Bombay High Court
Dr. Dattatraya S/O Keshav Kanade vs The State Of Maharashtra on 9 May, 2014
Author: A.I.S. Cheema
Bench: A.I.S. Cheema
cwp198.13
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.198 OF 2013
Dr. Dattatraya s/o Keshav Kanade,
Age-37 years, Occu:Medical Practitioner,
R/o-Dr. Kanade Hospital & Maternity Home,
Near Bus Stand, At Post-Rahata,
Dist-Ahmednagar.
...PETITIONER
VERSUS
1) The State of Maharashtra,
2) Taluka Adhikari @
The Medical Superintendent Class-I,
Rural Hospital, Rahata,
Dist-Ahmednagar.
...RESPONDENTS
...
Shri R.S. Shinde Advocate h/f. Shri N.L.
Choudhari Advocate for Petitioner.
Shri S.V. Kurundkar, Public Prosecutor with
Shri V.D. Godbharle and Mrs. S.G. Chincholkar,
A.P.P. for Respondent Nos.1 and 2.
...
CORAM: A.I.S. CHEEMA, J.
DATE OF RESERVING JUDGMENT : 8TH APRIL,2014.
DATE OF PRONOUNCING JUDGMENT: 9TH MAY, 2014.
::: Downloaded on - 09/05/2014 23:53:20 :::
cwp198.13
2
JUDGMENT :
1. The present Petition has been filed to quash complaint filed by Appropriate Authority (hereafter referred as "complainant") under the provisions of Pre-conception and Pre-natal Diagnostic Techniques (Prohibition of Sex Selection) Act, 1994 (hereafter referred as "Act") and the Pre-conception and Pre-natal Diagnostic Techniques (Prohibition of Sex Selection) Rules, 1996 (hereafter referred as "Rules").
2. The Petition is Admitted and has been heard finally. Learned counsel for the Petitioner as well as learned Public Prosecutor for the Respondents submitted elaborate arguments. With this matter some other similar matters were also argued and Counsel for Petitioners adopted arguments of each other on law points to request for quashment of Criminal Trials against accused.
::: Downloaded on - 09/05/2014 23:53:20 :::cwp198.13 3
3. The Petitioner claims that he is running his hospital at Rahata. On 16th July, 2007 Medical Superintendent, Rural Hospital, Rahata- Respondent No.2 along with other Officers visited his hospital and carried out inspection and found technical discrepancies/faults on the part of the Petitioner. Respondent No.2 issued show cause notice on 17th July, 2007. The Petitioner replied the same on the same day. Respondent No.2 suspended registration certificate of sonography machines and sealed the machines. Respondent filed Complaint bearing R.T.C. No.153 of 2007 in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Rahata, under Section 29, Rule 9(4) of the Act alleging that there were various discrepancies in the maintenance of the Records. Thus, breach of Sections of the Act and Rules was alleged. The Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Rahata issued summons to present Petitioner.
::: Downloaded on - 09/05/2014 23:53:20 :::cwp198.13 4 . The Petitioner filed Criminal Revision No.17 of 2008 before District and Sessions Judge, Kopargaon, which came to be rejected and thus the present Petition has been filed, claiming that the complaint concerned before the Judicial Magistrate should be quashed.
. The Petitioner claims that only irregularities and no illegalities are there and no offence has been made out.
4. On behalf of the Respondents, affidavit-
in-reply has been filed by the Medical Superintendent, Rural Hospital, Rahata. In affidavit-in-reply the claims made by the Petitioner are denied. According to the Respondent, there are irregularities in record keeping as per revised Form F. As per the Respondents, Petitioner has not completely filled up Form F and only half portion of the Form is filled up. Second part of the Form F is filled up, ::: Downloaded on - 09/05/2014 23:53:20 ::: cwp198.13 5 which is also incomplete. The affidavit claims that in the forms concerned, the Petitioner has not mentioned how many issues are there i.e. male/female. It is further the affidavit that in the declaration given by doctor, authorized signatory was radiologist Dr. Yogendra Sachdeo, but the declaration is signed by the present Petitioner. For such reasons, the Respondents want the Petition to be rejected.
5. Learned counsel for the Petitioner referred to copy of the complaint filed in the trial Court and the defects or deficiencies pointed out in the same. According to the learned counsel, Defect Nos.1 and 5 relate to non compliance with Form F. Defect No.1 mentions that F Form's columns 1 to 18 do not appear to have been filled in. Defect No.5 mentions that it does not appear that specialist doctor who did the sonography, filled the form F. The counsel submitted that in February, 2003 State Appropriate ::: Downloaded on - 09/05/2014 23:53:20 ::: cwp198.13 6 Authority and Additional Director of Health Services had issued guidelines to the District Appropriate Authorities regarding implementation of the Act. Referring to the same, according to the counsel, the present defects pointed out, need to be ignored.
. It is argued, Defect No.3 mentions that notice giving information to public to the effect that disclosure of sex of foetus is prohibited under law, was necessary to be displayed. The same had not been displayed in the room where sonography is done. The counsel argued that the Act and Rules do not say that notice should be displayed in the sonography room. He submitted that board in this regard was put in the O.P.D. and on gate of the hospital. (the counsel was, however, unable to show material in support of this submission at the stage of arguments.) . Counsel referred to Defect No.4 which ::: Downloaded on - 09/05/2014 23:53:20 ::: cwp198.13 7 stated that between 8th July, 2007 to 15th July, 2007 in Form F in portion of declaration, as Radiologist name of visiting doctor, Dr. Sachdeo has been put, however the form was signed by Dr. Kanade. With regard to this Defect, the argument was that even the owner of the hospital can sign the form.
.
Regarding Defect No.5 that the doctor who did sonography, did not fill F Form, the argument was that the owner can sign the same. The Defect No.6 mentions that in the concerned form, information regarding living children was not filled up. With regard to this, learned counsel submitted that merely by not filling such information, it would not be a criminal act.
. In the complaint, Defect No.7 is that one copy of each of the Act and the Rules was not available in the O.P.D. With regard to this Defect, the learned counsel for Petitioner argued ::: Downloaded on - 09/05/2014 23:53:20 ::: cwp198.13 8 that such copy was available but it was in the table of the doctor. (the counsel was unable to support the argument that such copy was indeed available.) . Regarding getting ultra sound sonography machine released, the counsel submitted that the Petitioner had already filed Criminal Writ Petition No.490 of 2009 and obtained relief.
6. After referring to the various provisions of the Act, reference was made to the case of Dr. Pratidnya Jayesh Shinde and another vs. Dr. Rameshchandra Kisan Savkare and another, reported in 2014 ALL M.R.(Cri) 681. In that matter, proceeding was quashed as the complaint was silent as to how responsibility of maintaining records was cast upon the concerned Applicants as were before the Court. Reliance is also placed on the Judgment in the case of Dr. Alka w/o Anant Gite and another vs. The State of Maharashtra in ::: Downloaded on - 09/05/2014 23:53:20 ::: cwp198.13 9 Criminal Application No.3500 of 2011 decided on 11th May, 2012. Referring to that Judgment, submission is that inadvertently if a column is blank, it cannot attract offence. Relying on the case of "Dr. Mrs. Uma Shankar Rachewad vs. Appropriate Authority"- Criminal Writ Petition No. 407 of 2011, decided on 19th April, 2012, it is submitted that writing of "N.A." i.e. Non-
Applicable does not amount to incomplete filling of Form. Judgment in the case of Dr. Ravindra s/o Shivappa Karmudi vs. The State of Maharashtra in Criminal Application No.757 of 2012 decided on 3rd May, 2012, was referred to submit that F Form was incomplete does not mean criminal offence is there. Reliance was also placed on the Judgment in the matter of Dr. Tushar Rangrao Patil vs. Appropriate Authority in Criminal Writ Petition No.406 of 2011 decided on 2nd May, 2012. These are matters decided by learned Single Judge of this Court. The submission is that in those matters ::: Downloaded on - 09/05/2014 23:53:20 ::: cwp198.13 10 also although there were defects in maintaining of Form F, the Petitioners therein were given benefit and the concerned cases against those Petitioners were quashed. Thus it is argued that the Petition needs to be allowed.
7. The learned Public Prosecutor referred to the affidavit in reply, to submit that the F Forms filled, were incomplete and that important information as to how many issues are there, male or female, was not filled in and that the doctor signing the declaration form was not the doctor who was authorized signatory or the radiologist.
The Public Prosecutor referred to the copies of documents regarding the records maintained, to show various defects regarding which the complaint has been filed. It was pointed out that there are forms having signatures of patients without requisite information being filled in or incomplete information. As per the Public Prosecutor, the letter issued by State Appropriate ::: Downloaded on - 09/05/2014 23:53:20 ::: cwp198.13 11 Authority, to the Appropriate Authorities in Districts, which is in the nature of guidance, does not substitute requirements of the Act and the Rules. There was non compliance of prominently displaying the board and keeping copy of the Act and Rules available, and this would be a matter of evidence at the time of trial. According to the Public Prosecutor, the defects pointed out in the complaint are supported by documents and clear-cut case is made out regarding violation of the provisions of the Act and Rules. Not filling information regarding number of living children, is deficiency in keeping of records, attracting penal provisions of the Act.
8. To appreciate the controversy, it would be appropriate to keep in view certain provisions of the Act.
. Portions relevant from Section 4 of the Act are as under:-
::: Downloaded on - 09/05/2014 23:53:20 :::cwp198.13 12 "4. Regulation of pre-natal diagnostic techniques.- On and from the commencement of this Act,-
(1) no place including a registered Genetic Counselling Centre or Genetic Laboratory or Genetic Clinic shall be used or caused to be used by any person for conducting pre-
natal diagnostic techniques except for the purposes specified in clause (2) and after satisfying any of the conditions specified in clause (3);
(2) no pre-natal diagnostic techniques shall be conducted except for the purposes of detection of any of the following abnormalities, namely:-
(i) ........ (iv).........
(ii)........ (v)..........
(iii)....... (vi).........
(3) no prenatal diagnostic techniques shall be used or conducted unless the person ::: Downloaded on - 09/05/2014 23:53:20 ::: cwp198.13 13 qualified to do so is satisfied for reasons to be recorded in writing that any of the following conditions are fulfilled, namely:-
(i) ........ (ii).........
(iii) ........ (iv).........
(v) ........
Provided that the person conducting ultra sonography on a pregnant woman shall keep complete record thereof in the clinic in such manner, as may be prescribed, and any deficiency or inaccuracy found therein shall amount to contravention of provisions of section 5 or section 6 unless contrary is proved by the person conducting such ultra sonography;
(4).............
(5)............."
. With reference to the above proviso as regards keeping of records, relevant portions of Rule 9 are as under:-
::: Downloaded on - 09/05/2014 23:53:20 :::cwp198.13 14
"9. Maintenance and preservation of records.- (1) Every Genetic Counselling Centre, Genetic Laboratory, Genetic Clinic including a Mobile Genetic Clinic, Ultrasound Clinic and Imaging Centres shall maintain a register showing, in serial order, the names and addresses of the men or women given genetic counselling, subjected to pre-natal diagnostic procedures or pre-natal diagnostic tests, the names of their spouse or father and the date on which they first reported for such counselling, procedure or test.
(2) The record to be maintained by every Genetic Counselling Centre, in respect of each woman counselled shall be as specified in Form D. (3) The record to be maintained by every Genetic Laboratory, in respect of each man or woman subjected to any pre-natal diagnostic procedure/technique/test shall be as ::: Downloaded on - 09/05/2014 23:53:20 ::: cwp198.13 15 specified in Form E, (4) The record to be maintained by every Genetic Clinic including a Mobile Genetic Clinic, in respect of each man or woman subjected to any pre-natal diagnostic procedure/ technique/test, shall be as specified in Form F. (5)..........
(6)..........
(7)..........
(8).........."
. In Rule 10 conditions for conducting pre-
natal diagnostic procedures are prescribed, which includes obtaining written consent as prescribed in Form G in a language the person undergoing the procedure understands.
. Section 20 of the Act deals with cancellation or suspension of the registration.
Sub-section (1) and (2) deal with giving of notice and reasonable opportunity before suspending or ::: Downloaded on - 09/05/2014 23:53:20 ::: cwp198.13 16 cancelling registration of the Genetic Counselling Centre, Genetic Laboratory or Genetic Clinic. Sub-
section (3) of Section 20 reads as under:-
"(3) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-sections (1) and (2), if the Appropriate Authority is of the opinion that it is necessary or expedient so to do in the public interest, it may, for reasons to be recorded in writing, suspend the registration of any Genetic Counselling Centre, Genetic Laboratory or Genetic Clinic without issuing any such notice referred to in sub-section (1)."
9. The learned Public Prosecutor submitted that the cases under the Act are treated as warrant cases instituted otherwise than on police report. It has been argued that major or minor violation in the keeping of records is immaterial.
::: Downloaded on - 09/05/2014 23:53:20 :::cwp198.13 17
10. Scheme of the Act and Rules need to be appreciated:
(A). Proviso below Section 4(3) of the Act shows that persons conducting ultra sonography on a pregnant woman are required to keep complete record thereof in the clinic in such manner as may be prescribed and any deficiency or inaccuracy found therein shall amount to contravention of provisions of Section 5 or Section 6 of the Act unless contrary is proved by the person conducting such ultra sonography. Section 5 of the Act relates to taking written consent of pregnant woman and prohibition of communicating the sex of foetus. Section 6 of the Act prohibits determination of sex by Genetic Counselling Centre or Genetic Laboratory or Genetic Clinic or any person. Rule 9 relates to maintenance and preservation of records and this inter-alia includes keeping record in respect of each man or woman subjected to any pre-natal diagnostic ::: Downloaded on - 09/05/2014 23:53:20 ::: cwp198.13 18 procedure/technique/test in specified Form F. Although sub-rule (4) of Rule 9 refers to Genetic Clinic, definition of "Genetic Clinic" as in Section 2(d) of the Act specifies that Genetic Clinic means a clinic, institute, hospital, nursing home or any place, by whatever name called, which is used for conducting pre-natal diagnostic procedures. Thus, all such places are covered where pre-natal diagnostic procedures are being conducted and all persons doing the same are also covered, and as per the statute, maintaining of proper records and Form F as prescribed, is mandatory.
(B). Section 5 requires taking written consent of the pregnant woman and prohibits communication of sex of foetus. In this regard Form G is prescribed in Rule 10. (According to the Public Prosecutor Section 5(2) of the Act prohibits communicating of sex of the foetus by words, signs, or in any other manner and thus according ::: Downloaded on - 09/05/2014 23:53:20 ::: cwp198.13 19 to him displaying of even photographs of Gods and Goddess where pre-natal diagnostic procedures are conducted, is not permissible, as the same gives opportunity to convey sex of foetus by signs or in other manners.) (C). Section 23 of the Act shows that medical geneticist, gynecologist, 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 the Act or rules made thereunder is also liable for punishment. Under Section 23 of the Act, the owner of Centre, Laboratory, Clinic who takes professional services to run the Centre where pre-natal diagnostic techniques are conducted, is also liable, if any provisions of ::: Downloaded on - 09/05/2014 23:53:20 ::: cwp198.13 20 the Act or Rules are contravened.
(D). Under Section 26 of the Act, with reference to companies, the word "company" means any body corporate and includes a firm and other association of individuals and such persons are also liable, when offences by Companies are there.
(E).
In view of Section 3(3) of the Act, pre-
natal diagnostic techniques can be conducted only at place registered and any change has to be reported. Under Rule 13 every change of employee, place, address and equipment installed has to be informed to the Appropriate Authority.
11. I have heard learned counsel for the Petitioner as well as learned Public Prosecutor.
Record has been perused. The criminal case filed by the Appropriate Authority in the lower Court supported by documents shows the deficiencies and inaccuracies found and necessary particulars are ::: Downloaded on - 09/05/2014 23:53:20 ::: cwp198.13 21 there. Counsel for Petitioner has strenuously tried to demonstrate that either the defects alleged are not there or even if they are there, they are insignificant. The Petitioner is trying to give reasons as to how the Form was maintained and if there are lacunae, what is the explanation.
12. The Full Bench of High Court of Gujarat in Suo Motu vs. State of Gujarat, reported in 2009 CRI.L.J. 721, considered effects of non maintaining records properly under this Act. It was held that criminal consequences are attracted and there can also be suspension of the registration. Para 8 of the Judgment reads as under:-
"8. It needs to be noted that improper maintenance of the record has also consequences other than prosecution for deemed violation of section 5 or
6. Section 20 of the Act provides for cancellation or suspension of ::: Downloaded on - 09/05/2014 23:53:20 ::: cwp198.13 22 registration of Genetic Counselling Centre, Genetic Laboratory or Genetic Clinic in case of breach of the provisions of the Act or the Rules. Therefore, inaccuracy or deficiency in maintaining the prescribed record shall also amount to violation of the prohibition imposed by section 6 against the Genetic Councelling Centre, Genetic Laboratory or Genetic Clinic and expose such clinic to proceedings under section 20 of the Act. Where, by virtue of the deeming provisions of the proviso to sub-
section (3) of section 4, contravention of the provisions of section 5 or 6 is legally presumed
and actions are proposed to be taken under section 20, the person conducting ultrasonography on a pregnant woman shall also have to be given an opportunity to prove that the provisions of section 5 or 6 were not violated by him in conducting the procedure"
.....................................
::: Downloaded on - 09/05/2014 23:53:20 ::: cwp198.13 23 "It would also be improper and premature to expect or allow the
person accused of inaccuracy or deficiency in maintenance of the relevant record to show or prove that provisions of section 5 or 6 were not violated by him, before the deficiency or inaccuracy were established in court by the prosecuting agency or before the authority concerned in other proceedings."
. In that Judgment of Full Bench, mentioned above, opinion (iv) recorded in Para 9, is as under:-
"(iv). Deficiency or inaccuracy in filling Form F prescribed under Rule 9 of the Rules made under the PNDT Act, being a deficiency or inaccuracy in keeping record in the prescribed manner, it is not a procedural lapse but an independent offence amounting to contravention of the provisions of section 5 or 6 of the PNDT Act and has ::: Downloaded on - 09/05/2014 23:53:20 ::: cwp198.13 24 to be treated and tried accordingly.
It does not, however, mean that each inaccuracy or deficiency in maintaining the requisite record may be as serious as violation of the provisions of section 5 or 6 of the Act and the Court would be justified, while imposing punishment upon conviction, in taking a lenient view in cases of only technical, formal or insignificant lapses in filling up the forms. For example, not maintaining the record of conducting ultrasonography on a pregnant woman at all or filling up incorrect particulars may be taken in all seriousness as if the provisions of section 5 or 6 were violated, but incomplete details of the full name and address of the pregnant woman may be treated leniently if her identity and address were otherwise mentioned in a manner sufficient to identify and trace her."
13. It is clear that it would be premature to accept explanations regarding inaccuracies or ::: Downloaded on - 09/05/2014 23:53:20 ::: cwp198.13 25 deficiencies before trial takes place. It is further apparent that if the lapse is insignificant, the benefit would go to the accused at the time of sentence, but claiming that deficiencies in Form F and keeping Records are insignificant, cannot be reason to claim that no offence is there and to discharge the accused.
14 (A).
Reference needs to be made to the case of Sujit Govind Dange (Dr.) and another vs. State of Maharashtra and others, reported in 2013(2) Bom.C.R. 351. In that matter Division Bench of this Court held that any deficiencies noticed in maintaining the record, in specially Form F, attracts the provisions of the Act.
(B). The Division Bench of this Court considered the objects and reasons of the Act and as to how the Act was necessary to control menace of female foeticide. In Para 29, while considering Section 4 of the Act, it was observed with ::: Downloaded on - 09/05/2014 23:53:20 ::: cwp198.13 26 reference to Rule 9, as under:-
"29. Considering the object of the Act, the maintenance and preservation of records as per rule 9 is an important statutory duty cast upon the person (Doctor) conducting ultra sonography on a pregnant woman and, therefore, any deficiency or inaccuracy found in this regard amounts to contravention of the provisions of section 5 or 6 of the Act unless contrary is proved by the person (Doctor) conducting such ultra sonography".
(C). In that matter also arguments were raised that the discrepancies were minor in nature or that they were only inaccuracies. The Hon'ble Division Bench in Para 30 held as under:-.
"30. It is important to note that in order to prohibit abuse of these prenatal diagnostic techniques, the Legislature has incorporated a proviso ::: Downloaded on - 09/05/2014 23:53:20 ::: cwp198.13 27 to sub-section (3) of section 4 of the Act which stipulates that any deficiency or inaccuracy found in maintaining and preserving complete record in a manner prescribed by the person conducting ultrasonography on a pregnant woman shall amount to contravention of the provisions of section 5 or section 6 unless contrary is proved by the person conducting such ultrasonography. This provision, in our view, is completely consistent with the objectives of the Act and has been introduced to prohibit abuse of the pre-natal diagnostic techniques by the person conducting ultra sonography on a pregnant woman".
......................................
"The contention of the petitioner that the discrepancy was of a minor nature is wholly misconceived. Neither the provisions of the Act nor that of the Rules provide or define minor or major deficiencies or inaccuracies. On the other hand, it requires strict compliance of every provision of the ::: Downloaded on - 09/05/2014 23:53:20 ::: cwp198.13 28 Act and the Rules. Considering the objectives to be achieved, strict punishment is provided for violating the conditions prescribed under the Act. The contentions canvassed by the petitioner, in this regard, therefore, are devoid of substance and are rejected".
(D). With reference to Sub-section (3) of Section 20 of the Act, the Hon'ble Division Bench recorded in Para 39, as under:-
"The observations made by the Division Bench in (Malpani Infertility Clinic Pvt. Ltd. & others Vs. Appropriate Authority PNDT Act & others), reported in 2005(1) Bom.C.R. 595 (supra) clearly show that the Division Bench in view of the fact that prosecution was launched against the petitioner in the said case, it was held to be sufficient reason for the authorities to take recourse to sub- section (3) of Section 20 of the ::: Downloaded on - 09/05/2014 23:53:20 ::: cwp198.13 29 Act. In the instant case, the Petitioner having admitted the existence of deficiency and inaccuracy in keeping and maintaining the record including form 'F' has resulted in contravention of the provisions contained in section 5 or 6 and, therefore, would amount to an offence and can be treated to be sufficient reason for the Appropriate Authority to invoke the provisions of sub-section (3) of section 20 of the Act, in the larger public interest and, therefore, the action of suspension of registration of the Genetic Centre of the petitioner is sustainable in law till such time contrary is proved by the petitioner."
(E). Para 38 of the Judgment of the Division Bench recorded that:-
"38. Rule 9(1) requires that every Genetic Counselling Centre, Genetic ::: Downloaded on - 09/05/2014 23:53:20 ::: cwp198.13 30 laboratory, Genetic Clinic, etc., shall maintain a register showing, in serial order, the names and addresses of the men or women given genetic counselling, subjected to pre-natal diagnostic procedure or pre-natal diagnostic tests, the names of their spouse or father and the date on which they first reported for such counselling, procedure or test. Sub-
rule (4) of rule 9 stipulates the record to be maintained by every Genetic Clinic, in respect of each man or woman subjected to any pre-natal diagnostic procedure/technique/test, shall be as specified in Form 'F'. In the instant case, the petitioner has admitted existence of discrepancies, irregularities in maintenance of Form 'F' which has undoubtedly resulted in causing deficiency or inaccuracy in maintaining and preserving the record and, therefore, as per proviso to sub-
section (3) of section 4 of the Act, resulted in contravention the provisions of section 5 or 6 of the Act and would amount to an offence, ::: Downloaded on - 09/05/2014 23:53:20 ::: cwp198.13 31 unless contrary is proved by the petitioner who has conducted such ultrasonography test."
15. Keeping in view the observations of the Hon'ble Division Bench in the case of "Sujit Govind Dange", mentioned above, there remains no doubt that deficiencies or inaccuracies in the maintaining of record and Form F attract the provisions of Section 5 or 6 of the Act. I am bound by the Judgment of the Division Bench of this Court.
16. When the complaint has been filed under this Act showing the inaccuracies and deficiencies in the keeping of record, and complainant has documents to support disclosing sufficient grounds to proceed in the light of provisions of this Act and Rules, this Court cannot, before holding of the trial, sit in Judgment whether or not the Record has been kept properly; or Form F concerned ::: Downloaded on - 09/05/2014 23:53:20 ::: cwp198.13 32 has been properly filled or improperly filled; or whether or not the deficiencies pointed out are serious or insignificant. When complaint has been filed pointing out deficiencies or inaccuracies, before trial it would not be proper for this Court to consider the arguments that what is pointed out is no deficiency or no inaccuracy. It would be prejudging the matter. As per Proviso of Section 4(3) "any" deficiency or inaccuracy in keeping of complete record "shall amount to contravention" of Section 5 or 6 "unless contrary is proved."
Naturally, the contrary can be "proved" only at the trial. Appropriate Authority under the Act is Public Servant acting in discharge of official duty and has to act with responsibility. Keeping in view the Judgments discussed above, in such serious matters, it would be inappropriate to interfere when prima facie case is made out.
17. It cannot be said, at present, that there is no sufficient ground for proceeding. Keeping in ::: Downloaded on - 09/05/2014 23:53:20 ::: cwp198.13 33 view Aims and Objects of the Act and Scheme of the Act and Rules referred above and stringent and specific provisions not tolerating any (means-
any) deficiency or inaccuracy in keeping complete records, I am unable to accept the explanatory arguments in defence or to invoke writ jurisdiction, inherent power or revisional jurisdiction to quash the proceedings at the threshold when sufficient grounds to proceed are made out in the complaint.
. For reasons mentioned, arguments in favour of State have substance, and submissions for Petitioner to quash process or Complaint need to be discarded. Defences being raised, can be considered at the time of trial. The Petition stands rejected.
[A.I.S. CHEEMA, J.] asb/MAY14 ::: Downloaded on - 09/05/2014 23:53:20 :::