Delhi District Court
Sh. Sanjay Sachdeva vs The State on 16 May, 2023
IN THE COURT OF SH. MANISH KHURANA:
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE: 04, WEST DISTRICT:
TIS HAZARI COURTS : DELHI
CNR No.DLWT01-012414-2023
Crl. Rev. No. 13/2023
Sh. Sanjay Sachdeva
S/o Sh. Somnath Sachdeva
R/o 19A, Arya Mohalla,
Nangloi, Delhi-110041
...Revisionist
Vs.
The State
(Govt. of NCT of Delhi) ...Respondent
Date of Institution of case : 06.01.2023
Date of decision : 16.05.2023
Final order : Dismissed
ORDER
1. This is the criminal revision petition filed by revisionist Sh. Sanjay Sachdeva u/s 397 Cr.P.C against the impugned order dated 04.11.2022 passed by Ld. MM-03/West/Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi whereby the revisionist has been charged for commission of offence punishable u/s 3B & u/s 25 PC & PNDT Act in case FIR No. 744/15, PS Nihal Vihar titled as State Vs. Jitender Kumar & Ors.
2. I have heard arguments on the present revision petition and perused the record.
3. As per the impugned order dated 04.11.2022, the Crl. Rev. No. 13/2023 Sanjay Sachdeva Vs. State Page No. 1 of 6 revisionist Sh. Sanjay Sachdeva has been charged for offence punishable u/s 3B & u/s 25 of PC & PNDT Act.
4. Ld. Counsel for the revisionist argued that the present revision petition has been filed broadly on the following grounds:-
a. That the order dated 04.11.2022 is bad in law, arbitrary, unjustified and contrary to the law. Hence, the impugned order is liable to be quashed and set-aside. b. Because the Ld. Trial Court has failed to appreciate that no material evidence has been placed on record by the prosecution against the revisionist to prove any kind of involvement of the revisionist.
c. Because the Ld. Court failed to consider that the revisionist is relying upon the documentary evidences which are already on record, filed at the time of argument on the point of charge, which prove his innocence and there is no involvement of revisionist in any manner in the alleged offence but instead of considering the same, the Ld. Trial Court has passed the impugned order. d. Because Ld. Trial court failed to consider the fact that the name of the revisionist was not present in the FIR and he was falsely implicated by the IO of the case only after the disclosure statement of co-accused namely Deepak.
e. Because the Ld. Trial Court has failed to consider the fact that revisionist has purchased the seized ultra sound machine legally and in authorized manner by bidding in the auction conducted by the customs for unclaimed and uncleared cargo and if any illegality has taken place, that has taken place only on the part of custom Crl. Rev. No. 13/2023 Sanjay Sachdeva Vs. State Page No. 2 of 6 officers and bidding authority and even revisionist is victim of circumstances.
f. Because Ld. Trial Court has failed to consider the fact that it is the negligence on the part of custom that they did not follow the procedure and rules u/s 48 of the Customs Act, 1962 and listed such item (seized ultra sound machine) for auction to the public for which they have to take prior permission/NOC from the government to list such item to the Auction before the public in general and Custom had not followed the rule as per the circular 49/2018 regarding sale of unclaimed good. Custom officer are equal liable for the prosecution of this case and revisionist is the victim of the circumstances. g. Because the Trial Court has failed to consider the fact that the revisionist had purchased the machine without the knowledge of the fact that the same is prohibited to sale by the customs without NOC. The revisionist was unaware if the said machine was not to be sold to a person not registered under the PC & PNDT Act as the customs had sold the machine in a similar way, without providing any information regarding the same to revisionist formally or informally. Neither was the category of the product/machine was listed along with the description of the machine that it qualifies as a medical equipment falling under the provision of the Section 3B of PC & PNDT Act. h. Because Ld. Trial court has failed to consider the fact that the revisionist has sold the said machine at loss after keeping it for 1 year and even he had no knowledge as to how to operate that machine and whether that machine was in working condition or not.
Crl. Rev. No. 13/2023 Sanjay Sachdeva Vs. State Page No. 3 of 6 i. Because Ld. Trial Court has filed to consider the fact that the revisionist had never misused the machine in his personal capacity within the time period of 01 year when it was with the revisionist.
5. On the other hand, Ld. Addl. PP for State has argued that the there is no infirmity or illegality in the order passed by Ld. MM while framing charge against the revisionist Sanjay Sachdeva.
6. I have perused the impugned order dated 04.11.2022 vide which revisionist Sanjay Sachdeva has been charged for commission of offence punishable u/s 3B and u/s 25 of PC & PNDT Act.
7. Perusal of the record shows that it is not in dispute that revisionist Sanjay purchased the seized ultrasound machine in auction by the custom department.
8. Ld counsel for the revisionist argued that as per the allegations the revisionist sold the ultrasound machine to co-accused Deeapk who further sold it to co-accused Jitender Mishra, however, the revisionist purchased the ultrasound machine from Custom Department in auction as a scrap and hence, the revisionist should not have been charged for the offence u/s 3B & 25 of PC & PNDT Act.
9. Ld counsel for the revisionist has also mentioned the document at page no. 56 of the paperbook of the revision petition and he argued that the co-accused Deepak purchased the machine from revisionist. Perusal of the aforesaid document also reveals that the 'machine' was allegedly purchased and the airway bill number is also mentioned. So far as the present revision petition is concerned, this Court is required to look into the aspect of Crl. Rev. No. 13/2023 Sanjay Sachdeva Vs. State Page No. 4 of 6 correctness of the impugned order vide which the charge was ordered to be framed qua the revisionist herein.
10.As per the evidence collected during the investigation, the revisionist after purchasing the machine from Customs through auction further sold it to another person who was not registered under PC & PNDT Act and the aforesaid sale of the ultrasound machine was in violation of section 3B of PC & PNDT Act.
11.Section 3B of PC & PNDT Act reads as under:-
"3B. Prohibition on sale of ultrasound machine, etc., to persons, laboratories, clinics, etc. not registered under the act.- No person shall sell any ultrasound machine or imaging machine or scanner or any other equipment capable of detecting sex of foetus to any Genetic Counselling Centre, Genetic Laboratory, Genetic Clinic or any other person not registered under the Act."
12.Perusal of Section 3B PC & PNDT Act shows that an ultrasound machine or imaging machine cannot be sold to any one who is not registered under the said Act. Moreover Section 23 of the said Act imposes liability upon any medical geneticist, gynecologist, registered medical practitioner or any person who owns a Genetic Counseling Center, a Genetic Laboratory or a Genetic Clinic or is employed in such a Center, Laboratory or Clinic and renders his professional or technical services.
13.On 10.08.2015 co-accused person Jitender Kaushik and Surajmukhi were found running a genetic center, genetic laboratory and genetic clinic without being registered under the Act and the ultrasound machine was being used for the activities relating to pre-natal diagnoses and as per Crl. Rev. No. 13/2023 Sanjay Sachdeva Vs. State Page No. 5 of 6 allegations, the revisionist was instrumental in selling the said seized ultrasound machine to an unauthorized person. As per Section 3B of the said Act no person can sell any ultrasound machine or imaging machine capable of detecting sex of foetus to anyone who is not registered under the Act.
14.In these circumstances, I am of the opinion that there is no illegality or impropriety in the order dated 04.11.2022 passed by Ld. MM whereby the revisionist has been charged for offence punishable u/s 3B and 25 of PC & PNDT Act.
15.With the aforesaid observation, the Criminal Revision Petition is dismissed and disposed of accordingly.
16.File of revision petition be consigned to Record Room after completing necessary formalities.
17.Trial Court Record be sent back to the concerned Court.
18.Copy of this order be sent to the concerned Ld. Trial Court.
Digitally signed by MANISH MANISH KHURANA
KHURANA Date: 2023.05.16
(Passed & announced 12:59:39 +0530
in open court today) (MANISH KHURANA)
Addl. Sessions Judge-04
West District, Tis Hazari Courts,
Delhi/16.05.2023
Crl. Rev. No. 13/2023 Sanjay Sachdeva Vs. State Page No. 6 of 6