Delhi District Court
Dr. Sunil Puri vs The State on 21 September, 2024
IN THE COURT OF MS. GEETANJALI
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE (FTC)-03: SOUTH EAST
DISTRICT, SAKET COURTS: DELHI
CR Rev. No. 760/2018
CNR No. DLSE01-008754-2018
Dr. Sunil Puri
S/o Shri Shyam Lal Puri
R/o D-1B/10B, Janakpuri,
New Delhi - 110058 .........Revisionist
Versus
1. The State
2. Dr. Meera Hajela
Chief District Medical Officer cum
Appropriate Authority (South District)
Directorate of Health Services,
GNCT Delhi, Begumpur, Malviya Nagar,
New Delhi - 110017 .........Respondents
Date of filing : 25.10.2018
Date of arguments : 21.09.2024
Date of judgment : 21.09.2024
JUDGMENT
1. The present revision under Section 397 Cr.PC filed by the revisionist/accused assails the orders dated 27.09.2018 (hereinafter referred to as "the impugned order") in CC No. 613169/2016 whereby Digitally signed by GEETANJALI GEETANJALI Date:
2024.09.21 16:15:53 Cr. Rev. 760/2018 Dr. Sunil Puri Vs. State and Anr. Page No. 1 of 15 +0530 charge u/s. 23 read with section 10(1A) of Pre-Conception and Pre- Natal Diagnostic Techniques (in short 'PC and PNDT' Act) was framed against the revisionist.
2. The impugned order has been challenged on the grounds that same is contrary to law; that the Ld. Trial Court failed to appreciate the arguments advanced by revisionist and without discussing the applicability or otherwise of the same had dismissed the application mechanically; that the complainant did not make any allegation against the revisionist in her complaint and there are no evidence to support the documents in possession of the PNDT Department; that there is no role of revisionist as per the complaint and all the documents were in custody and prepared by accused no. 1 i.e. Dr. Mangla Telang or her associates; that the revisionist had no knowledge of any such document and he never attended any patient qua whom the incomplete form F or other forms are alleged; that as per the FSL report, the signatures and handwriting on the alleged forms are that of Dr. Mangla Telang; that none of the witnesses stated anything regarding the involvement of the revisionist qua incompletion of forms; that all witnesses gave contradictory statements regarding the recovery of forms and the raid etc.; that the Digitally signed by GEETANJALI GEETANJALI Date:
2024.09.21 Cr. Rev. 760/2018 Dr. Sunil Puri Vs. State and Anr. Page No. 2 of 15 16:16:15 +0530 revisionist has no liability over the acts conducted at the clinic of Dr. Mangla Telang; that CW-1 Dr. Meera Hajela made contrary statements in her examination in chief and her cross examination regarding documents recovered and raid and seizure of documents; that CW-5 Shri Gajender Upreti stated in his cross examination that no patient was called for inquiry as mentioned in Form F nor Dr. Mangla Telnag was called for such inquiry; that he further stated that he did not know how many doctors used to conduct ultrasound at her clinic; that Dr. Mangla Telang never took consent of the revisionist to prepare her own documents and same had no concern with the revisionist; that revisionist has no knowledge of additions and omission on forms done by Dr. Mangla Telang in her clinic. In view of the same, it has been prayed that the impugned order be set aside.
3. Notice of the revision petition was issued to the respondents. Respondent no. 2 filed detailed written arguments and addressed oral arguments.
4. It was argued by the ld. counsel for the respondent no. 2 that the present revision petition is an attempt to obfuscate the trial and the impugned order has been passed after a detailed consideration of the material on record and the reasoning therein for charging the Digitally signed by GEETANJALI GEETANJALI Date:
Cr. Rev. 760/2018 Dr. Sunil Puri Vs. State and Anr. Page No. 3 of 15 2024.09.21 16:16:41 +0530 petitioner is sound, cogent and succinct; that the present revision petition is a delaying tactic to prolong the trial; that the present revision petition is an attempt to channel defences meant for a trial; that the assertions and arguments made by the petitioner are matter of trial and cannot be decided in the present revision petition; that the present case does not fit the rigours of section 397 Cr.PC where there is a palpable error, non compliance with the provision of law, the decision is erroneous or where the judicial discretion is exercised arbitrarily; that both the accused have filed separate revisions and claim to black the other while claiming innocence and ignorance of their own parts; that the said tactic is not tenable when considering the specific Act involved that squarely hold each and every doctor responsible and answerable for patient's in their care; that charge is rightly framed against the petitioner / accused Dr. Sunil Puri u/s. 23 read with Rule 10(1A) of the PC and PNDT Act; that the Ld. Trial Court rightly observed that the petitioner failed to give the declaration as mandatory under the Rule 10(1A) and u/s. 23 of the PC and PNDT Act; that the gross circumvention of the provisions of the Act has severe consequences on the social fabric of the country and therefore such serious cases require consideration of all material alongwith Digitally signed by GEETANJALI GEETANJALI Date:
2024.09.21 Cr. Rev. 760/2018 Dr. Sunil Puri Vs. State and Anr. Page No. 4 of 15 16:16:48 +0530 circumstances at hand. In view of the same it has been prayed that present revision petition be dismissed.
5. The Trial Court record was summoned and perused. I have heard the counsels for revisionist and Ld. Addl.P.P. for the State as well as ld. Counsel for respondent no. 2 and perused the record.
6. The present revision petition arises out of order on charge dated 29.07.2018 passed in CC no. 613169/2016 vide which charge u/s. 23 read with Rule 10(1A) of PC and PNDT Act was framed against the accused. A complaint u/s. 28 of PC and PNDT Act was made by Appropriate authority, Directorate of Health Services against the accused persons namely Dr. Mangla Telang and Dr. Sunil Puri. It was alleged in the complaint that on 05.12.2007 Appropriate authority (South District) Delhi received a fax from CMO (PNDT), Directorate of Family Welfare, GNCT Delhi regarding complaint against Dr. Mangla Telang on the basis of BBC sting operation which revealed that Dr. Mangla Telang was involved in sex determination and offered for female foeticide; that the Appropriate authority and his team comprising of Dr. (Mrs.) Vinod Lal, Dr. S.C. Pradhan, Shri Gajendra Upreti, Shri Narender Kaushik and Shri Balwant Singh Rawat Digitally signed by GEETANJALI GEETANJALI Date:
2024.09.21 16:17:17 +0530 Cr. Rev. 760/2018 Dr. Sunil Puri Vs. State and Anr. Page No. 5 of 15 alongwith Shri Kal Singh, Director PNDT, Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, Govt. of India raided the center of the Dr. Mangla Telang at 12, Sri Fort Road, New Delhi and found it locked and accordingly sealed the same; that again on 03.01.2008, the Appropriate authority alongwith raiding team consisting of Dr. (Mrs.) Vinod Lal, Dr. S.C. Pradhan, Shri Gajendra Upreti, Shri Narender Kaushik, Shri Balwant Singh Rawat and Shri Chander Sekhar alongwith the area police raided the premises of Fertility Research and IVF Centre, 12, Sri Fort Road, New Delhi and found that the accused Dr. Mangla Telang was not properly maintaining the records whereas the same is mandatory under PNDT Act and thereby accused no. 1 has committed offence punishable u/s. 23 of the PC and PNDT Act; that the Appropriate authority seized the documents from the possession of Dr. Mangla Telang which has violated the mandatory provision of section 29 and Rule 9(4) of the PC and PNDT Act; that there is material contradiction and willful omission on the part of Dr. Mangla Telang as reflected vide the monthly reports supplied by her and the Form F seized from her center which shows that she did not maintain Form F in the proper way as required under the Act thereby she violated the provision of Rule 9(4) of the PC and PNDT Act; that Digitally signed by GEETANJALI GEETANJALI Date:
2024.09.21 Cr. Rev. 760/2018 Dr. Sunil Puri Vs. State and Anr. Page16:17:42 No. 6 of 15 +0530 perusal of the forms "F" for the period January 2006 to October 2007 reveals that said forms were incompletely filled and the declaration of the person conducting ultrasound has not been signed by the ultrasonologist as provided u/s. 4(3) the PC and PNDT thereby violated the provision of section 4(3) read with Rule 9(4) the PC and PNDT; that a book having "BOY OR GIRL - Choosing the sex of child through your diet" was seized from the possession of the accused Dr. Mangla Telang as she had advertised/displayed the same for patient and public and thereby accused committed an offence punishable u/s. 22(1 and 2) of the PC and PNDT Act; that the accused Dr. Mangla Telang and Dr. Sunil Puri, both have been caught on camera in a sting operation conducted by BBC news, disclosing the sex of foetus which is the flagrant violation of section 23 of PC and PNDT Act which warrants immediate penal action in accordance with the provisions of the PC and PNDT Act.
6.1 On the basis of said complaint cognizance was taken and the accused persons were summoned vide order dated 12.06.2008. In pre-
charge evidence, the complainant examined herself as CW-1 and has deposed almost on similar lines as stated in her complaint. She was Digitally signed by GEETANJALI GEETANJALI Date:
2024.09.21 16:18:09 +0530 Cr. Rev. 760/2018 Dr. Sunil Puri Vs. State and Anr. Page No. 7 of 15 extensively cross examined by the ld. defence counsel. Vide order dated 27.09.2018 charge u/s. 23 read with Rule 10(1A) of PC and PNDT Act was framed against the revisionist / accused Dr. Sunil Puri for his failure to give declaration as required under Rule 10(1A) of the PC and PNDT Act to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. 6.2 Before delving into the factual matrix of the case, let us see what section 23 and Rule 10(1A) of PC and PNDT Act speak about.
23.Offences and penalties. - (1) any medical geneticist, gyanaecologist, 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 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 terms which may extend to three years and within fine which may extend to ten thousand rupees and and on any subsequent conviction, with imprisonment which may extent to five years and with fine which may extend to fifty thousand rupees.
(2) xxxxxx (3) xxxxxx (4) xxxxxx"
Rule 10(1A): Any person conducting ultrasonography/image scanning on a pregnant woman shall give a declaration on each report on Digitally signed by GEETANJALI GEETANJALI Date:
2024.09.2116:18:24 +0530
Cr. Rev. 760/2018 Dr. Sunil Puri Vs. State and Anr. Page No. 8 of 15 ultrasonography / image scanning that he/she has neither detected nor disclosed the sex of foetus of the pregnant woman to any body. The pregnant woman shall before undergoing ultrasonography / image scanning declare that she does not want to know the sex of her foetus.
6.3 The impugned order has been challenged on the grounds firstly that the revisionist had no knowledge of any such document and he never attended any patient qua whom the incomplete form F or other forms are alleged. CW-1 has deposed that " on 05.12.2007, we constituted a team comprising Dr. S. C. Pradhan, CMO, PNDT, Dr. Vinod Lal, Mr. Gajender Kukreti, Mr. Chandra Sekhar, Mr. V. S. Rawat, Mr. Narender etc; that we decided to raid the premises of 12-C Srifort Road where the center was situated; that we were also accompanied Mr. Kal Singh, Director PNDT, Ministry of Health and Family Welfare; that when we reached the premises and found the same as locked so we sealed with the seal of Government of Delhi the premises and stuck a notice in the name of Dr. Mangla Telang. " CW-1 has further deposed that "Dr. Mangala contacted us on 02/03.01.2008.
Somebody came on her behalf asking us to visit the premises. On 03.01.2008, we constituted the same team and visited the same premises. We de-sealed the premises and asked Madam Telang to Digitally signed by GEETANJALI GEETANJALI Date:
2024.09.21 16:18:33 +0530 Cr. Rev. 760/2018 Dr. Sunil Puri Vs. State and Anr. Page No. 9 of 15 show the records. She showed the master register for January to December 2007 but could not produce the master register for January 2006 to December 2006. Also we found some form F which was not properly filled as mandated in PNDT Act. We also found some ultrasound reports." She has further relied on the seizure memo with respect to documents which are Mark A-5 and A-6. The document mentioned at serial no. 9 of the list of documents / record seized during inspection on the said date and time are ultrasound reports of patients including that of Smriti Gupta, Reema Chaudhary, Seema Nigam, Mini Dhawan, Kruti Arora, Vani Bhatia, Meenakshi Modi and Runa Sahu. Similarly CW-2 has deposed that "On 03.01.2008, I was posted as Dealing Assistant at PNDT Branch, Office at CDMO, Begum Pur, South District, New Delhi. On that day, when I came to the office in the morning. Dr. Meera Hajela told me that we had to go for inspection as per FAX received from Director, Family Welfare Department. I alongwith Dr. Meera Hajela, Dr. Vinod Lal. Dr. S.C. Pradhan, Mr. Gajender. Mr. Narender Kaushik. Mr. Balwant Rao and one driver, whose name I do not remember, went to Clinic of Dr. Mangala Telang. Siri Fort Road on our office Gypsy. We found the said clinic closed. Dr. Meera Hajela made a call to Dr. Mangala Digitally signed by GEETANJALI GEETANJALI Date:
Cr. Rev. 760/2018 Dr. Sunil Puri Vs. State and Anr. Page No. 10 of 15 2024.09.21 16:18:50 +0530 Telang and asked her when she was arriving at the clinic. Dr. Mangala Telang told her that she was arriving in short time. Dr. Mangala Telang opened the seal at the request of Dr. Meera Hajela and opened one room which was sealed on 05.12.2007. I was not member of the team which sealed the said room on 05.12.2007. All members of inspection team entered into the said room and searched for documents and record. The officers of inspection team seized one register, Form-F (30-35 in numbers), one book (of boy or girl diet) and handed over the same to me. Those register, Form-F and book were sealed with bandage and a seizure memo was prepared. The said Form-F is now Ex CW2/1 (colly) (24 in numbers)". CW-2 has further relied on the original documents seized vide seizure memo Ex.CW2/4. Out of the seized form F, there are some forms signed by the accused Dr. Sunil Puri under the name and signature of the person conducting ultrasonography / image scanning.
6.4 Rule 10(1A) of the Act cast a duty on the person conducting ultrasonography to give declaration on each report on ultrasonography/ image scanning that he/she has neither detected nor disclosed the sex of foetus of the pregnant woman to any body. Digitally signed by GEETANJALI
GEETANJALI Date:
2024.09.2116:18:59 +0530
Cr. Rev. 760/2018 Dr. Sunil Puri Vs. State and Anr. Page No. 11 of 15 Perusal of some of the seized form F revealed that all the columns were not filled of the declaration of doctor / person conducting ultrasonography / image scanning. In case, required information in Form F is vague, the violation of the Act would be blatant and unchecked and offence or accused cannot be detected. There is no other barometer except Form F to find out why diagnostic test / procedure was performed . Form F is required to filled by eligible and registered person / medical practitioners conducting ultrasonography who are supposed to know and comply with mandatory requirements. Inaccurate and deficient form F, therefore, raises presumption of guilt against medical practitioner conducting ultrasonography. (Reliance placed on judgment titled as Federation of Obstetrics and Gynaecological Societies of India (FOGSI) Vs. Union of India (2019) 6 SCC 283).
6.5 The fact that some of the seized forms F contained the signature of accused Dr. Sunil Puri, the ultrasonologist and those forms F were not completely filled. Form 'F' being technical in natures gives the insight into the reasons for conducting ultrasonography and incomplete Form 'F' raises the presumption of doubt against the Digitally signed by GEETANJALI GEETANJALI Date:
2024.09.21 16:19:09 +0530 Cr. Rev. 760/2018 Dr. Sunil Puri Vs. State and Anr. Page No. 12 of 15 medical practitioner. In the absence of Form 'F', Appropriate Authorities will have no tool to supervise the usage of ultrasound machine and shall not be able to regulate the use of the technique which is the object of the Act. In case any information in the form F is avoided it will ultimately result in the blatant violation of provision of section 4 and may lead to result which is prohibited u/s. 6 of the Act. Reliance placed on judgment titled as Federation of Obstetrics and Gynaecological Societies of India (FOGSI) Vs. Union of India [supra]). The above said makes out a prima facie case against the petitioner Dr. Sunil Puri. It was contended from the side of the revisionist that there are contradiction in the testimonies of the witnesses regarding the documents recovered and the raid and the seizure of documents but what exactly are the contradictions have not been specified and the fact of the matter is that the documents were seized from the Center of the accused Dr. Mangala Telang where accused Dr. Sunil Puri was working as ultrasonologist which makes out a prima facie case against the revisionist / accused Dr. Sunil Puri for his failure to give declaration as required under Rule 10(1A) of the Digitally PC and PNDT Act.
signed by GEETANJALI GEETANJALI Date:
2024.09.21 16:19:19 +0530 Cr. Rev. 760/2018 Dr. Sunil Puri Vs. State and Anr. Page No. 13 of 15 6.6 The primary consideration at the stage of framing of charge is the test of existence of a prima-facie case, and at this stage, the probative value of materials on record need not be gone into. It is well settled law that the nature of evaluation to be made by the court at the stage of framing of charge is to test the existence of prima-facie case.
The court has to form a presumptive opinion to the existence of factual ingredients constituting the offence alleged and it is not expected to go deep into probative value of the material on record and to check whether the material on record would certainly lead to conviction at the conclusion of trial. In State of Bihar v. Ramesh Singh [(1977) 4 SCC 39] considering the scope of Sections 227 and 228 of the Code, it was held that at the stage of framing of charge, it is not obligatory for the Judge to consider in any detail and weigh in a sensitive balance whether the facts, if proved, would be incompatible with the innocence of the accused or not. At that stage, the court is not to see whether there is sufficient ground for conviction of the accused or whether the trial is sure to end in his conviction, Strong suspicion, at the initial stage of framing of charge, is sufficient to frame the charge and in that event it is not open to say that there is no sufficient Digitally signed by ground for proceedings against the accused.
GEETANJALI GEETANJALI Date:
2024.09.21 16:19:31 +0530 Cr. Rev. 760/2018 Dr. Sunil Puri Vs. State and Anr. Page No. 14 of 15
7. In view of the aforesaid discussion and overall facts and circumstance of the case, I came to the conclusion that I find no infirmity or irregularity in the impugned orders and revision filed by the revisionist is hereby dismissed. The order dated 27.09.2018 stands confirmed.
8. Copy of this order be sent to the Ld. Trial court alongwith trial court record. File of the present revision be consigned to record room.
Typed to the direct dictation and Digitally announced in the open court signed by GEETANJALI on this 21st day of September, 2024 GEETANJALI Date:
2024.09.21 16:19:45 +0530 (Geetanjali) Addl. Session Judge(FTC)-03 South East District, Saket Courts, New Delhi/21.09.2024 Cr. Rev. 760/2018 Dr. Sunil Puri Vs. State and Anr. Page No. 15 of 15