Delhi District Court
State vs . Dr Suhel Duggal on 12 January, 2023
IN THE COURT OF SH. PUNEET PAHWA,
CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE, DISTRICT SOUTH,
SAKET COURTS COMPLEX, NEW DELHI.
CNR No.DLST02-010141-2021
IN THE MATTER OF:
STATE Vs. DR SUHEL DUGGAL
FIR No.519 /2016
PS Ambedkar Nagar
U/s 23 r/w Section 3, 4 & 29 of Pre-Conception & Pre-Natal Diagnostic
Techniques Act, 1994
JUDGMENT
A) Sl. No. of the case : CR No. 6474/2021
B) The date of commission of : 01.08.2016
offence
C) The name of the complainant : Dr. Rajni B. Baxla, CMO (NFSG),
Nodal Officer, PC & PNDT, South
Delhi, New Delhi.
D) The name and address of : Dr. Suhel Duggal S/o Late Sh. K.
accused S. Duggal, R/o Shop at 80, RPS
Colony, Madangir, New Delhi also
at P-7, Hauz Khas, New Delhi.
E) Offence complained of : 23 r/w Section 3, 4 & 29 of Pre-
Conception & Pre-Natal
Diagnostic Techniques Act, 1994
F) The plea of accused : Not Guilty
G) Final Order : Acquittal
H) The date of such Order : 12.01.2023
FIR No.519/2016 State Vs. Dr. Suhel Duggal Page No.1 of 10
PS Ambedkar Nagar
DATE OF INSTITUTION : 24.07.2021
DATE OF FINAL ARGUMENTS : 10.01.2023
DATE OF JUDGMENT : 12.01.2023
THE BRIEF REASONS FOR THE JUDGMENT:-
1. The present case has originated from the charge-sheet filed by the State, against accused Dr. Suhel Duggal S/o Late Sh. K. S. Duggal. As per charge-sheet, on or before 01.08.2016, accused shifted his clinic having two ultrasound machines i.e. (1) Sonoline G-20, Sl. No.JC00863 and (2) Dawei DW3102A, Sl No.421412121 from 80, RPS Colony, Madangir to 170, RPS Colony, Madangir, New Delhi without taking any permission from competent authority and also failed to close down the ultrasound centre at 170, RPS Colony, Madangir despite notice dated 19.07.2016. Accused also failed to maintain the records as well as cash receipts book and providing contact details of appropriate authority who can be contacted in case of complaint/ query regarding PC & PNDT and thereby accused had committed the offence punishable under Section 23 r/w Section 3, 4 and 29 of Pre- Conception & Pre-Natal Diagnostic Techniques Act, 1994.
2. On the basis of the charge-sheet, court took cognizance of the offence and the accused appeared on 29.03.2022, thereafter, he was supplied with copy of charge-sheet and documents in compliance of Section 207 Cr.P.C. Court framed notice against the accused for offence punishable under Section 23 r/w Section 3, 4 and 29 of Pre-Conception & Pre-Natal Diagnostic Techniques Act, 1994. Charge was read over and explained to FIR No.519/2016 State Vs. Dr. Suhel Duggal Page No.2 of 10 PS Ambedkar Nagar him to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
3. During trial, accused admitted under Section 294 Cr.P.C. the registration of FIR No.519/2016, PS Ambedkar Nagar. Also, the State examined five witnesses viz. PW-1 Dr. Rajni Bela Baxla, PW-2 Sh. Ravinder Kumar, PW-3 Mohd. Noor Alam, PW-4 Inspector Vinay Kumar and PW-5 SI Suresh Kumar.
4. During examination in chief, PW-1 Dr. Rajni Bela Baxla deposed that in the year 2016, she was posted as Nodal Officer PC&PNDT, South District. Dr. Suhel Duggal had registered ultra sound clinic at 80 RPS, Madangir and he had applied for temporary shifting of machines to 170 RPS Madangir. He was informed on 30.06.2016 in writing that an inspection of the new premises (i.e. 170 RPS Madangir) would be conducted by the inspection team and if everything is found in order as per the PC & PNDT Act then, permission would be granted for shifting of the ultra sound centre alongwith the ultra sound machines to the new centre. An inspection was conducted on 15.07.2016 and it was found that Dr. Duggal had already shifted to the new address without permission from the District appropriate authority. On inspection on the same day, some discrepancies were also found in the record keeping of the clinic as per the PC&PNDT Act. A show cause notice was issued on 19.07.2017 to stop conducting ultra sound at the above said centre and also to close down the said centre.
5. PW-1 Dr. Rajni Bela Baxla further deposed that a surprise inspection was conducted on 01.08.2016 and it was found that Dr. Duggal FIR No.519/2016 State Vs. Dr. Suhel Duggal Page No.3 of 10 PS Ambedkar Nagar had not complied with the directions issued via the show cause notice issued to him on 19.07.2016 and was continuing to do ultra sound at the new centre (170 RPS Madangir) and discrepancies in record keeping were also noted during the inspection. The discrepancies found in the record were like ANC register was not updated till the date of inspection, Form-F were found to be incomplete, Master register for ultra sound was not made, cash receipts were not being maintained, the notice board under PC & PNDT Act had the address of the old centre and did not have the address and contact details of the district appropriate authority etc. Rest of the discrepancies are mentioned in the inspection report in detail. As per the PC&PNDT Act, the new centre was not permitted for functioning by the district appropriate authority and also the directions issued by the district appropriate authority were not followed by Dr. Suhel Duggal therefore two ultra sound machines at the above centre were sealed on 01.08.2016 and an FIR was lodged as per the directions of the District Appropriate Authority. The complaint made by her to SHO PS Ambedkar Nagar is Ex.PW1/A. Alongwith her complaint, she annexed the copy of inspection report dated 01.08.2016 and copy of seizure memo cum sealing order dated 01.08.2016. The copies are marked as Mark A and Mark B respectively.
6. PW-1 Dr. Rajni Bela Baxla further deposed that on 21.10.2019, she gave reply to the notice u/s 91 CrPC issued by SI Vinay Kumar. Her reply is Ex.PW1/B. Alongwith her reply, she had also given the certified copy of show cause notice issued to Dr. Suhel Duggal dated 19.07.2016 FIR No.519/2016 State Vs. Dr. Suhel Duggal Page No.4 of 10 PS Ambedkar Nagar which is Ex.PW1/C, the certified copy of Inspection Report which is Ex.PW1/D, the certified copy of seizure memo cum sealing order dated 01.08.2016 is Ex.PW1/E. Witness identified the accused before the Court. PW-1 was duly cross-examined by Ld. Counsel for the Defence.
7. PW-2 Sh. Ravinder Kumar, deposed that in the year 2016, he was posted as SDM Hauz Khas. On 01.08.2016, he alongwith Dr. Rajni Baxla and Mr. Noor Alam visited the premises no. 170 RPS Madangir, New Delhi and inspected the said premises. The PNDT inspection proforma was filled on which he also put his signature. The inspection proforma is Ex.PW1/D. He also prepared the seizure memo and sealing order which is Ex.PW1/E. PW-2 was duly cross-examined by Ld. Counsel for the Defence.
8. PW-3 Mohd. Noor Alam deposed that in the year 2016, he was posted as Dealing Assistant/pharmacist under PC & PNDT, South District. On 01.08.2016, he alongwith the then SDM visited to 170 RPS Madangir regarding surprise inspection. It was found that accused had shifted his ultra sound machines to the above said address without permission and conducting ultra sound at the above said premises. It was also revealed that accused was not properly maintaining the record as per the directions issued by District Appropriate Authority under PC & PNDT Act. The ultra sound machines were found at the above said premises and same were seized by the SDM alongwith some other documents - Form-F and ANC register. The inspection report is Ex.PW1/D. The seizure memo and sealing order is Ex.PW1/E. Witness had correctly identified the accused. PW-3 was duly FIR No.519/2016 State Vs. Dr. Suhel Duggal Page No.5 of 10 PS Ambedkar Nagar cross-examined by Ld. Counsel for the Defence.
9. PW-4 Inspector Vinay Kumar deposed that in September, 2019, he was posted as Sub Inspector at PS Ambedkar Nagar. The present case file was received by him from MHC(R) for further investigation of this case. On 26.09.2019 a notice u/s 91 CrPC was sent to Nodal officer, PCPNDT Begum Pur, Delhi. The same is Ex.PW4/A. Reply dated 19.10.2021 of the above said notice was received alongwith the documents mentioned alongwith the reply from the Nodal Officer. The documents Ex.PW1/C, Ex.PW1/D & Ex.PW1/E, which are on record has been identified by the witness as the documents received alongwith the reply. During the course of investigation, notice u/s 41 CrPC was also issued to the accused for his examination. The accused gave his reply in writing. The reply is now Ex.PW4/B. Alongwith the reply, accused supplied certain documents i.e. Ex.PW1/X1 to Ex.PW1/X3 are the documents which belong to the accused. These documents are on record and correctly identified by the witness. Rest of the documents were court orders. He recorded the statement of prosecution witnesses u/s 161 CrPC. He prepared charge-sheet and filed before the Court. PW-4 was duly cross-examined by Ld. Counsel for the Defence.
10. Upon conclusion of prosecution evidence, statement of accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. read with Section 281 Cr.P.C. was recorded in which all incriminating material was put to him, to which he pleaded innocence and claimed to have been falsely implicated. Accused chose not to lead any defence evidence. Final arguments of both the parties were heard at FIR No.519/2016 State Vs. Dr. Suhel Duggal Page No.6 of 10 PS Ambedkar Nagar length.
COURT OBSERVATION:
11. It is the case of prosecution that on or before 01.08.2016, accused shifted his clinic having two ultrasound machines i.e. (1) Sonoline G-20, Sl. No.JC00863 and (2) Dawei DW3102A, Sl No.421412121 from 80, RPS Colony, Madangir to 170, RPS Colony, Madangir, New Delhi without taking any permission from competent authority and also failed to close down the ultrasound centre at 170, RPS Coony, Madangir despite notice dated 19.07.2016, accused also failed to maintain the records as well as cash receipts book and providing contact details of appropriate authority who can be contacted in case of complaint/ query regarding PC & PNDT. Hence, the accused should be convicted for the offence punishable under under Section 23 r/w Section 3, 4 and 29 of Pre-Conception & Pre-Natal Diagnostic Techniques Act, 1994. Per-contra, the Ld. Counsel for the accused had submitted that the present case is false and concocted. It is argued that there is no public witness despite alleged incident occurring at a public area. There are material contradictions in the depositions of the witnesses. It is further argued that due to certain compelling circumstances, the accused had to shift his clinic from 80, RPS Colony as the building was to be repaired and it was not possible to repair the said building unless the same was vacated. The accused had already sent intimation to the concerned department and it is only when no reply was received from the department and under compelling circumstance the accused had shifted his clinic. It is further argued that the FIR No.519/2016 State Vs. Dr. Suhel Duggal Page No.7 of 10 PS Ambedkar Nagar accused is also a registered practitioner, the patients used to visit at his new clinic only for the purpose of consultation and no ultrasound was being conducted at the said premises that is why the records were incomplete.
12. The Court has carefully examined the entire material available on record including the testimony of the PWs recorded before the Court. There are only five witnesses who have been examined in the present case and all of them are police / government official witnesses. Not even a single independent witness or the eye witness has been examined in the present case. Even the complainant is a government official who had conducted the surprise inspection of the premises belonging to the accused. No local resident or the inhabitant of the locality had joined the investigation. Moreover, not even any patient has been examined / made a witness in the present case who might have supported the case of the prosecution. In fact all the witnesses admitted that they did not see any ultrasound being done at the premises in their presence nor even they asked any public person or even tried to make any public person join the investigation.
13. There is not even a iota of evidence on record to show that the accused was conducting ultrasound at the shifted premises and the only evidence which has come on record is to the effect that two ultrasound machine was found lying at the premises in question. The prosecution has failed to prove the factum of violation of any rule being committed by the accused. In fact PW-1 in her cross-examination had admitted that as per their record, the accused had complied with the oral instructions given to him.
FIR No.519/2016 State Vs. Dr. Suhel Duggal Page No.8 of 10 PS Ambedkar Nagar Since there is no iota of evidence on record to show that any ultrasound was being done at the premises in question, non-maintenance of the record to that effect also does not attract any provision of law which might have been violated by the accused.
14. In view of the above and especially in view of the failure of the IO to join any independent public witness during proceedings or investigation, so far as the conducting of ultrasound in violation of the rules by the accused is concerned, this Court has no hesitation in holding that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove its case against the accused beyond all the reasonable doubts and to bring his acts and conduct within four corners of the said provisions of law constituting any of such offence or within legal ambit which would warrant his conviction and punishment under any of the provisions of PC and PNDT Act. In view of the cardinal principle of law that prosecution must prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubts and every benefit of doubt must be given to the accused, hence, the accused is entitled to every benefit arising due to lacuna's in the prosecution case.
15. In view of the aforesaid, as neither there are any eye witnesses to the commission of the offence nor the essential ingredients of the offences to which the accused has been charged have been proved beyond reasonable doubt, I am of the opinion that the accused is entitled to be acquitted for offences under Sections 23 r/w Section 3, 4 & 29 of Pre-Conception & Pre- Natal Diagnostic Techniques Act, 1994. Accused is acquitted accordingly.
FIR No.519/2016 State Vs. Dr. Suhel Duggal Page No.9 of 10 PS Ambedkar Nagar Documents, if any, be returned after cancellation of the endorsement, if any, on property receipt and identification. Accused is directed to furnish necessary bonds under Section 437A CrPC.
16. File be consigned to Record Room, after due compliances.
(PUNEET PAHWA) CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE DISTRICT SOUTH, SAKET COURTS COMPLEX Announced in the open Court On 12th January, 2023 FIR No.519/2016 State Vs. Dr. Suhel Duggal Page No.10 of 10 PS Ambedkar Nagar