Delhi District Court
A.S. Chauhan vs The State (Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi) on 22 November, 2017
IN THE COURT OF DR. SHAHABUDDIN
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE / SPECIAL JUDGE: (NDPS)
WEST DISTRICT : TIS HAZARI COURTS : DELHI
IN THE MATTER OF :
CRIMINAL REVISION NO. 56334/16
A.S. CHAUHAN, S/O LATE SH. P.P. SINGH CHAUHAN,
R/O A2/96, PRATEEK APARTMENT, LIG FLATS,
PASCHIM VIHAR, NEW DELHI110063.
.....REVISIONIST.
VERSUS
THE STATE (GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI)
.....RESPONDENT.
DATE OF INSTITUTION OF REVISION : 06.10.2016.
DATE OF RESERVING THE ORDER : 14.11.2017.
DATE OF ANNOUNCING THE ORDER : 22.11.2017.
ORDER
(22.11.2017)
1. By this Order, I have to decide a revision petition filed by the revisionist/accused(in short revisionist) u/s 397 Cr.P.C., vide which the revisionist has challenged the impugned order dt. 25.07.2016(in short impugned order) passed by Ld. MM7, West District, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi, Ms. Saumya Chauhan (in short referred to as Ld. Trial CR No. 56334/16 A.S. Chauhan Vs. State Page No. 1 of 5 Court), vide which revisionist was ordered to face trial for the offence u/s 23 of The PreConception and PreNatal Diagnostic Techniques (Prohibition of Sex Selection) Act, 1994(in short PC & PNDT Act).
2. The notice of the petition was accepted by learned Additional Public Prosecutor on behalf of State/respondent(in short referred to as respondent).
3. The main facts pertaining to this revision petition are to the effect that revisionist was a doctor by profession and was a reputed person ; that he retired from army medical unit as a major and his permanent resident was at Delhi ; that on 10.02.2014, a team of PC & PNDT Cell of Delhi inspected his premises at A2/96, Second Floor, Prateekk Apartment, Paschim Vihar, Delhi, where revisionist was found running his ultrasound machine ; that during inquiry, it was found that there were violations of various provisions of PC & PNDT Act ; that one ultrasound machine make Sonosite was also found registered at clinic address of revisionist ; that revisionist had brought the said ultrasound machine to his house from his clinic and he had failed to inform the authority about the change of place ; that no display board u/s 17(1) of PC & PNDT Rules was found at the premises of revisionist ; that form B was also not displayed at the clinic of revisionist ; that no record as required under section 29 of the said Act and Rule 9 of the said rules was found available at the clinic ; that the team also seized the ultrasound machine which was found in working condition and that revisionist was conducting ultrasound at his residence instead of doing so at his clinic which shows that he was doing prenatal diagnostic test. Accordingly, revisionist was found as prima facie having committed offence u/s 23 of PC & PNDT Act, as CR No. 56334/16 A.S. Chauhan Vs. State Page No. 2 of 5 per impugned order of Ld. Trial Court.
4. On the basis of material on record, the Ld. Trial Court passed the impugned order which is under challenged in this petition.
5. The impugned order had been challenged by revisionist on the grounds, inter alia, that Ld. Trial Court failed to appreciate that revisionist was not found to do ultrasound upon any pregnant woman at the time of so called raid ; that Ld. Trial Court failed to appreciate the fact that there was no material available on record on the basis of which revisionist can be made liable for offence u/s 23 of PC & PNDT Act ; that Ld. Trial Court failed to appreciate the fact that there was no grave suspicion against the revisionist for the alleged offence ; that the impugned order has been passed by the Ld. Trial Court on the basis of surmises and conjectures. In the end, a prayer has been made for setting aside the impugned order of Ld. Trial Court.
6. This revision petition was opposed on behalf of respondent orally and mainly on the grounds that revisionist had prima facie violated various provisions of PC & PNDT Act, as mentioned in the impugned order ; that departmental inquiry has already been conducted against the revisionist and his registration had already been cancelled ; that at the stage of framing of charge, the prima facie view of the matter has to be taken into consideration rather than to go into roving inquiry into the pros and cons of the case by weighting the evidence/ material on record ; that no case is made out to set aside the impugned order.
7. In support of contentions of this revision petition, the Ld. Counsel for revisionist relied upon two authorities as mentioned below : CR No. 56334/16 A.S. Chauhan Vs. State Page No. 3 of 5 I. Dr. Tejinder Pal Singh Multani Vs. State of Punjab & Anr., decided by Hon'ble High Court of Punjab & Haryana on 16.09.2014 in Crl. Misc. No. M10163 of 2014.
II. Dr. Manish C. Dave Vs. State of Gujarat & Anr.(2008) 1 GLR 239(Hon'ble High Court of Gujarat).
8. I have heard both sides qua this revision petition and perused the judicial file minutely, including the above cited authorities filed on behalf of revisionist.
9. Mandate of Section 23 of PC & PNDT Act is mainly to the effect that any medical geneticist, gynaecologist, registered medical practitioner etc., who contravenes any of the provisions of this Act or rules made thereunder shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years and with fine which may extend to ten thousand rupees and on any subsequent conviction, with imprisonment which may extend to five years and with fine which may extend to fifty thousand rupees.
10. On the basis of entire material on record, this Court is also prima facie of considered opinion at this stage that revisionist herein was prima facie responsible for violating various provisions of PC & PNDT Act as mentioned in detail by Ld. Trial Court in the impugned order. In the further considered view of this Court, the revisionist was prima facie responsible to face trial in this matter for the offence u/s 23 of PC & PNDT Act. In the further considered opinion of this Court, at the time of framing of charge, there is no need of roving inquiry into the pros and cons of the case by weighting the evidence and material on record. In the further considered view of this Court, the Ld. Trial Cout has rightly relied upon the authority of Hon'ble High Court i.e., CR No. 56334/16 A.S. Chauhan Vs. State Page No. 4 of 5 Sapna Ahuja Vs. State 1999(5) AD Delhi 407 (Hon'ble High Court of Delhi) in coming to prima facie conclusion that revisionist herein was prima facie responsible for committing of offence u/s 23 of PC & PNDT Act.
11. With due respect, there can not be any dispute as regards the law laid down by Hon'ble High Courts in the above mentioned cited authorities relied upon by the revisionist. However, with due respect, in the considered opinion of this Court, such relied upon authorities are not found helpful to the revisionist at this stage so as to warrant his discharge in this case at this stage, as, to the further considered opinion of this Court, with due respect, the facts and circumstances of the instant case are quite different from the facts and circumstances of the relied upon authorities, mentioned above.
12. For the above mentioned reasons, I do not find any merits in this revision petition and it is hereby dismissed. Any interim protection order, if allowed in favour of revisionist earlier, if any, is hereby cancelled/recalled.
13. TCR be sent back forthwith to the Ld. Trial Court, alongwith copy of this order, directing the Ld. Trial Court to proceed further in this matter forthwith as per law. The revisionist is directed to appear before Ld. Trial Court on 01.12.2017.
14. The Revision petition file be consigned to record room after necessary formalities as per rules/ law.
Announced in the open Court on this 22nd November, 2017.
(DR. SHAHABUDDIN) ASJ/Special Judge(NDPS) West District/THC/DELHI.
CR No. 56334/16 A.S. Chauhan Vs. State Page No. 5 of 5