.05.2015 of Ld. Trial Court on charge, vide which all the three Petitioners / accused persons were charged for the offence punishable U/s. 23 of the PC Act & PNDT Act.
2 Brief case of the Respondent/complainant is mentioned in the complaint dated 02.08.2006 filed by Dr. Aruna Jain, CDMO (North District), Directorate of Health Services as appropriate Authority. It is mentioned in the complaint that Petitioner No. 2 (hereinafter mentioned as P-2) is Medical Director of Sant Hospital, Main Burari Road, Sant Nagar, Delhi-84. The Hospital is registered under PC & PNDT Act w.e.f. 22.10.2002 upto 21.10.2007for Ultrasonography vide registration No. 1385 by the State Appropriate Authority. The Hospital is registered under MTP Act, as per the list provided by Directorate of Family Welfare (Serial no. 341). The Hospital is irregular in sending the reports under PC & PNDT Act and MTP Act, and the record keeping is incomplete and improper. P-2 has mentioned in Form A about equipment available as Logiq alpha CR Nos.12/15, 13/15 & 24/15 Page2 of 17 100 V-4 (Mobile Ultrasound Machine). Ultrasonoglogist is Dr. Anil Grover (MD Radio Diagnosis), which is Petitioner No. 1 (hereinafter mentioned as P-1), he has not informed about Dr. Manish Kumar Gupta (hereinafter mentioned as P-3) and Dr. Sandeep Jain who have been visited the Hospital for Ultrasonography as is evident from the reports sent too. Non maintenance of records amounts to violation of the PC & PNDT Act & MTP Act. The Hospital had been issued Notices for non-maintenance of the record. During the visit by Appropriate Authority constituted by Addl. CDMO, some of the records were seized, which are kept in the Office of CDMO (Chief District Medical Officer). The Hospital failed to produce Ultrasound Register, Form 'F' for the month of July, 2006 (Only two were shown), record of deliveries conducted and PNDT Act. On scrutiny of records, it was found that records were incomplete and blank consent forms had been signed for surgical procedure. Form 'F', a mandatory requirement for ultrasound done on pregnant females, are thoroughly incomplete. Incomplete and improper maintenance of record are indicative of the fact that Ultrasound is being done without keeping proper records for concealment of facts so that unwanted pregnancies for particular sex are being terminated. Because of gross negligence in maintenance of record, the registration of Sant Hospital got suspended in public interest. Court is prayed to take cognizance of the offence committed by accused under PC& PNDT Act and MTP Act.
3 As per the Trial Court record, on the basis of this complaint, all three accused persons were summoned vide order dated 28.10.2006 to face the Trial. It being a warrant case instituted upon the complaint, Ld. Trial Court has examined three witnesses CW-1 is Dr. Aruna Jain, CDMO, North District of Delhi under CR Nos.12/15, 13/15 & 24/15 Page3 of 17 Directorate of Health Services. CW-2 is Dr. Vineet Swaroop, CMO, (R&H), CGHS, North Zone, Delhi. CW-3 is Dr. Shalley Kamra, Delhi State Programme Officer for PC & PNDT Act, Delhi. It was on the basis of this pre-charge evidence, after hearing the accused persons, the Ld. Trial Court passed the impugned order on charge.
4 Heard arguments of Shri Tarun Walia, Ld. Counsel for P-1, Shri S.R. Mehta, Ld. Counsel for P-2 & Shri Amardeep Singh, Ld. Counsel for P-3. Shri Ateeq Ahmed addressed the arguments on behalf of the respondent.
5 Shri Tarun Walia, Ld. Counsel for P-1 has submitted that Rule 4 of the Pre-conception & Pre-natal Diagnostic Techniques (Prohibition of Sex Selection) Act, 1994 talks about the registration of Genetic Counselling Centre, etc. and Rule 9 of Pre-conception & Pre- natal Diagnostic Techniques (Prohibition of Sex Selection) Act, 1994 primarily is regarding responsibility of a Centre for maintaining and preserving of record including Forms and responsibility of this was on Sant Hospital i.e. P-2. It is stated that charge U/s. 23 of Act, is not made out against the Petitioner. It has been stated that Ld. Trial Court has observed in impugned order that P-2 failed to furnish information regarding two Radiologists, which clearly indicates that responsibility of informing to Appropriate Authority was that of the Hospital or its owner. It has been urged that Dr. Sandeep Jain was discharged by the Trial Court vide order dated 30.06.2015 in this case. It is further submitted that Trial Court has failed to appreciate the statement of the witness in the cross-examination. It has been stated that CW-3 in her cross-examination has admitted that as per record, P-2 has shown P-1 as Visiting Doctor and CW-2 during his cross-examination had admitted that P-1 was working as Radiologist for Sant Hospital. He has stated that CW-2 in his cross-examination has admitted that CR Nos.12/15, 13/15 & 24/15 Page4 of 17 only two Forms dated 27.01.2006 were signed by P-1 and both these Forms are photocopies and the originals of these have been deposited with their Office. Ld. Counsel for accused has relied upon the observations made by Hon'ble Bombay High Court in Crl. Writ Petition No. 407/2011 date of decision 19.04.2012 in case titled as Dr. Mrs. Uma Shankarrao Rachewad Vs. Appropriate Authority, Nanded & Sub Divisional Officer, Nanded and Crl. Writ Petition No. 3044/2012 date of decision 04.12.2013 in case titled as Dr. Pratidnya Jayesh Shinde Vs. Appropriate Authority .
6 Shri S.R. Mehta, Ld. Counsel for P-2 has submitted that the Trial Court has erred in holding that Sant Hospital has failed to produce the documents during the inspection of the Team as all the relevant documents which Petitioner was required to maintain under the law, were not maintained by him and were not produced before the Inspection Team. It has been stated that Ld. Trial Court has further erred in holding that Petitioner has failed to produce Form 'F' for the month of July, 2006, has informed that two Ultrasound were done in this month and two forms were produced by the Petitioner before the Inspection Team. It has been further stated that the Ld. Trial Court has further erred in holding that case record of 69 Patients was incomplete. It is stated that as per Rule 9 of Pre-conception & Pre-natal Diagnostic Techniques (Prohibition of Sex Selection) Act, 1994, Petitioner was required to maintain record of only those women upon whom Pre-natal Diagnostic test are performed but Trial Court failed to consider this.
7 It is further submitted that Ld. Trial Court has ignored the fact that several patients refused to undergo Ultrasound even after giving their consent on Form 'F' due to their inability to pay the charges, because of this reason, Forms were not filled completely. It CR Nos.12/15, 13/15 & 24/15 Page5 of 17 has been stated that Trial Court further erred in holding that Petitioner did not furnish the name of Dr. Manish Gupta, Petitioner No. 3 (hereinafter mentioned as P-3) to the appropriate Authority. It is stated that it was through him, Authorities came to know about Dr. Manish Gupta.
8 The Ld. Counsel for P-2 filed written submissions on 14.10.2015 and relied upon following judgments in support of his contentions :- Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Crl. Rev. Petition No. 683/2012 date of decision 26.05.2014 in case titled as Aniruddha Bahal Vs. CBI ; Institute of Chartered Accountants of India Vs. Vimal Kumar Surana & Anr. [2011)1 SCC 534] ; Jeewan Kumar Raut & Anr. Vs. CBI [(2009) 7 SCC 526] ; Jamiruddin Ansari Vs. CBI [(2009) 6 SCC 316] ; Moosakoya Vs. State of Kerala [2008 Cri.L.J. 2388] ; Hon'ble High Court of Punjab & Haryana in CWP No. 21565/2011 date of decision 18.09.2013 in case titled as Help Welfare Group Society Vs. The State of Haryana & Ors. & CWP No. 20635/2008 date of decision 10.02.2010 in case titled as Dr. Preetinder Kaur & Ors. Vs. The state of Punjab & Ors.
9 Shri Amardeep Singh, Ld. Counsel for Petitioner No. 3 has submitted that Rule 4 of Pre-conception & Pre-natal Diagnostic Techniques (Prohibition of Sex Selection) Act, 1994 talks about registration of Genetic Counselling Centre/Genetic Laboratory or Genetic Clinic and Rule No. 9 of Pre-conception & Pre-natal Diagnostic Techniques (Prohibition of Sex Selection) Act, 1994 envisage primarily regarding responsibility of the Centre for maintaining and preserving record. It is stated that this was the responsibility of Sant Hospital or its alleged owner i.e. P-2. It is stated that no role worth the name has been assigned to the Petitioner in the CR Nos.12/15, 13/15 & 24/15 Page6 of 17 complaint. It is stated that Ld. Trial Court has observed that P-2 has failed to furnish information regarding the other two Radiologists and hence P-3 cannot be held responsible for this omission. It is stated that the evidence produced before the Trial Court only gave some suspicion which is not sufficient for framing charge against him. In support of his submissions, Ld. Counsel has relied upon AIR 2008 SC 2991.
10 Though not averred in the body of their Petitions, one legal point argued by Ld. Counsel for the Petitioners primarily by Ld. Counsel for P-2 is that the constitution of the Appropriate Authority which conducted this inspection in the Sant Hospital of P-2, was not proper as per the requirement of Section 17 of PC & PNDT Act. It is stated that it was vide Notification dated 12.10.2001, the Central Government has constituted one Member Appropriate Authority for different Districts of NCT of Delhi. It is stated that Section 17 of Act was amended w.e.f. 14.02.2003 & as per this amendment the Appropriate Authority has been made a three Member Authority. It is stated that after the amendment of the Act, the Notification dated 12.10.2001 vide which only one Appropriate Authority was constituted for part of the city got redundant. It is stated that since the inspection dated 31.07.2006 on the basis of which this complaint was made was done by Appropriate Authority illegally constituted as per the Provisions of Act, the very inspection gets void ab-initio. In support of his submissions, Ld. Counsel has relied upon observations made by Hon'ble High Court of Punjab & Haryana in C.W.P. 18698 of 2009 date of decision 25.11.2011 in case titled as Dr. Jatinder Gambhir Vs. State Appellate Authority & Ors., CWP No. 21565/2011 date of decision 18.09.2013 in case titled as Help Welfare Group Society Vs. The State of Haryana & Ors. & Writ CR Nos.12/15, 13/15 & 24/15 Page7 of 17 Petition No. 6557/2012 date of decision 11.09.2012 Dr. Mrs. Sukhada Vs. the State of Maharashtra [2012(6) ALLMR778].
11 On the other hand, Ld. APP has submitted that this inspection was conducted by one Member Appropriate Authority constituted as per Notification of Central Government dated 12.10.2001. It is stated that vide amendment in the Act in 2003 three Member Appropriate Authority was constituted only for the whole of the Union territory or for the State but for the part of the State or UT, no change was made by this amendment . It is stated that as per Section 28 of the Act, Court can take cognizance of the offence on a complaint made by the Appropriate Authority concerned or any Officer authorized on this behalf by the Appropriate Authority. It is stated that as per Section 30 of the Act, Appropriate Authority itself for any Officer authorized by it can enter in Genetic Counselling Centre/Laboratory/Clinic to examine any record etc. Ld. APP has submitted that at the stage of framing of the Charge, Court is only required to see existence of prima-facie case. It is stated that it is the case of clear violation of Rule 4 & 9 of Pre-conception & Pre-natal Diagnostic Techniques (Prohibition of Sex Selection) Act, 1994 provided under the Act, which is punishable U/s. 23, for which Petitioner have been charged.
12 It is admitted by both the parties that by amendment in 2003, only Section 17 (3) (a) was amended and keeping the remaining portion of Section 17 intact. The Ld. Counsel for respondent has filed copy of Gazette of India dated 14.03.2003, which also supports the stand taken by both the parties. Section 17 runs as follows: -
(1) The Central Government shall appoint, by notification in the Official Gazette, one or more Appropriate Authorities for each of the CR Nos.12/15, 13/15 & 24/15 Page8 of 17 Union Territories for the purposes of this Act.
(2) The State Government shall appoint, by notification in the Official Gazette, one or more Appropriate Authorities for the whole or part of the State for the purposes of this Act having regard to the intensity of the problem of pre-natal sex determination leading to female foeticide.
(3) The Officers appointed as Appropriate Authorities under sub-
section (1) or (2) shall be -
(a) when appointed for the whole of the State or the Union Territory, consisting of the following three members: -
(i) an Officer of or above the rank of the Joint Director of Health and Family Welfare - Chairperson;
(ii) an eminent woman representing women's organization; and
(iii) an Officer of Law Department of the State or the Union Territory concerned:
Provided that it shall be the duty of the State or the Union territory concerned to constitute multi-member State or Union Territory level Appropriate Authority within three months of the coming into force of the Pre-natal Diagnostic Techniques (Regulation and Prevention of Misuse) Amendment Act, 2002 :
Provided further any vacancy occurring therein shall be filled within three months of the occurrence;
(b) when appointed for any part of the State or the Union territory, of such other rank as the State Government or the Central Government, as the case may be, may deem fit.
13 The Notification dated 12.10.2001 of Government of India CR Nos.12/15, 13/15 & 24/15 Page9 of 17 is under Section 17(1) appointing one Member Appropriate Authority at District level in National Capital Territory of Delhi. Section 17(1) authorized the Central Government to appoint one or more Appropriate Authorities for each of the Union Territories by Notification in the Official Gazette for the purpose of this Act. Section 17(2) authorized State Government to appoint one or more Appropriate Authorities for the whole or part of the State for the purpose of this Act, having regard to the intensity of the problem of Pre-natal examination leading to female foeticide. Section 17(3) further distinguishes between the Appropriate Authority appointed for the whole of the State or part of the State. As it appears from the language, Section 17(3) (a) provides three Member Appropriate Authority (the designation of the Members mentioned when appointed for the whole of the State or U.T.). Section 17(3) (b) provides that when appointing for part of the State or U.T., the Officer appointed as Appropriate Authority should be of such other rank as the State Government or the Central Government may deem fit.
14 To support his submissions, Ld. Counsel for P-2 has relied upon the observation of the Court in Dr. Dr. Mrs. Sukhada (Supra). In this case, order passed by Appropriate Authority for suspension of registration and sealing of hospital of appellant was under challenge before the Court. The said order has been issued by the Medical Officer of the Municipal Corporation. The Court observed that on reading the Notification relied upon by the Respondent/State, it no where transpires that Medical Officers of the Municipal Corporation are notified and appointed Appropriate Authority within the meaning of Section 17 of the said Act. Accordingly, ratio of this judgment is not applicable to the facts of the case.
15 In Dr. Jitender Gambhir (Supra), the order passed by
CR Nos.12/15, 13/15 & 24/15 Page10 of 17
the Appropriate Authority deciding an appeal against suspension of license for installation of Sonogram in the Petitioner's premises was under challenge before the Court. In this case, order of the Appellate Authority as constituted under Rule 19 of the Act was under
challenge. In the background of these facts, Court has observed that composition with just one Member was clearly bad and the Authority did not have a right to pass the order. The decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Punjab & Haryana in Health Welfare Group Society (Supra) is in a public interest litigation wherein directions were sought to the Appropriate Authority for implementation of Section 17(3) (b) and 17(5) of this Act. The Court has observed that they find it difficult to accept that if the appointment is for whole of the State, it will be three Member Committee while it is for part of State, it will be single Member Committee. The Court has observed that such a multi member body of three Members would far better serve the need rather than a Civil Surgeon alone being the Appropriate Authority.
16 Moreover, Section 30 of the Act empowers such Authority or any Officer authorized in this behalf to search and seize records etc. Section 20 provides that Court will take cognizance only when the complaint is filed by Appropriate Authority concerned or any Officer authorized in this behalf by the respective Government., as the case may be. It is further relevant to mention here that Section 17(3) (a) leaves no discretion, as the word used is 'shall' with the respective Government to appoint three Member Authority for the whole of the State or U.T., whereas in Section 17(3)(b), the word used is 'may', hence giving discretion to the Government concerned while appointing Appropriate Authority for the part of the State or U.T. 17 In view of the aforesaid reasons, I do not agree with the contentions raised by Ld. Counsel for P-2 that one member CR Nos.12/15, 13/15 & 24/15 Page11 of 17 Appropriate Authority which searched the premises of P-2 on 31.07.2006 was illegally constituted and the inspection conducted by it is void.
18 Now coming back to the facts of this case, CW-1 Dr. Aruna Jain, who was one member Appropriate Authority has deposed that she alongwith other Officers inspected Sant Hospital situated at Burari, Sant Nagar, Delhi, which was registered under PC&PNDT Act in the last week of July or first week of August, 2006. Form 'F' a mandatory requirement for Ultrasound done on pregnant ladies were thoroughly incomplete, case records were incomplete, consent forms were blank and monthly reports had not been regularly sent to the Office of CDMO. The Hospital had failed to produce Ultrasound Register, Form 'F' for the month of July, 2006 (only two Forms were shown to the Team), records of deliveries conducted by the Hospital, copy of PNDT Act. Various records which are Ex.P-1 to Ex.P-7 were seized from the Hospital. During her cross-examination, she has stated that she cannot say without checking the record whether Form 'F' from Sant Hospital were bearing signatures of Dr. Anil Grover (P-1) & Dr. M.K. Gupta (P-3) or some other Officers. Form 'F' is required to be filled for any pregnant patient who undergoes Ultrasound examination. By irregularity in sending Form 'F', she means to say that Form 'F' were not sent every month, which is required under the Act. Sant Hospital was not sending Reports in the months together for which the reminders have been sent even by her Predecessor. P-2 was not regularly not sending the Form 'F' to the CDMO's Office, which is required as per the Act. She does not remember whether P-3 was the Visiting Doctor in the Sant Hospital for conducting Ultrasound. She admitted that it is a duty of the Hospital to maintain record and send the requisite Reports to the concerned Authorities.
CR Nos.12/15, 13/15 & 24/15 Page12 of 17
She admitted that application for registration of Ultrasound
Ex.CW-1/D was in the name of Sant Hospital and P-2 is mentioned as its owner; the name of Radiologist is P-1 and it is mentioned that he is Doctor on call. She admitted that Hospital is solely responsible for depositing the Reports as per the provisions of the Act. 19 CW-2 Dr. Vineet Swaroop & CW-3 Dr. Shalley Kamra were the Member of Inspection Team and they have supported the statement made by CW-1. During his cross-examination, CW-2 has stated that duty of filling the Form 'F' is of concerned Radiologist who is performing the Ultrasound and duty of the owner of the Hospital is to inform regarding the name of the concerned Radiologist and inform about the Make or Model /Number of the Ultrasound Machine to the Office of CDMO. During her cross-examination CW-3 Shalley Kamra has stated that they did not verify the fact of the Ultrasound for sex determination from the Patient whose name & address was mentioned in Form 'F' seized by them.
20 The object of this Act is to check abuse of Pre-natal diagnostic technique for determination of the sex of the fetus as it was found that some Centres have become Centres of female foeticide.
21 Before proceeding ahead to deal with the submissions made by Ld. Counsels for the Petitioners, the various Provisions provided in the Act needs to be seen. Section 4 Pre-conception & Pre-natal Diagnostic Techniques (Prohibition of Sex Selection) Act, 1994 has prescribed the grounds for which Pre-natal Diagnostic technique shall be conducted. Section 29 Pre-conception & Pre-natal Diagnostic Techniques (Prohibition of Sex Selection) Act, 1994 prescribes that all records, Charts, Forms, Reports, consent letters and all the documents required to be maintained under this Act and CR Nos.12/15, 13/15 & 24/15 Page13 of 17 the Rules shall be preserved for a period of two years for such period as may be prescribed. Rule 4 provides registration of such Centres with the Appropriate Authority. Rule 9 provides maintenance and preservation of record. It provides to maintain the record on Form 'F' of each man & woman subject to Pre-natal diagnostic procedures /pre natal diagnostic tests. It further puts a mandatory responsibility on the Centre to send complete report in respect of Pre-conception or pregnancy related procedures conducted by them in respect of each month by 5th day of the following month to the concerned Appropriate Authority. Rule 10 provides that any person conducting the Ultrasonography /image scanning declare on pregnant women should declare on each report that he has neither conducted nor discussed the sex of foetus of the pregnant women to anybody. Rule 18 provides code of conduct to be observed by persons working at the Centres.
22 The law at the stage of framing of Charge is settled that Court is only required to see the existence of prima-facie case at this stage. Reliance is placed on Union of India Vs. Prafulla Kumar Samal, (1979) 3 SCC page 4. The principles governing the exercise of powers are summarized as follows:-
"1) That the Judge while considering the question of framing the charges under Section 227 of the Code has the undoubted power to sift and weigh the evidence for the limited purpose of finding out whether or not a prima facie case against the accused had been made out.
2) Whether the materials placed before the court disclose grave suspicion against the accused which has not been properly explained the Court will be fully justified in framing as charge and proceeding with the trial.
CR Nos.12/15, 13/15 & 24/15 Page14 of 17
3) The test to determine a prima facie case would naturally depend upon the facts of each case and it is difficult to lay down a rule of universal application. By and large, however if two views are equally possible and the Judge is satisfied that the evidence produced before him while giving rise to some suspicion but not grave suspicion against the accused, he will be fully within his right to discharge the accused.
4) That in exercising his jurisdiction under Section 227 of the Code the Judge which under the present Code is a senior and experienced Court cannot act merely as a post office or a mouthpiece of the Prosecution, but has to consider the broad probabilities of the case the total effect of the evidence and the documents produced before the Court, any basic infirmities appearing in the case and so on. This however does not mean that the Judge should make a roving enquiry into the pros and cons of the matter and weigh the evidence as if he was conducting a trial".
23 One of the main contentions raised by Ld. Counsel for P-1 & P-3 is that even if for the sake of arguments, it is assumed that both these Petitioners used to visit Sant Hospital of P-2, they were visiting Doctors and visiting for particular purpose, it was duty of the Hospital Authorities to maintain record and for this dereliction on the part of the Hospital Authorities both these Petitioners are being penalized. In support of his submissions, Ld. Counsel for P-1 has relied upon the observation made by Court in Dr. Mrs. Uma Shankarrao Rachewad (Supra) and Dr. Pratidnya Jayesh Shinde (Supra). The facts of the present case are distinguishable from the facts of these cases.
CR Nos.12/15, 13/15 & 24/15 Page15 of 17
24 Rule 18 provides code of conduct to be observed by
persons working at Genetic Counselling Centres, Genetic
Laboratories and Clinics. It provides that all the persons including the owners, employee or any other persons associated with these Centres shall ensure that no provision of the Act and these rules are violated in any manner and write his/her name and designation in full under his / her signatures.
25 One of the main allegations against P-1 & P-3 is that they did not file Form 'F' properly and even the consent form of the patient was got signed in blank condition. As per Prosecution, regarding P-1, P-2 has given intimation to the Department that he is visiting Radiologist on call to his Hospital but there was no intimation given regarding P-3 to the Office of CDMO.
26 If a pregnant female patient is subjected to ultrasound by Radiologist, there is supposed to be some history or reference for medical reasons. Perusal of various Form 'F' i.e. Ex.P-7, reveals that the column containing vital information are kept blank and only name of the patient and address his found mentioned. Most of these Forms bear name and signature of P-3 and some are bearing name and signatures of P-1. Various consent Forms recovered during inspection are also bereft of vital information, only containing name of the patient. In all consent forms, in the column of provisional diagnostic and final diagnostic, MTP (Medical termination of pregnancy) is found mentioned. The Forms 'F' are for the duration 2004 to 2006. One of the contention raised by Ld. Counsel for P-3 is that complainant has only exhibited photocopies of Form 'F' i.e 32 in number and bears Ex.P-7. It has been contended that law is settled that the best evidence should be produced before the Court and if originals of a documents is not available, secondary evidence of the CR Nos.12/15, 13/15 & 24/15 Page16 of 17 same i.e. photocopy or carbon copy, can be led with the permission of the Court but here no permission has been taken. It has been contended U/s. 246 (4) Cr.P.C. whatever evidence has been brought on record in the statement of the witnesses examined by complainant, will remain on record and the witness examined in pre- charge evidence has to be offered for cross-examination by the accused at post charge stage. Ld. APP has submitted that Section 246 (6) gives a discretion to the complainant in warrant case to examine any remaining witness after cross-examination and re- examination of the witness already examined. No doubt, except one or two, all Forms 'F' are either carbon copy or photocopy. As per ld. APP, originals of some of these Forms are lying with the Department and same will be exhibited during trial at the post charge stage. Section 246 (6) gives a discretion to the Prosecution to examine remaining witnesses in addition to the witness already examined at the pre-charge stage.
27 In view of the aforesaid reasons, I found no illegality in the impugned order of Ld. Trial Court. Thereby, all the three Petitions are found without merit and accordingly dismissed.
28 The trial court record along with copy of this order be sent back.
29 The file of the revision petitions be consigned to record room.
Announced in open court (SANJAY GARG-I)
on 15.10.2015 SPECIAL JUDGE-IV, CBI (PC Act)
TIS HAZARI COURTS,DELHI
CR Nos.12/15, 13/15 & 24/15 Page17 of 17