Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Delhi District Court

State vs . Mahesh Garg on 31 August, 2021

         IN THE COURT OF SH. VIVEK BENIWAL: METROPOLITAN
     MAGISTRATE­07:NORTH­WEST DISTRICT:ROHINI COURT: DELHI


STATE VS. MAHESH GARG
FIR No : 09/14
P. S. South Rohini
U/s 5/6/20(3)/23 PC & PNDT Act


Sl. No. of the case                    : 541898/2016
Date of its institution                : 12.01.2016
Case reserved for orders              : 31.08.2021
Date of judgment                      : 31.08.2021


JUDGMENT :

a) Date of Commission of offence      : 03.01.2014
b) Offences complained of              : U/s 5/6/20(3)/23 PC & PNDT Act
c) Name of the complainant            : Sh. Mani Bhushan Malhotra, SDM,
                                        Saraswati Vihar, Delhi.

d) Name of the accused                : Mahesh Garg
                                        S/o Sh. Amar Nath Garg
                                        R/o H. No. 101, Akash Kunj,
                                        Sector ­9, Rohini, Delhi.

e) Plea of accused                    : Pleaded not guilty
f) Final Order                        : Acquitted


BRIEF STATEMENT OF FACTS FOR THE DECISION:­

1. Vide this judgment, I shall dispose of the allegations of prosecution made against the aforesaid accused for offences U/s 5/6/20(3)/23 PC & PNDT Act. Brief FIR No. 09/14 State Vs. Mahesh Garg 1/75 PS South Rohini facts of the case are that on 03.01.2014 at about 7:00 pm at A­1, Avantika Market, Sector­2, Rohini, Delhi within the jurisdiction of PS South Rohini, Delhi accused was running the ultrasound centre in the name and style of Dr. Mahesh Garg Ultrasound Centre at the above mentioned address and the inspection team of PC and PNDT Act duly authorised by district appropriate authority conducted inspection alongwith decoy patient namely Sonia and accused was found determining the sex of child of decoy patient during the ultrasound in his clinic. During the abovesaid inspection accused was found not maintaining the statutory records of the ultrasound of the abovesaid decoy patient in your above said centre as mandatory requirement of the said Act and rules mentioned in the said act. Present FIR was registered and investigation was done. Final report was filed for offences U/s 5/6/20(3)/23 PC & PNDT Act.

2. The cognizance was taken and accused was summoned. Chargesheet was supplied to him. Charge for offences under section 5 and 6 of the PC and PNDT Act Punishable u/s 23 of PC and PNDT Act 1994 and Rule 9 r/w section 4(3) of the PC and PNDT Act punishable u/s 25 of PC and PNDT Act 1994 was framed against the accused and he pleaded not guilty.

3. The prosecution has examined 25 witnesses to prove its case. Accused has admitted FIR No. 09/14 Ex.X­1, FSL result dated 15.08.2015 Ex.X­2 prepared by Dr. Narayan Waghmare and FIR No. 300/13, PS Linepar, Bahadurgarh, Harayan already EX.PW14/A in his admission and denial of the documents under section 294 Cr PC.

4. After that the prosecution's evidence was closed, the accused was examined U/s 313 Cr.P.C. wherein all the incriminating evidence were put to him to which he pleaded his innocence.

5. The accused has not produced any defence evidence.

6. Final arguments were heard on behalf of State and accused.

FIR No. 09/14                        State Vs. Mahesh Garg                      2/75
PS South Rohini

7. I have considered the submissions for both parties and also gone through the judicial file.

APPRECIATION OF EVIDENCE

8. PW1 Ganga Devi as interalia deposed that on 30.12.2013 Dr. Ramesh Dhankar prepared a team consisting of her, Dr. Jai Mala (SMO polyclinic), Dr. Urender (RMO, Bahadurgarh), Sh. Rakesh Dahiya (Drug Controller) and Dr. Ramesh Dhankar. Thereafter, they all reached at the house of Manju w/o Bhagat Singh, Shankar Garden, Line Par Bahadurgarh from where they recovered medicine and instruments used for MTP purpose. Manju and her husband Bhagat Singh were arrested. They both had disclosed that one doctor namely Mahesh Garg was running a clinic at Avantika Market, Sector­2, Rohini, Delhi and he was involved in the sex determination. She has deposed that thereafter, Dr. Ramesh Dhankar again prepared a team and they needed a decoy customer to apprehend the accused red handed. On 03.01.2014, one patient Smt. Soniya visited Civil Hospital, Bahadurgarh Haryana for her checkup where Dr. Madhulika, Medical Officer informed her that one doctor running a clinic and involved in a sex determination and he was to be arrested red handed and they asked Smt. Soniya to join the raiding party. Smt. Soniya consented to join the raiding party. Dr. Madhulika got written consent of Smt. Soniya in this regard. Thereafter Dr. Ramesh Dhankar prepared a team consisting of her, Sh. Manmohan Taneja (Sr. Drug Controller, District Jhajjar), Sh. Rakesh Dahiya (Drug Controller FDA, Jhajjar), Dr. Anuj Garg (Medical officer, Civil Officer, Bahadurgarh), Dr. Madhulika (Civil Hospital, Bahadurgarh) in the leadership of Sh. Manmohan Taneja. Thereafter, they all reached SDM Saraswati Vihar and Tehsildar Sh. Pradeep. Dr. Madhulika introduce decoy customer Soniya and her mother to SDM Saraswati Vihar. She handed over Rs. 15,000/­ to SDM Saraswati Vihar in the denomination of 10 GC notes of Rs. 500/­ and 10 GC notes of Rs. 1,000/­ and she also informed him that the abovesaid money was arranged from SKS Medical FIR No. 09/14 State Vs. Mahesh Garg 3/75 PS South Rohini Superintendent, Civil Hospital, Bahadurgarh for the purpose of the raid at the clinic. Thereafter, concerned SDM asked Chief District Medical Officer, Rohini Sector­6 to send a team near Jaipur Golden Hospital for conducting a raid. Thereafter, when the abovesaid team reached there, concerned SDM brief them about the abovesaid raid. Concerned SDM prepared the detail of the abovesaid currency notes and got it signed through Dr. Meenakshi, Dr. Madhulika, Dr. Kamal and Sh. Rakesh Dahiya. Thereafter, she alongwith decoy customer Soniya and her mother reached at the abovesaid clinic at Avantika and other persons took their positions outside the clinic. She was instructed about the abovesaid team that when the alleged doctor perform sex determination test she should signalled them by wiping / cleaning her face with the help of handkerchief and decoy customer was handed over Rs. 15,000/­ by concerned SDM. Decoy customer Soniya handed over the same to her mother. Concerned SDM instructed to the mother of the Soniya that when the alleged doctor asked money for the sex determination test same should be given from the same Rs.15,000/­ to them. She has deposed that on reaching at the clinic the mother of the decoy patient Soniya asked Dr. Mahesh Garg to conduct the sex determination test as her daughter Soniya was pregnant at that time. Thereafter, accused Mahesh Garg asked Rs. 6,000/­ for the sex determination test. Thereafter, Smt. Krishna the mother of decoy patient Soniya handed over Rs. 6,000/­ in the denomination of Rs. 1,000/­ each. Thereafter, Dr. Mahesh Garg made entry in the register, however she did not remember what kind of entry he has made. Thereafter, Dr. Mahesh Garg conducted ultra sonography and informed them regarding the sex of the fetus as male. Thereafter she signal to the raiding team by wiping her face with the help of handkerchief. Thereafter concerned SDM alongwith his team entered the clinic and informed police. Police arrived at the spot. Concerned SDM handed over the list of Rs. 15,000/­ to IO. IO prepared site plan. Dr. Madhulika handed over the concerned paper to the IO. IO also seized register and diary etc. from the abovesaid clinic. IO FIR No. 09/14 State Vs. Mahesh Garg 4/75 PS South Rohini also seized ultrasound machine, UPS printer from the clinic. IO search accused Mahesh Garg and recovered Rs. 6,000/­ given by Smt. Krishna. Concerned IO sealed the clinic, thereafter they all reached at PS South Rohini alongwith accused and recovered articles. On reaching PS IO recorded her statement. She signed her statement. She has correctly identified the accused.

9. She was duly cross examined by Ld. defence counsel. In her cross examination she has deposed that that the raid on Dr. Bhagat Singh at Bahadurgarh was conducted on 30­12­2013 but she did not know if the same was on the basis of secret information. She was a member of the raiding team. Dr. Manju was arrested on 30­12­2013 but she did not know when Dr. Bhagat Singh was arrested. No patient was found at the clinic of Dr. Manju at the time of raid. One dairy and some registers were seized from the clinic. These dairy and registers contained the names, addresses, amount taken from them and other details about the patients. These patients were not contacted in her presence. There were houses in the neighbourhood. The neighbourers were not enquired about at the time of raid. She has deposed that interrogation was done from Dr. Manju at the time of raid. Dr. Bhagat Singh was not interrogated in her presence. Police had never called her to join the investigation for the purpose of interrogation of Dr. Bhagat Singh. Dr. Bhagat singh never gave any statement to the Police in her presence. Dr. Bhagat Singh had disclosed that the ultrasound was done at Avantika by Dr. Mahesh Garg. The statement was not recorded in her presence. She did not remember if Dr. Bhagat Singh had named R.K. Sharma of Anand Parwat, Dr. Mishra of Ghaziabad, Taneja Nursing Home Railway Road Bahadurgarh and Vijaya Hospital, Jhajjar. She did not remember if any action were taken against these people. Vol. a raid was conducted against the Vijaya Hospital Jhajjar, but she did not know when. The statement of Dr. Manju was recorded by the police on the day of raid but she did not know thereafter when, where and how many times the statements of Dr. Manju and Dr. Bhagat Singh FIR No. 09/14 State Vs. Mahesh Garg 5/75 PS South Rohini were recorded. She deposed that she was appointed as a Pharmacist and her duties are dispensing of medicines, cold chain maintenance etc. and a separate room has been provided to her. Doctor have been provided separate rooms for examination. Dr. Madhulika sits in a separate room then where she is sitting. Dr. Madhulika did not request any patient to join the raiding team between 31­12­2013 and 02­01­2014 in her presence. Sonia did not come to Dr. Madhulika for examination in her presence. Dr. Madhulica had not requested Sonia in her presence. Vol. Sonia had given her consent for the raid in her presence. She had not signed that consent as a witness. She did not remember who had written that consent. Consent of Sonia was obtained for the determination of Sex of the fetus. On being shown consent Ex.PW2/A the witness admits that there is no mention of the consent of Sonia in respect of the determination of Sex of the fetus. She has admitted that there is no mention of the raid to be conducted in the said consent. She has admitted that the ultrasonography of a pregnant women cannot be done without her consent. There was no ultrasonography machine in Civil Hospital, Bahadurgarh on 03­01­2014. She has deposed that she did not remember when Sonia had come to the Hospital or when the consent Ex.PW­2/A was written. She did not remember exact time when the raiding team had assembled on 03­01­2014. She did not remember if Dr. Bharat Singh, Dr. Manju or any police official from Haryana Police were a member of the raiding team. They had left Bhadurgarh between 3­4 pm. She did not remember the numbers of the vehicles or their make in which they had left the Bahadurgarh. She did not know if any intimation was given to the higher officials of her department or the department at Delhi in respect of doctor at Delhi doing ultrasonography between 30.12.2013 till 02.01.2014. From Bhadurgarh they had gone to the office of SDM at Saraswati Vihar. She did not know the address of the Saraswati Vihar. She has denied the suggestion that there is no SDM Office in Saraswati Vihar. She has deposed that an application was given to SKS Medical superintendent General FIR No. 09/14 State Vs. Mahesh Garg 6/75 PS South Rohini Hospital Bahadurgarh for taking Rs.15,000/­ and a receipt was executed in that regard. The numbers of GC notes were mentioned in the records of SKS Medical Superintendent. She had kept the records of the application and other details with her. She had not handed over these records to the Delhi Police at the time of raid. She had not obtained any receipt from SDM at the time of handing over Rs.15,000/­ to him. The details of the GC Notes was prepared on the asking of SDM by her. She, Sonia and Krishna had not signed the said handing over memo Ex.PW­1/DA. She has admitted that Ex.PW­1/DA has no mention about being prepared by her or that the currency notes were the same which she had brought from Bahadurgarh. She has deposed that the amount of Rs.9,000/­ was seized by Delhi Police from Krishna and the same were converted into pullinda and taken into custody. She did not remember whether any document was prepared in this regard. She had not tallied the numbers of GC notes of Rs.9,000/­ with Ex.PW­1/DA. She did not remember if Dr. Madhulika, Sonia and Krishna had come in one car. She has deposed that they remained at the office of SDM for about 30 minutes. Then they went to Jaipur Golden Hospital, where they stayed for about 30­45 minutes. No doctor or staff of Jaipur Golden Hospital was joined in the raiding team. The clinic of the accused was located in a market and was surrounded by other shops. None of the shopkeepers were asked to join the raiding team. She has deposed that she could not give the dimensions of the Clinic. There was a bench for the patient and a machine was installed in the Clinic. There was space only for the patient on the bench, a chair for the doctor and one attendant to stand inside the chamber apart from waiting room outside. There was a CCTV camera installed in the waiting room. She had not seen what happened inside the chamber between the doctor and the patient Sonia and her mother Krishna. She was present in the waiting room. There was a small TV which was functioning. She has deposed that they reached the clinic at about 7:00 pm and remained there till about 09:30 pm. Some documents were FIR No. 09/14 State Vs. Mahesh Garg 7/75 PS South Rohini prepared at the clinic but she had not signed them. They had reached the police station at about 10.15 pm. Some documents were prepared there also. She did not remember if she had signed those documents. She can not admit or deny the suggestion that she had not signed any document in respect of the same. One male attendant was also present in the waiting room.

10. She has deposed that no written report was obtained from the accused. She did not remember if the film of the ultrasound was taken into possession or not. She did not remember if the SDM or the police officers had asked the accused to take out the report from his machine. She deposed that SDM and other members of the raiding team had reached the Clinic at about 7:15 pm. The complaint was prepared by SDM at the Clinic. She did not remember if the same was handed. She did not remember till what time she remained in the police station. Sonia and Krishna had gone back to Bahadurgarh with them but she did not remember the time. Her statement was recorded by the police in the police station and she had signed the same on the asking of the IO. She had signed the same after going through it. Sonia and Krishna had also accompanied them to the police station. She has deposed that some police official had prepared a site plan at the Clinic. She had not signed the same. She had shown her position in the said site plan. The site plan was prepared on the asking of the SDM and he had shown the position of the raiding team. She was aware of the microphones and micro­cameras. No such devices were used in the present case. She was also aware about the phenoltheline powder used for laying trapes. The said powder was not used in the said case. She has denied the suggestion that she was not a member of the raiding team and that is why she had not signed any of the documents as a witness. She has denied the suggestion that she had not gone to the Clinic as a shadow witness or that she is deposing in this regard on the asking of senior officers. She has denied the suggestion that the accused had not performed any ultrasonography nor had disclosed the sex of the fetus. She has denied the suggestion FIR No. 09/14 State Vs. Mahesh Garg 8/75 PS South Rohini that all the documents were prepared and signed in the police station. She has denied the suggestion that a false case was registered against the accused and she has deposed falsely.

11. PW2 Ms. Sonia has interalia deposed that on 03.01.2014 she came to parental house i.e. H. No. 22/43, Gali no 5, Mahavir Park, Bahadurgarh, Haryana at that time she was pregnant for about six months. On that day she alongwith her mother Smt Krisha Devi went to Civil Hospital, Bahadurgarh for medical checkup. Where they met Dr. Madhulika she advised her for ultra sound and she further told her that the ultra sound machine was not working of Civil Hospital. Dr. Madhulika told her that she could arrange the ultra sound by her known doctor at Delhi. On that day Dr. Madhulika led us to ultra sound center at Delhi but address of the said center she did not remember. On reaching in front of the ultra sound centre, Dr. Madhulika received a telephonic call and she started talking. Thereafter she alongwith her mother went to the aforesaid clinic where her mother asked for her ultra sound. The concerned doctor of the abovsaid centre asked her mother the relevant document or prescription. Her mother told that she was not having any prescription but they were accompanied by Dr. Madhulika. Thereafter the concerned doctor of the abovesaid clinic asked them to call the doctor. Thereafter she alongwith her mother came out from abovesaid clinic and found that Dr. Madhulika alongwith some persons were entering in the abovesaid clinic. Thereafter they took the doctor of the abovesaid clinic alongwith them. They also took them to PS alongwith them despite their repeated requests that they had to go to their house. On reaching at PS they obtained signatures of her and her mother on some written and on some blank papers after waiting for about one and half hour. Thereafter they returned to their home alongwith Dr. Madhulika. She did not remember anything else regarding the present case.

12. She was duly cross examined by Ld. APP for the State. In her cross FIR No. 09/14 State Vs. Mahesh Garg 9/75 PS South Rohini examination she has denied the suggestion that Dr. Madhulika told her on 03.01.2014 that a doctor having clinic at Delhi is involved in sex determination test and he has to be caught red handed. Confronted with the portion B to B­1 of the statement mark­A­1, recorded u/s 161 CrPC wherein it is so recorded. She has denied the suggestion that she was asked to become a decoy customer or she gave her written consent. Confronted with the portion C to C­1 of the statement mark­A­ 1, recorded u/s 161 CrPC wherein it is so recorded. She has deposed that the concerned consent letter which is EX ­PW­2/A was shown to the witness bearing her signature at point A. Dr. Madhulika asked her to write this letter on her dictation. She has denied the suggestion that she has written the abovesaid consent letter EX.PW­2/A on her own. She has denied the suggestion that thereafter she called her mother Smt Krishna Devi or a raiding team comprising herself, her mother Smt Krishna, Dr. Manmohan Taneja, Dr. Madhulika, Dr. Anuj Garg, Ganga Devi and Sh. Rakesh Dahiya and thereafter they came to office of the SDM Saraswati Vihar or they met with the SDM Saraswati Vihar and Tehsildar Sh. Pardeep Kumar or that they came to know that SDM Saraswati Vihar would supervise the raid. Confronted with the portion D to D­1 of the statement mark­A­1, recorded u/s 161 Cr.PC wherein it is so recorded. She has denied the suggestion that she told to the IO that Dr. Madhulika has introduced them to the SDM Saraswati Vihar or Smt Ganga Devi handed over fifteen thousand rupees to the SDM saying that this amount was taken by her from SKS for the purpose of raid. Confronted with the portion E to E­1 of the statement mark­A­1, recorded u/s 161 Cr. PC wherein it is so recorded. She has denied the suggestion that she told to the IO that thereafter they informed the office of CDMO, Sector­13 Rohini, Delhi and asked them to send a raiding team to Jaipur Golden Hospital or that when they all reached at Jaipur Golden hospital the team of CDMO office was also present there consisting of Dr. Kamal Kumar, Dr. Minakshi, Dr. Bangali Majhi and Dr. Vinod Kumar Garg or that they apprised about the facts to FIR No. 09/14 State Vs. Mahesh Garg 10/75 PS South Rohini the SDM or that the money was handed over to her after preparing the detail of the currency notes or that she handed over the money to her mother Krishna. Confronted with the portion F to F­1 of the statement mark­A­1, recorded u/s 161 Cr.PC wherein it is so recorded. She has denied the suggestion that the concerned SDM told her mother that the abovesaid money was to be given to the doctor at the abovesaid center for the sex determination test or that they also told that Ganga Devi would also accompany them as shadow witness or that the Ganga Devi was also instructed to give pre­determine signal of cleaning the face with handkercheif after the raid was successful. Confronted with the portion G to G­1 of the statement mark­ A­1, recorded u/s 161 Cr.PC wherein it is so recorded. She has denied the suggestion that they had instructed that they would catch the doctor red handed and thereafter herself, her mother and Ganga Devi went inside the clinic. Confronted with the portion H to H­1 of the statement mark­A­1, recorded u/s 161 Cr.PC wherein it is so recorded. She has denied the suggestion that she had told the IO that after entering in the clinic her mother asked the person present inside the clinic that she wanted to get ultrasound of her daughter and she asked to check the sex of the fetus in the womb or that on this the doctor asked for Rs. 6000/­ for the said purpose for that her mother paid Rs. 6000/­ to the doctor out of the money which was handed over to her or that a doctor made an entry in his register and on checking herself with the help of a machine the doctor informed them that there is a male child or that the doctor asked them to leave them immediately or that in the meantime Ganga Devi went out and gave the signal. Confronted with the portion I to I­1 of the statement mark­A­1, recorded u/s 161 Cr. PC wherein it is so recorded. She has denied the suggestion that she haddeposed to the IO that on receiving the signal the SDM and other persons and the SDM entered in the clinic and inquired from the doctor about his name who disclosed his name as Dr. Mahesh Garg or that doctor was apprehended at the spot. Confronted with the portion J to J­1 of the statement mark­A­1, recorded u/s 161 FIR No. 09/14 State Vs. Mahesh Garg 11/75 PS South Rohini Cr.PC wherein it is so recorded. She has denied the suggestion that after this the SDM gave a written complaint for the registration of the case through Head Constable Satender Pal or that Dr. Mahesh Garg was handed over to the IO. Confronted with the portion K to K­1 of the statement mark­A­1, recorded u/s 161 Cr.PC wherein it is so recorded. She has denied the suggestion that IO prepared the site plan at the instance of SDM or that the HC Satender Pal handed over rukka and copy of FIR in my presence or that SDM handed over slip of Rs.15000/­ to the IO . Confronted with the portion L to L­1 of the statement mark­A­1, recorded u/s 161 Cr.PC wherein it is so recorded. Seizure memo of currency note which is exhibited as Ex.PW­2/B shown to the witness bearing her signature at point A. Witness identified her signature but denied the content of the memo. Vol. police officials obtained her signature on blank papers. She has denied the suggestion that Dr. Madhulika handed over the consent letter to IO in her present or IO seized the same or that Dr. Kamal handed over to the IO register, notebook, receipt book or IO seized the same vide memo EX.PW­2/C bearing her signatures at point A. Confronted with the portion M to M­1 of the statement mark­A­1, recorded u/s 161 Cr. PC wherein it is so recorded. Vol. police officials obtained her signature on blank papers. She has denied the suggestion that abovesaid SDM sealed the ultra sound machine, UPS and printer with the seal of election commission of Delhi and handed over the same to the IO or IO seized the same vide memo Ex.PW2/D bearing her signature at point A. Confronted with the portion N to N­1 of the statement mark­A­1, recorded u/s 161 Cr.PC wherein it is so recorded. Vol. police officials obtained her signature on blank papers and also on some written papers the contents of which were never read over to her. She has denied the suggestion that IO interrogated the accused in her presence or recorded his disclosure statement or that accused Mahesh Garg handed over Rs. 6000/­ to the IO which were given by her mother to Dr. Mahesh Garg or IO seized the same in her presence that IO arrested accused Mahesh Garg in her FIR No. 09/14 State Vs. Mahesh Garg 12/75 PS South Rohini presence and conducted his personal search or she had signed the said documents or that concerned SDM sealed the alleged clinic in her presence. Confronted with the portion O to O­1 of the statement mark­A­1, recorded u/s 161 Cr. PC wherein it is so recorded. Seizure memo of currency notes of Rs. 6000/­ which is exhibited as Ex.PW2/E, disclosure statement of accused EX.PW­2/F, arrest and personal search memo EX.PW­2/G and EX.PW­2/I shown to the witness bearing her signatures at points A in all memos. Witness identified her signatures but denied the contents of the memos. Vol. police officials obtained her signature on blank papers and the contents were never read over to me. She has denied the suggestion that she is purposefully or deliberately not stating true and complete facts. She has denied the suggestion that she is deposing falsely to save the skin of accused or she has been won over by him. She has denied the suggestion that she has compromised the matter with the accused. She has denied the suggestion that she is giving her statement under the fear, undue influence or coercion or that she has deposed falsely.

13. She was duly cross examined by Ld. defence counsel. In her cross examination she has deposed that she got married in February, 2013 and this was her first pregnancy. She has admitted that her laws never showed any desire of having a male child. At the time of her visit to Civil Hospital she was of six months pregnant and this fact was disclosed to Dr. Madhulika who had examined her. She had never showed any desire to get herself examined for the purpose of sex determination. She has admitted that there was no talk between her and Dr. Madhulika about the determination of sex of her child. She has admitted that she had never intended to abort the child if there was a female child. Dr. Madhulika after examining her had suggested for an ultrasound to which she had agreed. Dr. Madhulika had asked her to give her consent for ultrasound and she had given her consent only for ultrasound. She has admitted that as she was not interested in the sex determination that is why FIR No. 09/14 State Vs. Mahesh Garg 13/75 PS South Rohini she had not given any consent to that effect. She had wrongly mentioned the duration of her pregnancy as four months in the consent EX.PW­2/A as four months on the asking of Dr. Madhulika. Her delivery took place after full time on 08.04.2014. She has deposed that Dr. Madhulika, herself and her mother only had started from Bahadurgarh for Delhi in the car of Dr. Madhulika. After reaching Delhi Dr. Madhulika had sent her mother in the clinic while she remained with Dr. Madhulika thereafter she called her mother. She has admitted that on seeing her pregnant doctor asked for the prescription and told her that he would conduct ultrasound only thereafter. She has admitted that her ultrasonography was not conducted and therefore there was no occasion to tell her about the sex of her child. After their reaching the clinic they remained there only for five minutes and thereafter they all were taken to police station. She has admitted that entire writing was done by the officials of PS and she was not told about anything. She was never allowed to read the written documents on which her signatures were obtained. She has deposed that the medical officers or any officer had never ever met her for the purpose of giving any award money. She was never interested in taking such kind of any award or reward. The medical officers or any one else never handed over any amount of Rs. 15000/­ to her or her mother. She has admitted that there was no occasion for them to give Rs.6000/­ to the doctor. She has denied the suggestion that a false case was registered against the accused by the concerned officials.

14. PW3 Smt. Krishna has interalia deposed that she has a daughter namely Sonia who is married with Ajay resident of Bhiwani, Haryana. Her marriage was performed in February, 2013. She was pregnant and had come to her place in the last week of December, 2013. On 03.1.2014 her daughter Sonia was having the complaint of abdomen pain on which she took her to Civil Hospital, Bahadurgarh for medical checkup where they met Dr. Madhulika she advised her daughter for ultra sound and she further told her that the ultra sound machine was not working of civil FIR No. 09/14 State Vs. Mahesh Garg 14/75 PS South Rohini hospital. Dr. Madhulika told them that she could arrange the ultra sound by her known doctor at Avantika, Delhi. She has deposed that on that day Dr. Madhulika led us to ultra sound center at Delhi but address of the said center she did not remember. On reaching in front of the ultra sound centre, Dr. Madhulika received a telephonic call and she started talking on phone and sent her inside the clinic and further asked her to make payment of ultrasound. Thereafter she went inside the clinic and asked the concerned doctor present in the clinic for conducting ultrasound of her daughter and he issued her receipt of Rs.800/­ and asked her to call her daughter inside the clinic. Thereafter she came outside to call her daughter Sonia and took her daughter Sonia in the clinic. The concerned doctor of the abovsaid centre asked her the relevant document or prescription for the ultrasound and he further told that he would not conduct any ultrasound without the prescription of the doctor. Thereafter she told him that they are not having any prescription but they were accompanied by Dr. Madhulika. Thereafter she went out to call doctor Madhulika who was talking on phone and she told Dr. Madhulika that Dr. Mahesh Garg (accused herein) was calling her inside. Thereafter Dr. Madhulika alongwith her and alongwith some persons entered in the abovesaid clinic. Thereafter they caught Dr. Mahesh Garg and took him alongwith them. She and her daughter intended to go home but Dr. Madhulika also told her to accompany them. Thereafter they took them and the doctor Mahesh Garg to PS alongwith them. Thereafter on reaching at PS they obtained signatures of her and her daughter on some papers after waiting for about one and half hour. She did not remember whether the said papers were blank or was something written on those papers. Thereafter they returned to their home alongwith Dr. Madhulika. She did not remember anything else regarding the present case.

15. She was duly cross examined by Ld. APP for the State. In her cross examination she has denied the suggestion that Dr. Madhulika told her and her FIR No. 09/14 State Vs. Mahesh Garg 15/75 PS South Rohini daughter on 03.01.2014 that a doctor having clinic at Delhi is involved in sex determination test and he has to be caught red handed. Confronted with the portion A to A­1 of the statement mark­X, recorded u/s 161 CrPC wherein it is so recorded. She has denied the suggestion that she and her daughter were asked to become a decoy customer or her daughter gave written consent. Confronted with the portion B to B­1 of the statement mark­X, recorded u/s 161 CrPC wherein it is so recorded. She has denied the suggestion that thereafter she was called by her daughter Sonia or a raiding team comprising herself, her daughter Sonia, Dr. Manmohan Taneja, Dr. Madhulika, Dr. Anuj Garg, Ganga Devi and Rakesh Dahiya and thereafter they came to office of the SDM Saraswati Vihar or they met with the SDM Saraswati Vihar and Tehsildar Sh. Pardeep Kumar or that they came to know that SDM Saraswati Vihar would supervise the raid. Confronted with the portion C to C­1 of the statement mark­X, recorded u/s 161 CrPC wherein it is so recorded. She has denied the suggestion that she told to the IO that Dr. Madhulika had introduced them to the SDM Saraswati Vihar or Smt Ganga Devi handed over fifteen thousand rupees to the SDM saying that this amount was taken by her from SKS for the purpose of raid. Confronted with the portion D to D­1 of the statement mark­X, recorded u/s 161 CrPC wherein it is so recorded. She has denied the suggestion that she told to the IO that thereafter they informed the office of CDMO, Sector­13 Rohini, Delhi and asked them to send a raiding team to Jaipur Golden Hospital or that when they all reached at Jaipur Golden Hospital the team of CDMO office was also present there consisting of Dr. Kamal Kumar, Dr. Minakshi, Dr. Bangali Majhi and Dr. Vinod Kumar Garg or that they apprised about the facts to the SDM or that the money was handed over to her daughter Sonia after preparing the detail of the currency notes or that she handed over the money to her. Confronted with the portion E to E­1 of the statement mark­X, recorded u/s 161 Cr.PC wherein it is so recorded. She has denied the suggestion that the concerned SDM told her that the abovesaid money was to be FIR No. 09/14 State Vs. Mahesh Garg 16/75 PS South Rohini given to the doctor at the abovesaid center for the sex determination test or that they also told that Ganga Devi would also accompany them as shadow witness or that Ganga Devi was also instructed to give pre­determined signal of cleaning the face with handkerchief after the raid was successful. Confronted with the portion F to F­1 of the statement mark­X, recorded u/s 161 CrPC wherein it is so recorded. She has denied the suggestion that they had instructed that they would catch the doctor red handed and thereafter herself, her daughter and Ganga Devi went inside the clinic. Confronted with the portion G to G­1 of the statement mark­X, recorded u/s 161 Cr.PC wherein it is so recorded. She has denied the suggestion that she had told the IO that after entering in the clinic she asked the person present inside the clinic that she want to get ultrasound of her daughter or that she has asked to check the sex of the fetus in the womb or that on this the doctor asked for rupees six thousand for the said purpose or that she paid six thousand rupees to the doctor out of the money which was handed over to her or that a doctor made an entry in his register and on checking her daughter with the help of ultra sonography machine the doctor informed them that there is a male child or that the doctor asked them to leave immediately or that in the meantime Ganga Devi went out and gave the signal. Confronted with the portion H to H­1 of the statement mark­X, recorded u/s 161 Cr.PC wherein it is so recorded. She has denied the suggestion that she haddeposed to the IO that on receiving the signal the SDM inquired from the doctor about his name who disclosed his name as Dr. Mahesh Garg or that the doctor was apprehended on the spot. Confronted with the portion I to I­1 of the statement mark­ X, recorded u/s 161 Cr.PC wherein it is so recorded. She has denied the suggestion that after this the SDM gave a written complaint for the registration of the case through Head constable Satender Pal or that Dr. Mahesh Garg was handed over to the IO. Confronted with the portion J to J­1 of the statement mark­X, recorded u/s 161 Cr.PC wherein it is so recorded. She has denied the suggestion that IO prepared the FIR No. 09/14 State Vs. Mahesh Garg 17/75 PS South Rohini site plan at the instance of SDM or that the HC Satender Pal handed over rukka and copy of FIR in her presence or that SDM handed over slip of Rs. 15000/­ to the IO. Confronted with the portion K to K­1 of the statement mark­X, recorded u/s 161 Cr.PC wherein it is so recorded. Seizure memo of currency note which is already exhibited as Ex.PW2/B shown to the witness bearing her signature at point B. Witness identified her signature but denied the content of the memo. Vol. police officials obtained her signature on blank papers. She has denied the suggestion that Dr. Madhulika handed over the consent letter to IO in her present or IO seized the same or that Dr. Kamal handed over to the IO register, notebook, receipt book or IO seized the same vide memo already EX.PW­2/C bearing her signatures at point B. Confronted with the portion L to L­1 of the statement mark­X, recorded u/s 161 Cr.PC wherein it is so recorded. Vol. police officials obtained her signature on blank papers. She has denied the suggestion that abovesaid SDM sealed the ultra sound machine, UPS and printer with the seal of election commission of Delhi and handed over the same to the IO or IO seized the same vide memo already EX. PW2/ D bearing her signature at point B. Confronted with the portion M to M­1 of the statement mark­X, recorded u/s 161 Cr.PC wherein it is so recorded. Vol. police officials obtained her signature on blank papers and also on some written papers the contents of which were never read over to her. She has denied the suggestion that IO interrogated the accused in her presence or recorded his disclosure statement or that accused Mahesh Garg handed over Rs.6000/­ to the IO which were given by her to Dr. Mahesh Garg or IO seized the same in her presence that IO arrested accused Mahesh Garg in her presence and conducted his personal search or she had signed the said documents or that concerned SDM sealed the alleged clinic in her presence. Confronted with the portion N to N­1 of the statement mark­X, recorded u/s 161 Cr. PC wherein it is so recorded. Seizure memo of currency notes of Rs.6000/­ which is already EX.PW­2/E, disclosure statement of accused already EX.PW­2/F, arrest and FIR No. 09/14 State Vs. Mahesh Garg 18/75 PS South Rohini personal search memo already EX.PW­2/G and EX.PW­2/I shown to the witness bearing her signatures at points B in all memos. Witness identified her signatures but denied the contents of the memos. Vol. police officials obtained her signature on blank papers and the contents were never read over to her. She has denied the suggestion that she has purposefully or deliberately not stating true and complete facts. She has denied the suggestion that she is deposing falsely to save the skin of accused or she have been won over by him. She has denied the suggestion that she has compromised the matter with the accused. She has denied the suggestion that she is giving her statement under the fear, undue influence or coercion or that she has deposed falsely.

16. She was duly cross examined by Ld. defence counsel. In her cross examination she has deposeed that it is correct that her daughter never intended to sex of the fetus determine nor they intended to get the ultra sound done for this purpose. She has admitted that initially she alone had gone inside the clinic and then the cash memo was issued, the doctor had not seen her daughter. The doctor had not conducted any ultrasound of her daughter so there was no occasion for him to declare the sex of the fetus. The doctor had returned the amount of Rs.800/­ to her as no ultra sound was conducted. The said receipt was taken by the police official in the police station. She has admitted that Dr. Madhulika never told her and her daughter about the determination of sex of fetus by the doctor. The documents on which police obtained their signatures were not known to her nor they were read over to her.

17. PW­4 Sh. Manmohan Taneja has interalia deposed that in the year 2013­14 he was posted as Senior Drug Control Officer, Rohtak Zone, Distt. Jhajjar under the administration of Zonal Office. He has deposed that on 30.12.2013 during a raid at the clinic of Dr. Manju Bala, Line Par, Bahadurgarh, few MTP kits and instrument for termination of pregnancy were recovered and it was disclosed by her that she was involved in illegal termination of pregnancy after getting sex determination of FIR No. 09/14 State Vs. Mahesh Garg 19/75 PS South Rohini pregnant ladies from Delhi and name of Dr. Mahesh Garg was also disclosed by her. As this act of Manju and Dr. Mahesh Garg was adversely affecting the sex ratio in the State of Haryana, Senior Officers were informed and a planning of joint raid was made. The Directorate of Family Welfare Delhi was informed. For interstate raid and to nab the culprit red handed a decoy patient was needed. He has deposed that Dr. Madhulika, Medical Officer, General Hospital, Bahadurgarh, Haryana during her OPD on 03.01.2014 discussed with one of her patient pregnant lady Mrs. Sonia and who became ready to join the raid as decoy patient. She called her mother Mrs. Krishna Devi and team under my supervision left for Delhi which included Dr. Madhulika, Dr. Anuj, Rakesh Dahiya, Drug Control Officer, Jharjar, Ganga Devi, pharmacist, Mrs. Sonia, decoy patient and Mrs. Krishna Devi, her mother as attendant. The above named persons reached at the office of SDM, Saraswati Vihar, Delhi where SDM and Tehsildar Mr. Pradeep Kumar were present. Although SDM was having information from his senior officer the team also disclosed the purpose of their visit. Dr. Madhulika introduced decoy patient Sonia and Ms. Ganga Devi Pharmacist handed over Rs. 15000/­ which were drawn from SKS office of SMO Bahadurgarh. SDM informed the CDMO and requested to send a team near Jaipur Golden Hospital, Rohini where they met Dr. Kamal Kumar, Dr. Vinod etc. List of currency notes was prepared and handed over to Sonia in the presence of above all named persons. Mrs. Sonia gave the above notes to Krishna Devi. SDM gave instructions to Krishna Devi to give those notes to doctor if he conduct the sex determination test on Sonia and asked for money. After that Sonia, her mother Krishna Devi and Ganga Devi who was sent in as shadow witness reached the clinic of Dr. Mahesh Garg. He has deposed that Ganga Devi was sent as shadow witness and SDM affixed a signal of waiving handkerchief on her face after the completion of the test and disclosure of sex. After few minutes Ganga Devi gave prefixed signal and the team waiting at reasonable distance entered the clinic where Dr. Mahesh FIR No. 09/14 State Vs. Mahesh Garg 20/75 PS South Rohini Garg was present beside above named three persons namely Sonia, Krishna Devi and Ganga Devi. Accused Mahesh Garg correctly identified by the witness. Smt. Krishna disclosed that on her request of sex determination Dr. Mahesh Garg conducted the same on her daughter and she further disclosed after conducting the said sex determination her name was entered in a register kept in the clinic and he charged Rs.6000/­ for the above said test and disclosed the sex of the fetus as male (objected to being hearsay). He has further deposed that SDM, Saraswati Vihar called the police at the spot and gave a complaint to SI Rahul Kumar. Few registers which were recovered by Dr. Kamal Kumar were handed over to police. The ultrasound machine, UPS and printer were sealed by SDM and were handed over to police. Dr. Mahesh Garg handed over Rs. 6000/­ which were received from Krishna to the police. At the end clinic was sealed by SDM, Saraswati Vihar.

18. He was duly cross examined by Ld. defence counsel. In his cross examination he has deposed that the raid at Bahadurgarh was on the basis of secret information. Dr. Manju Bala was arrested on 30.12.2013 itself. The disclosure statement of Dr. Manju Bala was recorded by the police. He did not know if the intimation to the senior officers was given in writing or verbally by the Civil Surgeon, Jhajjar. He was a member of the raiding team in the case registered at Bahadurgarh. He did not remember if police had recorded his statement in the said case. He also did not remember if he had appeared as a witness in the said case at Bahadurgarh Court. He did not know the procedure for obtaining the money from SKS for the usage in the raid. He did not know when and how the amount was taken from SKS. He hasdeposed that they had left for Delhi at about 2­2.30 p.m. on 03.01.2014. As far as he remember, there was no police official from Haryana Police who had accompanied them from Bahadurgarh. Dr. Bhagat Singh had also not accompanied them. Civil Surgeon, Jhajjar was giving logistic support of contacting administration and health officials of Delhi Govt. He must be aware of how and when the intimation was given FIR No. 09/14 State Vs. Mahesh Garg 21/75 PS South Rohini to the aforesaid office. They had gone to the office of SDM, Saraswati Vihar at Rampura. He was also included in the team which was constituted by SDM, Saraswati Vihar. He did not remember if any document was prepared in the office of SDM in his presence. The currency notes were handed over by Ganga Devi to SDM, Saraswati Vihar in his office. He did not remember if any document regarding the handing over of GC Notes was prepared in the office or not. They had left the office of SDM, Saraswati Vihar for the raid at about 5.45­6.00 p.m. and reached near Jaipur Golden Hospital at about 6.15 p.m. Public persons were present in and around the office of SDM, Saraswati Vihar. He did not request any public person to join the raid. Public persons were present near Jaipur Golden Hospital but he also did not request them to join the raid. Jaipur Golden hospital was at a distance of 100­150 meters. He did not call any doctor, nurse or other staff from Jaipur Golden hospital to join the raid. He has deposed that the test was not conducted in his presence nor the doctor had informed the sex of the fetus in his presence. The money was also not given by Smt. Krishna to the doctor in his presence. It took them about 90 minutes at the clinic of the doctor. The entire team including all the above named persons and accused had gone to the PS. The machines were handed over by SDM to the police on the spot and other documents which were taken into possession by Dr. Kamal Kumar were also handed over to the police at the spot. He has deposed that that he could not tell where the seizure memo of above said machine, UPS, registers were prepared by the IO. He had not signed any document in connection with the present case. The complaint was handed over by SDM to the police at the spot. He did not remember if it was a handwritten complaint. The staff of the SDM was alongwith him and were carrying the necessary things including computer etc. His statement was recorded by SI Rahul but he did not obtain his signatures. He had notdeposed in his statement to the IO regarding skewed sex ratio in Haryana. He has deposed that the introduction of Sonia and Krishan Devi was made to SDM in his presence. He did not remember if FIR No. 09/14 State Vs. Mahesh Garg 22/75 PS South Rohini SDM had any talk with Sonia and Krishna. The SDM had inquired from Sonia if she was agreeing for the determination of sex of her fetus voluntarily. He had seen the written consent given by Sonia. The SDM had also seen the said consent in his presence. He did not know about any provision regarding taking of any written consent of a pregnant lady prior to conducting of her ultrasound. It was mentioned in the written consent of Sonia that she was willing for getting the sex of her fetus determined. He did not remember if it was mentioned in the consent that Smt Sonia would not abort the fetus after the detection of sex. He has seen Ex.PW2/A i.e. consent letter of Sonia. He has admitted that Sonia has not mentioned in her consent that she was willing for determination of sex of her fetus. He has admitted that Sonia had only consented for the ultrasonography. He is not aware about the disposal of the remaining amount of Rs. 9000/­. He did not remember if any document was prepared in respect of the said amount. He has deposed that he remained in the PS till 1:00/1.30 a.m. in the intervening night of 03/04.01.2014. He did not remember at what time Dr. Madhulika, Sonia and Krishna Devi left the PS. He has denied the suggestion that he was not a member of the raiding team at Bahadurgarh and that is why he has not been cited as a witness there. He has denied the suggestion that he was not a member of raiding team at Delhi and that is why he had not signed any document in the present case. He has denied the suggestion that a false case was registered against the accused and he has deposed falsely.

19. PW­5 Sh. M.B. Malhotra has interaila deposed that on 03.01.2014 he was posted as SDM, Saraswati Vihar, Delhi. He has deposed that on that day he received a telephonic call from Department of Health & Family Welfare, Delhi regarding the incident of sex determination test in Haryana and the person involved in the racket of sex determination test in Haryana are also active in Rohini area Delhi and a team from Haryana Health Department will come to his office regarding the conducting of raid at the above said centre at Rohini. He also received a telephonic message from FIR No. 09/14 State Vs. Mahesh Garg 23/75 PS South Rohini DM, North West that raid had to be conducted with the above said team and officials of Health Department, Delhi Govt. After sometime the team from Haryana Govt. Health Department reached at his office with decoy patient. They described him the background of the case and that they have brought Rs. 15000/­ with them which was to be handed over to decoy patient for the use in the raid. He contacted doctors from the CDMO office, Govt. of Delhi and discussed the matter with them. It was decided that they would meet him near Jaipur Golden hospital. He alongwith his office staff Tehsildar Pradeep and the team of Haryana Govt. proceeded to Jaipur Golden Hospital where he met them near Jaipur Golden Hospital. The matter was again discussed there and the cash which was to be used in the raid was handed over to decoy patient Smt. Sonia. It was decided that if the concerned doctor agreed for disclosing the sex of the fetus the amount of his fees is to be paid from the cash handed over to Smt. Sonia. Smt. Ganga who was shadow witness in the case will signaled the raiding team by wiping handkerchief on her face. Thereafter they proceeded to Avantika, Sec. 2, Rohini where the clinic of Dr. Mahesh Garg is situated. The decoy patient Smt. Sonia, her attendant Smt. Krishna and shadow witness Smt. Ganga went inside the clinic. Other members of the team were standing outside the clinic at some distance waiting for the outcome/signal of the shadow witness. Dr. Mahesh Garg arrived at clinic after 15­20 minutes. After sometime Smt. Ganga shadow witness came out of the clinic and signaled to the raiding team by wiping handkerchief on her face. He alongwith other members went inside the clinic. It was told by Smt. Sonia that Dr. Mahesh Garg has disclosed the sex of the fetus was male. They introduced themselves to Dr. Mahesh Garg and told him that it was a raid and controlled the record and Dr. Mahesh Garg. He hasdeposed that he informed SHO, PS South Rohini about the raid and directed him to send a team of police officials to the ultrasound centre. SHO, PS South Rohini arrived at the ultrasound center with his team after 15­20 minutes. The amount of Rs. 6000/­ was recovered FIR No. 09/14 State Vs. Mahesh Garg 24/75 PS South Rohini from Dr. Mahesh Garg which was found to be the same notes which were handed over to Smt. Sonia for using in the raid. The record was seized and ultrasound machine, UPS and Printer and ultrasound center were sealed. The written information regarding the raid and details were furnished to SHO which is Ex.PW 5/A bearing his signatures at point A. His written statement / directions for taking legal action was sent to PS South Rohini. After sometime the police officials from South Rohini came back to the ultrasound center with the copy of FIR. The remaining documentary work was completed there and police arrested the accused in his presence vide memo already Ex.PW 2/G and Ex.PW 2/H both bearing his signatures at point C. He has correctly identitfied the accused. He did not remember anything else regarding the present case.

20. He was duly cross examined by Ld. APP for the State. In his cross examination he has deposed that it is correct that on 03.01.14 when he was present in his office alongwith Tehsildar Sh. Pradeep Kumar, Dr. Manmohan Taneja reached there alongwith his team members i.e. Dr. Madhulika, Dr. Anuj Garg, Ganga Devi, Rakesh Dahiya and decoy patient Sonia alongwith her mother Smt. Krishna. It is correct that the above said Ganga Devi handed over me Rs. 15000/­ in denomination of 500 X10 & 1000 X 10 and said Ganga Devi told him that above said amount to be used in the raid. It is further correct that on reaching at Jaipur Golden hospital he prepared the details of the above said amount and handed over the same to decoy patient Sonia vide handing over memo already Ex.PW2/B bearing his signatures at point X and said details were signed by Dr. Madhulika, Sh. Rakesh Dahiya, Dr. Meenakshi, Dr. Kamal and the said detail is Ex.PW1/DA bearing his signatures at point X. It is further correct that above named Sonia handed over the said amount to her mother Smt. Krishna stating that the above said amount to be used in the payment at the time of examination of fetus. It is correct that IO prepared seizure memo of the Rs. 6000/­ recovered from accused Mahesh Garg, the said seizure memo is already FIR No. 09/14 State Vs. Mahesh Garg 25/75 PS South Rohini Ex.PW2/E bearing his signatures at point X. It is further correct that IO matched the above said recovered Rs. 6000/­ with the list prepared at the time of handing over Rs.15000/­ to decoy customer and prepared the pullanda and sealed the same with the seal of 'RK'. It is further correct that he took into possession ultrasound machine, UPS and printer from the clinic of Dr. Mahesh Garg at Avantika market and sealed the same with the seal of Election Commission of Delhi and handed over the same to the IO and IO seized the same vide seizure memo already Ex.PW2/D bearing his signatures at point X. He has deposed that it is correct that Dr. Madhulika handed over to the IO the concerned letter of decoy patient Sonia and Dr. Kamal handed over to the IO one register, note book and receipt book and IO seized the same vide seizure memo already Ex.PW2/C bearing his signatures at point X. It is further correct that after completion of the investigation at the above said clinic of Dr. Mahesh Garg they all came out from there and he sealed the said clinic and thereafter they all reached at PS South Rohini alongwith accused Mahesh Garg. He can identify the above said case property if produced before him. MHCM produced one pulinda duly sealed with the seal of RK same is opened and six notes of the denomination of one thousand are taken out and shown to the witness, witness correctly identified the same the abovesaid six notes are EX.P­1 (colly). The identity of the ultrasound machine seized from the clinic of accused Mahesh Garg is not disputed. Another pulinda is produced by the MHCM duly sealed with the seal of Election Commission of Delhi same is opened and one UPS is taken out and shown to the witness, witness correctly identified the same as recovered from the clinic of accused. UPS is EX P2. MHCM produced another pulinda duly sealed with the seal of Election Commission of Delhi same is opened and one printer is taken out and shown to the witness, witness correctly identified the same as recovered from the clinic of accused the said printer is EX P3. He has correctly identified the accused. MHC(M) produced the case property i.e. two registers and one cash memo book from the unsealed pulinda FIR No. 09/14 State Vs. Mahesh Garg 26/75 PS South Rohini bearing the particulars of the present case. Same are shown to the witness, witness correctly identified the register and the cash memo book. Now two registers are EX.P­4 and EX.P­5, cash memo book EX.P­6.

21. He was duly cross examined by Ld. defence counsel. In his cross examination he has deposed that EX.P­4 to EX.P­6 were seized by Dr. Kamal in his presence. He had not scrutinized these documents. He did not have any talk with Smt. Soniya and Smt. Krishna about the issuance of cash memo in respect of the amount charged by the doctor. Cash memo book is shown to the witness. Carbon copy of cash memo no. 785 dated 03.01.2014 issued in the name of Soniya for ultra sonography of whole abdomen for Rs. 800/­ is shown to the witness who states that he had not seen this cash memo at the time of the raid and is seeing it for the first time in the court. He has no knowledge if the original copy of cash memo no. 785 was asked for or seized at the spot. He had also not scrutinized the registers. Register EX P­4 is shown to the witness. On seeing page no. 88 there is an entry in the name of Soniya about the ultra sonography of whole abdomen and the same is signed by Smt. Krishna, the attendant of the patient. Dr. Kamal had shown him this entry at the time of the raid. He had not further probed about this entry. There are some documents attached in register Ex P­5. He was seeing this entry for the first time in the court. He was not aware if the members of the raiding team had inquired about the document attached with EX P­5. He has no idea about the documents to be prepared by the doctor at the time of ultra sonography. He had inquired from Dr. Kamal about the record. He did not remember whether he had mentioned in his complaint about his asking Dr. Kamal about the records. He has seen EX PW­5/A. The factum of inquiry from Dr. Kamal about the irregularities in the records is not mentioned. It is also correct that the fact that there were irregularities in the records is also not mentioned in his complaint. He has deposed that on 03.01.2014 at about 5:00pm he had received a telephonic message from Health Department, Govt. of Delhi that a team of doctors would come FIR No. 09/14 State Vs. Mahesh Garg 27/75 PS South Rohini from Haryana for a raid sex determination test at some clinic in Rohini area and he was required to accompany the said team. He had also received telephonic directions from District Magistrate (North West). The team which had come from Haryana had informed him the place where the raid was to be conducted. He was not shown any documents in respect of any case against Dr. Bhagat Singh and Dr. Manju. They had also not disclosed the source about receiving information about the clinic at Delhi. The records in respect of the clinics doing ultra sonography is maintained and a proper license issued by CDMO Office. He and his team had not checked the details of the clinic in Rohini where the raid was to be conducted. As they did not maintain any record at SDM office where an entry about such information is recorded and as such he has not any entry in his record. They also did not maintain any records in respect of departure and arrival entries. He has deposed that the team from Haryana had come to his office at Rampura at about 5:30 pm. He denied the suggestion that the place of raid does not fall in his jurisdiction. After the arrival of team from Haryana he had informed CDMO office after about five minutes. He had an interaction with the team from Haryana and he was introduced to the members of the team from Haryana. The team was headed by Dr. Madhukar and there were three four other members approx. There was a vehicle of Haryana police with some police officials and as far as he remember one of the doctor was in another vehicle while he did not remember as to how many other vehicles. He had no interaction with the Haryana police officials. The Haryana police officials and doctors had come together. These police officials had accompanied them in the raid and had shown them the clinic. He has deposed that he had an interaction with Smt. Sonia and Dr. Madhulika. Smt. Sonia and Dr. Madhulika had neither shown him any medical prescription nor he had demanded from them. He had no talk with Sonia about her pregnancy. He was told about the same by Dr. Madhulika. He was neither told nor inquired by him about the period of the pregnancy of Smt. Sonia. He neither FIR No. 09/14 State Vs. Mahesh Garg 28/75 PS South Rohini demanded nor he was shown the consent letter of Smt. Sonia. He had himself not prepared any consent letter of Smt. Sonia. Dr. Madhulika had told him in the presence of Sonia that Smt. Sonia was willing to act as decoy patient. He had not seen any consent letter at any stage of the raid proceedings. He as an SDM was appointed as a Nodal Officer for the purpose of PC & PNDT Act. It is necessary that consent of the decoy patient should be there. He is not aware of the conditions to bedeposed in the consent by the decoy patient. He is not aware if one of the condition is that the patient would not undergo abortion after knowing the sex of the fetus. He has deposed that the team from Haryana had handed over some currency notes to him by Dr. Madhulika. Some document was prepared in this regard which was handed over to police by him. He did not remember if he and Dr. Madhulika had signed that document. He denied the suggestion that no such document was prepared. The currency notes were handed over by him to Smt. Sonia. He did not remember if any document was prepared in this regard or that Smt. Sonia was asked to sign the same. The money belonged to the Govt. of Haryana to his knowledge. He did not know if it is necessary to prepare a document at the time of handing over the Govt. money or to take a receipt. The total amount was Rs. 15000/­ out of which Rs.6000/­ was used in the raid. As far as he remember the whole amount of Rs.15000/­ was deposited with the police. He did not remember if any document was prepared in this regard. He had seen and signed the document in respect of Rs.6000/­ but he did not know about the remaining amount of Rs. 9000/­. These Rs. 6000/­ was recovered from the doctor by SI in his presence at the clinic at the time of the raid. The recovery was affected after Smt. Ganga had given the signal by wiping her face with an handkerchief. The signal was given at about 6:40­6:45 pm and the recovery was effected at about 7:15 pm. He has deposed that he, Sh. Pardeep Kumar (Tehsildar) and his driver alongwith the team (police officials and doctors from Haryana) had left his office about 5:45 pm. The CDMO office was informed to meet FIR No. 09/14 State Vs. Mahesh Garg 29/75 PS South Rohini him at near Jaipur Golden Hospital. It took them 15­20 minutes to reach near Jaipur Golden Hospital. The team from CDMO office was already present there. He could not define the exact place of their meeting. They all stayed there for five minutes. He did not remember if any document was prepared near Jaipur Golden Hospital. He did not remember as to how many vehicles were used by the officers of the CDMO office. They reached the clinic at about 6:30 pm. The area where the clinic was situated, there were residential houses and shops in the vicinity. He has no idea about the measurement/width of the road in front of the clinic. They had parked their vehicles at a distance of 100­150 meters. They had reached near the door of the clinic at the initial stage. The doctor was not present in the clinic at that time. He was not knowing the doctor. He had come after 5­7 minutes. Smt. Sonia (decoy patient), Smt. Krishna (attendant of the patient) and Smt. Ganga (shadow witness) were sent first of all inside the clinic at about 6:30pm. They were positioned at a distance of 50­60 meters from the clinic in different directions and groups. Public persons were passing by and there was normal rush as the shops were located in the area. Some of the vehicles were parked in the gali while someone parked on the road. The signal was given at about 6:45 pm and immediately they all reached inside the clinic.

22. He has further deposed that he had seen the clinic it was a small shop but he can not give the dimensions. There was a partition inside the clinic. He did not remember if the partition was of plywood or curtain. There was a small siting provision in the front portion of the clinic. He did not remember if there was any attendant in the clinic. He could not give the measurement of the inner portion. He did not remember what furniture was placed in the inner portion. Ultra sound machine was there which was working. He had inquired from Smt. Sonia and Smt. Krishna if the doctor had given any report. He was verbally told that the doctor had disclosed the sex of the fetus as male. He did not make any specific inquiry about the FIR No. 09/14 State Vs. Mahesh Garg 30/75 PS South Rohini written report from them. He had not directed the accused Dr. Mahesh Garg to show or prepare the ultra sonography report. He had not checked the ultra sonography machine if any ultra sonography in respect of Sonia was done or not. Vol. it was the work of team he was not technical person to know about the technicality of ultra sound machine. The doctors had checked the machine at that time but he did not know if they had procured any report or not. He has denied the suggestion that no ultra sound of patient Sonia was conducted in the clinic. He has further deposed that first of all, the ultra sound machine, UPS and printer were sealed by him simultaneously Dr. Kamal had seized the records and recovery was effected by the SI. The sealing memo, seizure memo and recovery memo were prepared after lodging the FIR. The documents were prepared in one go and they were not tempered later on. No addition or alteration were done in these documents. The sealing and seizures were made earlier but their memos were prepared after the receipt of the FIR. He did not remember if Smt. Ganga Devi was asked to sign any document. He did not remember if Sh. Pardeep Kumar was asked to sign any document as a witness. He can neither accept nor deny the suggestion that Smt Ganga Devi and Sh. Pardeep Kumar has not signed any document. He did not remember if he has asked Dr. Mahesh Garg to sign seizure and seal memo. He did not remember if the license of the accused was seized or not. He has further deposed that they remained inside the clinic till about 9:00 pm and thereafter they remained outside till about 10:30 pm and thereafter they went to police station. No documents was prepared at the police station in his presence. They remained in the police station till 11:00 pm. Thereafter they all left the police station. The team from Haryana also left at the same time. The police had recorded his statement at the police station. He did not remember if he had disclosed the fact that it was told by Smt. Sonia that Dr. Mahesh Garg had disclosed the fetus of Sonia was male. He has denied the suggestion that Sonia had not disclosed any such fact before him. He had FIR No. 09/14 State Vs. Mahesh Garg 31/75 PS South Rohini not checked the clinic if any CCTV camera was installed or not. He did not remember if the IO had prepared any site plan or not. He did not remember if he had specifically shown the places where they were standing to the IO or they had taken position. He has denied the suggestion that the accused had not conducted any ultra sonography of Smt. Sonia or disclosed the sex of the fetus or that he is deposing falsely.

23. PW­6 Sh. Pardeep Kumar has interalia deposed that on 03.01.14 he was posted as Tehsildar, Saraswati Vihar, Delhi. He has deposed that on that day at about 5.30 p.m. he received a telephonic call of Sh. M.B. Malhotra, SDM, Saraswati Vihar that he had to accompany him regarding a PNDT matter. He joined the SDM Sh. M.B. Malhotra from SDM office, Saraswati Vihar and reached Jaipur Golden Hospital where team of CDMO was waiting and matter was discussed there to conduct a raid at Avantika and on reaching Avantika decoy patient Sonia and shadow witness Ganga Devi and attendant Krishna were sent in the clinic of Dr. Mahesh Garg. Dr. Mahesh Garg reached there after 15­20 minutes. The shadow witness was instructed to give signal by wiping her face after the examination of decoy patient and after the signal of shadow witness all the team went inside the clinic and SHO, PS South Rohini was intimated by SDM Sh. M.B. Malhotra and during investigation the ultrasound machine, UPS and printer were recovered by the IO from the aforesaid clinic. IO recovered the Rs. 6000/­ from accused. He did not remember anything else.

24. He was duly cross examined by Ld. APP for the State. In his cross examination he has deposed that it is correct that SDM Saraswati Vihar, Sh. M.B. Malhotra received information that Dr. Mahesh Garg is involved in a sex determination test and running a clinic at A­1, Avantika Market, Sec. 2, Rohini, Delhi. It is further correct that on 03.01.14 when he was present alongwith Sh. M.B. Malhotra in SDM Office, Saraswati Vihar Dr. Manmohen Taneja reached there alongwith Dr. Madhulika, Dr. Anuj Garg, Ganga Devi, Rakesh Dahiya, decoy patient Sonia and her FIR No. 09/14 State Vs. Mahesh Garg 32/75 PS South Rohini mother Smt. Krishna. He has denied the suggestions that abovesaid Ganga Devi handed over Rs. 15000/­ to SDM in his presence or told to him that aforesaid money were got issued from Senior Medical Superintendent regarding the raid. Confronted with the Statement Ex.6/A where it is so recorded. It is correct that on reaching at Jaipur Golden Hospital they met with the team of CDMO office consisting of Dr. Kamal Kumar, Dr. Meenakshi and Dr. Vinod Kumar. It is further correct that on reaching there the details of the aforesaid Rs. 15000/­ was prepared. It is correct that the aforesaid amount was handed over by Sonia to her mother Smt. Krishna and told her that aforesaid amount to be used at the time of sex determination test. It is further correct that on reaching the clinic he found accused Dr. Mahesh Garg alongwith decoy patient Sonia, her mother Smt. Krishna and shadow witness Smt. Ganga Devi. Accused is correctly identified by the witness. It is further correct that on reaching Smt. Krishna told them that Dr. Mahesh Garg asked Rs. 6000/­ for sex determination test and she handed over Rs.6000/­ from the aforesaid amount in denomination of Rs.1000 X 10 and thereafter he conducted the sex determination test and told them the sex of the fetus as male. The custody of the accused was handed over to the police by SDM. It is further correct that SDM Sh. M.B. Malhotra handed over the handing over memo of Rs. 15000/­ to IO. It is further correct that Dr. Madhulika handed over the concerned letter of decoy patient Sonia to IO. It is further correct that Dr. Kamal handed over the recovered register, note book and receipt book from the aforesaid clinic to the IO. It is further correct that SDM Sh. M.B. Malhotra seized the ultrasound machine, UPS and printer and same were handed over to the IO. It is further correct that after completion of the investigation the aforesaid clinic at Avantika was sealed by SDM and thereafter they all reached PS South Rohini alongwith accused. IO recorded his statement in this regard.

25. He was duly cross examined by Ld. defence counsel. In his cross examination he has deposed that after he received the message from Sh. Malhotra, SDM he FIR No. 09/14 State Vs. Mahesh Garg 33/75 PS South Rohini reached his office. The team from Haryana was already present there. There was no discussion in his presence. After his reaching the office of SDM they left the office after 10­15 minutes. There were two vehicle from SDM office. He did not remember as to how many vehicles were carried by the team from Haryana. The clinic of the accused was situated in a residential as well as commercial area. Public persons were present there. He did not remember if the team members requested any public person to join the raid proceedings. He has admitted that he was not present inside the clinic at the time when ultra sound of Smt. Sonia was conducted. He has denied the suggestion that no ultra sound of Smt. Sonia was conducted by the accused. He had not personally inquired from Smt. Sonia and Smt. Krishna for the written report given by the doctor. He personally had not ask for the written report from the accused. He did not remember if the doctors in the team had extracted any report from the ultra sound machine. He did not remember if the doctors had checked the machine for the ultrasound report of Smt. Sonia. He has deposed that the SDM had informed the police. He did not remember the time of giving the information. He can not say if it was after 30 minutes or one hour or two hours. He did not remember till what time they remained in the clinic. During the entire proceedings in the present case he has not signed any document. He had not personally given any documentary proof to the police for his presence in the raid. From the clinic they went to the police station. He has further deposed that he did not remember till what time they remained in the police station. Some documentation was done in the police station. He could not say what was those documents. He did not remember if his statement was recorded by the police or not. He did not remember as to how many police officials, doctors were in the team from Haryana. Public persons namely Smt. Sonia and Krishna were part of the raiding team. He did not remember if any documents were prepared at the clinic. He has denied the suggestions that he was not a member of the raiding team and that is why he has not signed any document as a FIR No. 09/14 State Vs. Mahesh Garg 34/75 PS South Rohini witness and for the same reason did not remember the particulars mentioned above. He has denied the suggestions that he is deposing falsely.

26. PW­7 Dr. Madhulika has interalia deposed that on 30.12.2013 she was posted as Medical Officer, General Hospital, Bahadur Garh, Haryana. She has deposed that on that day Civil Surgeon, Haryana and their team members had conducted raid at Shankar Garden, Line Paar Bahadurgarh at the clinic of Dr. Manju and Dr. Bhagat Singh. The abovesaid team informed them that one person Dr. Mahesh Garg was running a sex determination racket at Avantika, Sector­ 3, Rohini, Delhi. The said information was shared by them to their senior officers. She has deposed that on 03.01.2014 one patient namely Sonia came to General Hospital at Gynae Ward. The said lady was four month pregnant at that time. They asked Ms. Sonia and convinced her to be part of the raiding team and she was included in the team as a decoy patient. Thereafter a team was constituted consisting of herself, Dr. Anuj Garg, Mr. Rakesh Dahiya, Drug Inspector, Ms. Ganga Devi pharmacist and decoy patient Sonia and her mother. They also informed District Hospital at Rohini and concerned SDM. Rs.15000/­ were withdrawn from SKS fund and they handed over the said amount to concerned SDM. SDM handed over the said amount to Ms. Ganga Devi outside the clinic of Dr. Mahesh Garg. Thereafter, on the same day i.e. 03.01.2014 decoy patient Sonia, her mother and Ms. Ganga Devi, Pharmacist went inside the clinic of Dr. Mahesh Garg for sex determination test. The said Ganga Devi was directed to give signal to them after the acceptance of the money. They came to know later on that accused Mahesh Garg asked Rs. 6000/­ for sex determination test. She has deposed that after some time said Ganga Devi signaled us by wiping her face with the handkerchief. Thereafter all the team member went inside the clinic and recovered the money from Dr. Mahesh Garg. Thereafter police was called and they arrested Dr. Mahesh Garg. She has correctly identified the accused. She did not know anything regarding the present case.

FIR No. 09/14                       State Vs. Mahesh Garg                      35/75
PS South Rohini

27. She was duly cross examined by Ld. APP for the State as she has not come up with the complete facts. In her cross examination she has deposed that it is correct that the abovesaid decoy patient had given her the consent letter to join the concerned raid and same is already EX PW­2/A bearing her signature at point B. She has deposed that it is correct that the team was constituted in the leadership of Sh. Manmohan Taneja, Senior Drug Controller, Jhajjar. It is further correct thereafter they met SDM Saraswati Vihar and Tehsildar Pardeep Kumar and they introduced decoy patient Sonia, her mother and abovesaid Ganga Devi to them. It is further correct that concerned SDM and team of CDMO office consisting of Dr. Kamal Kumar, Dr. Minakshi and Dr. Vinod Kumar Garg all reached near Jaipur Golden Hospital. It is further correct that thereafter SDM M.B. Malhotra prepared the list of abovesaid currency notes and same is already EX PW­1/DA bearing her signature at point D. It is further correct that abovesaid Rs. 15000/­ was given to decoy patient vide handing over memo already EX PW­2/B bearing her signature at point C and she was asked to give the payment from the abovesaid Rs.15000/­. She has deposed that it is further correct that accused Mahesh Garg asked Rs. 6000/­ for sex determination test and they had given Rs. 6000/­ in the denomination of Rs. 1000X6 and after conducting the sex determination test accused disclosed the sex of the fetus as male. It is further correct that she had handed over the consent letter of decoy patient Sonia to the IO. It is further correct that Dr. Kamal also handed over the relevant documents i.e. register, note book and receipt book etc. and IO seized the same vide seizure memo already EX PW­2/C bearing her signature at point C. It is further correct that SDM M.B. Malhotra sealed the recovered ultra sound machine, UPS and printer with the seal of election commission and IO seized the same vide seizure memo already EX PW­ 2/D bearing her signature at point C. It is further correct IO seized Rs. 6000/­ recovered from the accused Mahesh Garg vide seizure memo already EX PW­2/E bearing her signature at point C. It is further correct that FIR No. 09/14 State Vs. Mahesh Garg 36/75 PS South Rohini IO arrested the accused Mahesh Garg vide arrest and personal search memo already EX PW­2/G and EX PW­2/H both bearing her signature at point B. It is further correct that SDM, Sh. M.B. Malhotra sealed the abovesaid clinic of Dr. Mahesh Garg at Avantika, Rohini. It is correct that she can identify the abovesaid case property if produced before her. The abovesaid recovered currency notes are already EX.P­1 (colly), UPS is already EX.P­2, Printer is already EX.P­3, Registers are already EX.P­4 and P­5 and cash book already EX.P­6. The identity of the ultra sound machine seized from the clinic of accused Mahesh Garg was not disputed during the testimony of PW­5 Sh. M.B. Malhotra.

28. She was duly cross examined by Ld. defence counsel. In her cross examination she has desposed that she was not a member of team which had raided the clinic of Dr. Manju and Dr. Bhagat Singh. The said raid was in respect of illegal termination of pregnancy. She has admitted that that there was no allegation of sex determination against the said doctors. It was the team of Civil Surgeon who had conducted the raid and interrogated the accused. The accused was not interrogated in her presence. The interrogation of Dr. Manju and Dr. Bhagat Singh was done on 30.12.2013. The information about accused Mahesh Garg was received in Govt. hospital Bahadurgarh on 03.01.2014 from the office of Civil Surgeon. The information was in writing. The hospital then informed her in writing in the forenoon. The written informations were not handed over to the IO of the present case by her. She has deposed that patient Sonia had visited the hospital in OPD. She did not know who checked up Sonia and at what time. She was informed about Sonia at about 12:00 noon. She had medically checked Sonia she was four months pregnant. She did not remember if OPD card was prepared. She was already on follow up. She had checked the medical records of Sonia and had thoroughly examined her and found that she was four months pregnant. There is a marked difference between the four months and six months pregnancy. It was not possible that Sonia was six FIR No. 09/14 State Vs. Mahesh Garg 37/75 PS South Rohini months pregnant. The termination of pregnancy can be done upto twelve weeks of pregnancy. Thereafter the termination is not legally permissible and can be done in an extra ordinary conditions. Sonia was not suffering any such extra ordinary conditions. Ms. Sonia was carrying her medical records with her to Delhi. The said records were shown to the SDM and IO of the case. She did not remember if the photocopy of the same was handed over or not. She has denied the suggestions that Sonia was not on follow up the with the hospital or that she had not examined her. She has denied the suggestions that Sonia was six months pregnant. She has deposed that the consent letter was prepared in the Govt. hospital Bahadurgarh, Haryana at about 1:00 pm. She has admitted that the consent of a pregnant lady is a must before her ultra sonography. It is also necessary that there should be a prescription of a doctor before ultra sonography. The prescription for ultra sonography of Sonia was prepared but she did not remember by whom. The prescription was with them when they left Bahadurgarh for the raid. All the documents were shown to the SDM and the IO but she did not remember if the same were handed over to them or not. She has admitted that she has not seen those documents on judicial records. She has denied the suggestion that there was no such documents and for that reason they were not handed over to the SDM/IO. She has deposed that the consent letter was for a special purpose i.e. the present raid. The consent of Mrs. Sonia was taken for the purpose of the raid in the present case for the sex determination of the fetus. They had disclosed to Sonia that a doctor was to be apprehended in the case of sex determination and her consent was taken in this regard. She had given her consent for joining the raid for sex determination in writing. Only one consent of Sonia was prepared which is EX PW­2/A. The consent EX PW­2/A is for ultra sonography. She has admitted that there is no mention of sex determination in EX.PW­2/A. She has read the rules regarding the consent in PC and PNDT Act. She did not remember those rules however, they were followed while taking consent in the present case.

FIR No. 09/14                      State Vs. Mahesh Garg                    38/75
PS South Rohini

She hasdeposed that the money of Rs. 15000/­ were taken by Sh. Manmohan Taneja and Sh. Rakesh Dahiya on the day of raid. The list of the details of currency notes EX PW­1/DA was prepared by Sh. Rakesh Dahiya at the place of raid in the afternoon at about 5:00pm. A memo was prepared at the time of handing over of currency notes to the SDM. She did not remember if a memo was prepared for handing over the currency notes by SDM. She has deposed that she alongwith the team left Bahadurgarh in two cars between 3:00­4:00 pm and reached Delhi within one hour. One car was a govt. vehicle whereas one was hired from outside. First of all, they all collected at the office of CDMO and met the SDM and Tehsildar there. After half an hour they left the office of CDMO for Jaipur Golden hospital and reached there after 45 minutes. They assembled in the Jaipur Golden hospital but she did not remember in whose room. They stayed at Jaipur Golden hospital for 30 minutes. No documentation was done at CDMO hospital. She did not remember if any documentation was done at Jaipur Golden Hospital. After one hour they reached at Rohini. The team from Bahadurgarh was comprising of some police officials of Haryana police alongwith Dr. Bhagat Singh. She hasdeposed that they stayed at the clinic for two hours and after sealing the clinic they went to the police station. She did not remember if all the members of raiding team had gone to the police station from the clinic but she remember that all the raiding team from Bahadurgarh had gone to the PS. They reached at the PS after half an hour. All the documents and the statements were prepared in the PS between 10­11 pm. She has deposed that the police team had recovered Rs. 6000/­ from the accused. The remaining amount of Rs. 9000/­ was with Ms. Sonia which was handed over by her to the police in the police station and the entire amount was sealed. She hasdeposed that the team from Bahadurgarh comprised of doctors. None of the members team was able to operate the ultra sonic machine. No report was obtained after ultra sonography of Ms. Sonia. She was not inside the clinic so there was no occasion for her to ask the accused to FIR No. 09/14 State Vs. Mahesh Garg 39/75 PS South Rohini prepare a report or Sonia. Either Sonia or her mother would be knowing if ultra sonography was done or not. She has denied the suggestions that a false case was lodged against the accused or that she is deposing falsely.

29. PW­8 Dr. Anuj has interalia deposed that on 03.01.2014 one raiding team was constituted by order of Civil Surgeon, Jhajjar, Haryana to conduct a raid at Delhi for the case of PNDT. The said team was comprising himself, Dr. Madhulika, Ms. Ganga Devi, Rakesh Dahiya and Sh. Taneja. Decoy patient Sonia and her mother was also joined in the team. Thereafter they reached Delhi and met with the Tehsildar and SDM Saraswati Vihar. Thereafter, they left the office and met with the three doctors of CDMO office. Thereafter they all reached at sector­2 , Avantika, Delhi to conduct the raid. He has deposed that when they reached at SDM office Dr. Madhulika introduced the decoy patient and her mother, Ganga Devi to SDM, Saraswati Vihar. The abovesaid Ganga Devi handed over Rs. 15000/­ to SDM, Saraswati Vihar which was withdrawn from SKS fund, Civil Hospital, Bahadurgarh, Haryana for the purpose of raid. The said money was again handed over to decoy patient Sonia and he further handed over the same to her mother. The abovesaid Ganga Devi took the decoy patient Sonia and her mother to the clinic where her sex determination test was to be conducted. He has deposed that after some time Ms. Ganga Devi signaled them by wiping her face with handkerchief. Thereafter they all reached inside the PS. All the registers were taken into possession. Decoy patient Sonia disclosed the team member that the doctor of the said clinic disclosed the sex of the fetus as male (objected to being hearsay). However, he can not identify the aforesaid doctor due the lapse of time. The team sealed the clinic and thereafter they all went to the PS where documentation was done. He did not remember anything else regarding the present case.

30. He was duly cross examined by Ld. APP for the State as he has not come up with the complete facts. In his cross examination he has deposed that that his FIR No. 09/14 State Vs. Mahesh Garg 40/75 PS South Rohini statement was recorded by the police. The same is EX PW­ 8/A. Portion A to A­1 has been read over to the witness who states that he had notdeposed so to the police. Portion B to B­1 of EX PW­ 8/A has been read over to the witness who states that he had notdeposed so to the police. Portion C to C­1 of EX PW­ 8/A has been read over to the witness who states that he had notdeposed so to the police. It is correct that the mother of Sonia had disclosed that doctor demanded Rs. 6000/­ for the sex determination test. It is further correct that SDM informed the local police and gave written complaint to the police. Portion D to D­1 of EX PW­ 8/A has been read over to the witness who states that he had notdeposed so to the police. It is correct that SDM concerned had sealed the case property and the clinic but he can not say with what seal. He can not say that the seal used was that of election commission of Delhi.

31. In his cross examination he has failed to identity the accused even on pointing out by the Ld. APP for the State. Portion E to E­1 of EX PW­ 8/A has been read over to the witness who states that he had notdeposed so to the police. He has denied the suggestion that he is not deposing the true and correct fact as he has won over by the accused. He has denied the suggestion that he has deliberately or purposefully not identifying the accused to save the skin of the accused. He has denied the suggestion that he is deposing falsely or giving his statement under the fear, undue influence or coercion.

32. He has been cross examined by Ld. defence counsel. In his cross examination he has deposed that he is not aware as to who had given the information and to whom about the present case. The written orders for conducting the raid was shown to them. Copy of the same was not given to them. He has deposed that the raiding team left Bahadurgarh after 1:00 pm. He could not say in how many number of vehicles the team left Bahadurgarh. The police officials of Haryana police were in their own vehicle. He did not know if doctor Bharat Singh accompanied the police FIR No. 09/14 State Vs. Mahesh Garg 41/75 PS South Rohini officials. It took them about ninety minutes to reach Delhi. From Bahadurgarh they had reached a Govt. office but he did not remember the place. The team of doctors met with them at Rohini in late evening. From Rohini they went to PS. They remained in the PS till 1:00 am in the night intervening night of 3 rd and 4th January. The entire documentation was done at the PS. He was asked to sign certain documents but he did not remember what they were. He has admitted that he has not been shown any document bearing his signatures as a witness. He did not remember how long they remained at the clinic. The clinic was sealed late in the night. He is not aware as to what happened with the currency notes of Rs. 15000/­. He is also not aware if any report of ultra sonography was seized or not. Sonia was not examined in his presence. He has denied the suggestion that a false case was lodged against the accused. He has denied the suggestion that he is deposing falsely.

33. PW­9 Dr. Kamal Kumar has interaila deposed that on 03/01/2014, he was posted at office of CDMO, North West as District Program Officer and on that day at about 6:00 pm, received a telephonic call of Dr. A.K. Diwan, Director, Directorate of Family Welfare, Govt. of NCT. of Delhi at the landline number of my office and he instructed him and Dr. Meenakshi Hembram to join the raiding party of the officers coming from Haryana. Thereafter he called Vinod Kumar Garg who was working as pharmacist and dealing assistant of program of PC and PNDT and he was asked to join the raiding party and reached at Jaipur Golden Hospital. Thereafter, he alongwith Dr. Meenakshi reached near Jaipur Golden Hospital, Sector­3, Rohini, Delhi and met with the Drug controller Mr. Taneja and thereafter they proceeded towards the Avantika, Rohini. On reaching there they waited at traffic light of Avantika Chowk near Pole Star school. After sometime they were called inside the clinic and they show them Rs. 6,000/­ (six notes of Rs. 1000/­) and informed them that the same were recovered from Dr. Mahesh Garg. It was also disclosed that Dr. Mahesh Garg had done sex determination test by ultrasonographic machine. Thereafter, police was FIR No. 09/14 State Vs. Mahesh Garg 42/75 PS South Rohini called. He hasdeposed that the ultrasound machine, UPS and printer were handed over to the police. Thereafter they all went to police station. The aforesaid machines were sealed and seized in the police station vide seizure memo already Ex.PW­2/D bearing his signature at point D. The entire team including the SDM were present in the police station and all of them left the police station around 12:30 mid night. He did not remember anything else.

34. He was duly cross examined by Ld. APP for the State as he has not come up with the complete facts. In his cross examination he hasdeposed that it is correct that his statement was recorded by the IO in the present case. He has denied the suggestion that he has told to the IO portion A to A­1 of the statement which is Ex.PW­9/A. He has denied the suggestion that he was told by the team that one doctor namely Mahesh Garg who was running a clinic at Avantika was involved in sex determination test. Confronted with statement Ex.PW­9/A where it is so recorded. He has denied the suggestion that he came to know that one decoy patient Sonia would come with the team of Haryana for helping in the raid or that Rs. 15,000/­ were handed over by Smt. Ganga Devi to the SDM who then handed over to Smt. Sonia after preparing the list and Sonia thereafter handed over the money to her mother Smt. Krishna or that Smt. Sonia, Smt. Krishna and Smt. Ganga Devi were sent as decoy patient, attendant and shadow witness. Confronted with portions A to A­1 of statement Ex. PW­9/A where it is so recorded. He has deposed that handing over memo to the decoy patient Sonia which is already Ex. PW­1/DA is shown to the witness bearing his signature at point C. The witness states that the document was prepared and signed in the police station. At this stage, seizure memo of the handing over memo which is already Ex. PW­2/B is shown to the witness bearing his signature at point D. The witness states that the document was prepared and signed in the police station. He has denied the suggestion that he told to the IO that decoy patient Sonia, her mother and Ganga Devi went inside the clinic of Dr. Mahesh Garg FIR No. 09/14 State Vs. Mahesh Garg 43/75 PS South Rohini or that after sometime Smt. Ganga Devi came out and passed on the pre­determined signal and thereafter the entire team went inside the clinic. Confronted with the statement Ex. PW­9/A where it is so recorded. He has denied the suggestion that he has ever told to the IO that Smt. Krishna told to them that Dr. Mahesh Garg present in the court asked Rs. 6,000/­ for the sex determination test of decoy patient Sonia. He came to know Dr. Mahesh Garg disclosed the sex of the fetus as male from the team present inside the clinic. He has denied the suggestion that he has told to the IO that Dr. Madhulika handed over the consent letter of Ms. Sonia to the IO. Confronted with statement Ex. PW­9/A where it is so recorded. It is correct that concerned SDM had sealed the machines but he did not remember by what seal. It is correct that the machines were handed over to the police vide memo already Ex.PW­2/D. Some documents were seized from the clinic which were handed over to the police vide seizure memo already Ex. PW­2/C bearing his signature at point D. Rs. 6000/­ were recovered by the police and seized vide seizure memo already Ex. PW­2/E bearing his signatures at point D. It is correct that IO arrested the accused Mahesh Garg in the present case vide memo already Ex. PW­2/G and Ex. PW­2/H both bearing his signature at point E. It is wrong to suggest that he can identify the aforesaid recovered ultrasound machine, UPS, printer, register and currency notes etc. if produce before him. He has denied the suggestion that he is not deposing true, correct and complete facts before court as he has been won over by the accused or he is giving his statement under fear, threat or coercion. He has denied the suggestion that he is deliberately not identifying the case property in order to help the accused.

33. He was duly cross examined by Ld. defence counsel. In his cross examination he has deposed that they had reached the police station at about 8:00 pm and thereafter the entire documentation was done while sitting in the police station. He had scrutinized the records seized from the clinic and were found in order. He has admitted that the accused had not performed any ultrasonography in his presence. No FIR No. 09/14 State Vs. Mahesh Garg 44/75 PS South Rohini report of any ultrasonography was derived from the machines. He has admitted that no report or evidence or the ultrasonography was found at that time. He did not remember if the team from Haryana comprised of any police officials from Haryana Police. He has admitted that Rs. 6,000/­ was not recovered in my presence.

35. PW­10 Dr. Meenakshi Hembram has interalia deposed that on 03/01/2014, she was posted at office of CDMO, North West as District Program officer( Reproductive and Child Health) and on that day at about 6:00 pm, received a telephonic call of Dr. A.K. Diwan, Director, Directorate of Family Welfare, Govt. of NCT. Of Delhi at the landline number of her office, and he instructed her and Dr. Kamal to join the raiding party of the officers coming from Haryana. Thereafter they called Vinod Kumar Garg who was working as pharmacist and dealing assistant of program of PC and PNDT and he was asked to join the raiding party and reached at Jaipur Golden Hospital. Thereafter, she alongwith Dr. Kamal reached near Jaipur Golden Hospital, Sector­3, Rohini, Delhi at about 6:40 pm and met with the Drug controller Mr. Taneja and thereafter they proceeded towards the Avantika, Rohini. On reaching there they waited at traffic light of Avantika Chowk near Pole Star school. After sometime they were called inside the clinic and they show them Rs. 6,000/­ (six notes of Rs. 1000/­) and informed them that the same were recovered from Dr. Mahesh Garg. It was also disclosed that Dr. Mahesh Garg had done sex determination test by ultrasonographic machine. Thereafter, police was called. The ultrasound machine, UPS and printer were handed over to the police. Thereafter they all went to police station. The aforesaid machines were sealed and seized in the police station vide seizure memo already Ex. PW­2/D bearing her signature at point E. The entire team including the SDM were present in the police station and all of them left the police station around 12:30 mid night. She did not remember anything else.

36. She was duly cross examined by Ld APP for the State as she has not come up with the complete facts. In her cross examination she hasdeposed that it is correct FIR No. 09/14 State Vs. Mahesh Garg 45/75 PS South Rohini that her statement was recorded by the IO in the present case. She has denied the suggestions that s She has told to the IO portion A to A­1 of the statement which is Ex. PW­10/A. She has denied the suggestions that she was told by the team that one doctor namely Mahesh Garg who was running a clinic at Avantika was involved in sex determination test. Confronted with statement Ex. PW­10/A where it is so recorded. She has denied the suggestions that she came to know that one decoy patient Sonia would come with the team of Haryana for helping in the raid or that Rs. 15,000/­ were handed over by Smt. Ganga Devi to the SDM who then handed over to Smt. Sonia after preparing the list and Sonia thereafter handed over the money to her mother Smt. Krishna or that Smt. Sonia, Smt. Krishna and Smt. Ganga Devi were sent as decoy patient, attendant and shadow witness. Confronted with portions A to A­1 of statement Ex. PW­10/A where it is so recorded. She has deposed that handing over memo to the decoy patient Sonia which is already Ex. PW­1/DA is shown to the witness bearing her signature at point D. The witness states that the document was prepared and signed in the police station. Seizure memo of the handing over memo which is already Ex.PW2/B is shown to the witness bearing her signature at point E. She states that the document was prepared and signed in the police station. She has denied the suggestions that she told to the IO that decoy patient Sonia, her mother and Ganga Devi went inside the clinic of Dr. Mahesh Garg or that after sometime Smt. Ganga Devi came out and passed on the pre­determined signal and thereafter the entire team went inside the clinic. Confronted with the statement Ex. PW­10/A where it is so recorded. She has denied the suggestions that he has ever told to the IO that Smt. Krishna told to them that Dr. Mahesh Garg present in the court asked Rs. 6,000/­ for the sex determination test of decoy patient Sonia. She came to know Dr. Mahesh Garg disclosed the sex of the fetus as male from the team present inside the clinic. She has denied the suggestions that he has told to the IO that Dr. Madhulika handed over the consent letter of Ms. Sonia to the IO. Confronted with statement Ex.

FIR No. 09/14                       State Vs. Mahesh Garg                     46/75
PS South Rohini

PW­10/A where it is so recorded. She has admitted that concerned SDM had sealed the machines but she did not remember by what seal. She has admitted that the machines were handed over to the police vide memo already Ex. PW­2/D. Some documents were seized from the clinic which were handed over to the police vide seizure memo already Ex. PW­2/C bearing her signature at point E. Rs. 6000/­ were recovered by the police and seized vide seizure memo already Ex. PW­2/E bearing her signatures at point E. She has admitted that IO arrested the accused Mahesh Garg in the present case vide memo already Ex. PW­2/G and Ex. PW­2/H both bearing her signature at point F. It is wrong to suggest that I can identify the aforesaid recovered ultrasound machine, UPS, printer, register and currency notes etc if produce before me. She denied the suggestion that she is not deposing true, correct and complete facts before court as she has been won over by the accused or she is giving her statement under fear, threat or coercion. She has denied the suggestions that she is deliberately not identifying the case property in order to help the accused.

37. She was duly cross examined by Ld. defence counsel. In her cross examination she has deposed that they had reached the police station at about 8:00 pm and thereafter the entire documentation was done while sitting in the police station. She had scrutinized the records seized from the clinic and were found in order. She has admitted that the accused had not performed any ultrasonography in her presence. No report of any ultrasonography was derived from the machines. She has admitted that no report or evidence or the ultrasonography was found at that time. She did not remember if the team from Haryana comprised of any police officials from Haryana Police. She has admitted that Rs. 6,000/­ was not recovered in her presence.

38. PW­11 Sh. Vinod Kumar Garg has interalia deposed that on 03/01/2014, he was posted at office of CDMO, North West as pharmacist and dealing assistant of program of PC and PNDT and on that day, at about 6:10 pm he received a telephonic FIR No. 09/14 State Vs. Mahesh Garg 47/75 PS South Rohini call of Dr. Kamal Kumar and Dr. Meenakshi Hembram and they were asked him to join the raiding party coming from Haryana and thereafter he reached at Jaipur Golden Hospital. At about 6:30 pm he met with Dr. Kamal Kumar, Dr. Meenakshi Hembram and the Drug controller Mr. Taneja and thereafter they proceeded towards the Avantika, Rohini. On reaching there they waited at traffic light of Avantika Chowk near Pole Star school. After sometime they were called inside the clinic and they show them Rs. 6,000/­ (six notes of Rs. 1000/­) and informed them that the same were recovered from Dr. Mahesh Garg. It was also disclosed that Dr. Mahesh Garg had done sex determination test by ultrasonographic machine. Thereafter, police was called. The ultrasound machine, UPS and printer were handed over to the police. Thereafter they all went to police station. The entire team including the SDM were present in the police station and all of them left the police station around 12:30 mid night. She did not remember anything else.

39. He was duly cross examined by Ld. APP for the State as he has not come up with the complete facts. In his cross examination he hasdeposed that it is correct that his statement was recorded by the IO in the present case. He has denied the suggestions that he has told to the IO portion A to A­1 of the statement which is Ex. PW­11/A. He has denied the suggestion that he was told by the team that one doctor namely Mahesh Garg who was running a clinic at Avantika was involved in sex determination test. Confronted with statement Ex. PW­11/A where it is so recorded. He has denied the suggestion that they came to know that one decoy patient Sonia would come with the team of Haryana for helping in the raid or that Rs.15,000/­ were handed over by Smt. Ganga Devi to the SDM who then handed over to Smt. Sonia after preparing the list and Sonia thereafter handed over the money to her mother Smt. Krishna or that Smt. Sonia, Smt. Krishna and Smt. Ganga Devi were sent as decoy patient, attendant and shadow witness. Confronted with portions A to A­1 of statement Ex. PW­11/A where it is so recorded. He has denied the suggestion that he FIR No. 09/14 State Vs. Mahesh Garg 48/75 PS South Rohini told to the IO that decoy patient Sonia, her mother and Ganga Devi went inside the clinic of Dr. Mahesh Garg or that after sometime Smt. Ganga Devi came out and passed on the pre­determined signal and thereafter the entire team went inside the clinic. Confronted with the statement Ex. PW­11/A where it is so recorded. He has denied the suggestion that he has ever told to the IO that Smt. Krishna told to us that Dr. Mahesh Garg is present in the court today asked Rs. 6,000/­ for the sex determination test of decoy patient Sonia. He came to know Dr Mahesh Garg disclosed the sex of the fetus as male from the team present inside the clinic. He has denied the suggestion that he has told to the IO that Dr. Madhulika handed over the consent letter of Ms. Sonia to the IO. Confronted with statement Ex. PW­11/A where it is so recorded. It is correct that concerned SDM had sealed the machines but I do not remember by what seal. It is correct that the machines were handed over to the police. Some documents were seized from the clinic which were handed over to the police. Rs. 6000/­ were recovered by the police and seized by the IO. It is correct that IO arrested the accused Mahesh Garg in the present case. It is wrong to suggest that he can identify the aforesaid recovered ultrasound machine, UPS, printer, register and currency notes etc if produce before me. He has denied the suggestion that he is not deposing true, correct and complete facts before court as he has been won over by the accused or he is giving his statement under fear, threat or coercion. He has denied the suggestion that he is deliberately not identifying the case property in order to help the accused.

40. He was duly cross examined by Ld. defence counsel. In his cross examination he has deposed that he had not signed any document during the entire proceedings. They had reached the police station at about 8:10 pm and thereafter the entire documentation was done while sitting in the police station. He had scrutinized the records seized from the clinic and were found in order. He has admitted that the accused had not performed any ultrasonography in his presence. No report of any FIR No. 09/14 State Vs. Mahesh Garg 49/75 PS South Rohini ultrasonography was derived from the machines. He has admitted that no report or evidence or the ultrasonography was found at that time. He did not remember if the team from Haryana comprised of any police officials from Haryana Police. He has admitted that Rs. 6,000/­ was not recovered in his presence.

41. PW­12 Sh. Rakesh Dahiya has interalia deposed that on 30.12.2013, the Health Department, District, Jhajjar Haryana raided at Bahadurgarh regarding illegal MTP activity. In this regard, the FIR was registered at Bahadurgarh and Mrs. Manju and Mr. Bhagat Singh were arrested. During investigation, it came to theire knowledge that Dr. Mahesh Garg at Sector­3 Rohini is doing ultrasound and discloses sex of the fetus. Then the same was informed to their authority and a team was constituted comprising of Mr. Manmohan Taneja, the then SDCO, Rohtak, himself, Dr. Madhulika, Medical Officer, Bahadurgarh, Dr. Anuj Garg, MO Bahadurgarh and Ms. Ganga, Pharmacist for conducting a raid at the clinic of Dr. Mahesh Garg who is present in the court (correctly identified). For this purpose, they needed a decoy patient. Dr. Madhulika talked to her patient Sonia who agreed to help the raiding party. She also called her mother Smt. Krishna to accompany her. He has deposed that on 03.01.2014, the entire abovesaid team reached at office of SDM Saraswati Vihar Sh. M.B. Malhotra and told everything about the proceeding at Bahadurgarh, then he called Sh. Pardeep Kumar, the then Tehsildar. Smt. Ganga gave Rs. 15,000/­ to Sh. Malhotra to give this amount to decoy patient. Then a list already Ex.PW1/DA bearing his signatures at point E was prepared in respect of the currency notes which were handed over to Smt. Sonia. Smt. Sonia then handed over these currency notes to her mother Smt. Krishna. Sh. Malhotra also called Delhi Health Team to reach at Jaipur Golden Hospital. Sh. Malhotra then planned for the abovesaid raid and asked Sonia to visit the doctor for her ultrasonography and after the completion of the check­up, Smt. Ganga would pass on the signal. Then the entire team reached at Jaipur Golden Hospital and met Delhi Health Team and proceeded towards Clinic of FIR No. 09/14 State Vs. Mahesh Garg 50/75 PS South Rohini Dr. Mahesh Garg. After reaching there, Sonia, Krishna and Ganga entered the clinic. After sometime, Ms. Ganga signalled us by wiping her face with hankerchief and the entire team entered in the abovesaid clinic. He deposed that after entering the clinic, Smt. Sonia told the team that Dr. Mahesh Garg has done ultrasonography on her and discloses sex of the fetus as male child and charged Rs. 6000/­ for this purpose. She alsodeposed that she has signed on a register. Then the team recovered Rs. 6000/­ from Dr. Mahesh Garg. Mr. Malhotra also informed the police to reach at the spot. Police arrived at the spot and seized the ultrasound machine, UPS and printer vide seizure memo already Ex. PW­2/B bearing his signatures at point F. Apart from this, two registers and receipt book were also recovered and seized vide seizure memo already Ex. PW­2/C bearing his signatures at point F. The currency note recovered from the possession of accused Mahesh Garg was seized vide seizure memo already Ex. PW­2/E bearing his signatures at point F. Accused was also arrested in the present case vide arrest and personal search memo already Ex. PW­2/G and Ex. PW­ 2/H, both bearing his signatures at point G. IO also recorded the disclosure statement of accused Mahesh Garg, already Ex. PW­2/F bearing his signatures at point C. Then the abovesaid clinic was sealed by Mr. Malhotra. He can identify the aforesaid case property if produced before me. The abovesaid recovered currency note are already EX P­1(colly.), UPS is already EX P­2, Printer is already EX­P­3, Registers are already EX P­4 and P­5 and the Cash Book already EX­P­6. The identity of the ultra sound machine seized from the abovesaid clinic of accused Mahesh Garg was not disputed during the testimony of PW­5 Sh. M.B. Malhotra.

42. He was duly cross examined by Ld. defence counsel. In his cross he hasdeposed that the raid at Bahadurgarh was conducted on 30.12.2013. Ms. Manju and Mr. Bhagat Singh were interrogated in his presence. Their disclosure statements were recorded by the police on 30.12.2013 and the facts were told to them by the police when they visited the police station. Mr. Taneja had passed on the information FIR No. 09/14 State Vs. Mahesh Garg 51/75 PS South Rohini about Dr. Mahesh Garg as disclosed by Ms. Manju and Mr. Bhagat Singh probably on 30.12.2013. The information was not passed on in writing. He had not seen any documents in respect of the visit of Ms. Sonia to the hospital at Bahadurgarh to meet Dr. Madhulika. He had not seen any medical prescription of Ms. Sonia prepared by Dr. Madhulika before leaving Bahadurgarh for raid. Dr. Madhulika had obtained consent of Ms. Sonia which was seen by him. He is not aware about the rules concerning the format of the consent. He did not remember if Ms. Sonia had given consent for the detection of the sex of the fetus. As per his information it is mandatory that if the ultra sonography of a pregnant lady is to be conducted her consent is necessary. The consent already EX PW­2/A is having consent of Ms. Sonia for getting her ultra sonography done. It is correct that the consent is not having any mention regarding determination of the sex of the fetus. He hasdeposed that Ms. Ganga had brought Rs 15,000/­ from Bahadurgarh. As far as he remember, only Rs. 6000/­ were recovered and he was not aware as to when and to whom the remaining amount of Rs. 9000/­ were returned by Ms. Sonia or Krishna. He has never seen Rs. 9000/­ after the raid. The said amount of Rs. 9000/­ was never seized in his presence. He hasdeposed that the team left Bahadurgarh at about 12noon /1:00 pm and reached Delhi at around 2:30 pm. Apart from the afoaresaid team, police officials of Haryana police alongwith Mr. Bhagat Singh had also joined. Mr. Bhagat Singh was brought for the purpose of pointing out the clinic of Dr. Mahesh Garg. The Haryana police and Mr. Bhagat Singh had left after the pointing out of the clinic of Dr. Mahesh Garg. The pointing out of the clinic was done by Mr. Bhagat Singh at about 2:30 pm. Thereafter they went to the SDM office and reached there at about 3:00 pm. They remained in the office of the SDM till about 5:30 pm. They reached Jaipur Golden hospital around 6:00 pm. The team from CDMO office was already present at Jaipur Golden hospital. There was a discussion for about 15 minutes and the money was handed over to Ms. Sonia and they reached the clinic at about 6:30 FIR No. 09/14 State Vs. Mahesh Garg 52/75 PS South Rohini pm. The clinic was situated in a market area and a huge rush was present there. They were scattered near the clinic within the distance of ten feet. After about 15 minutes Ms. Ganga gave the signal to the team. The doctor was present in the clinic when they entered the clinic. They had not seen the doctor entering the clinic between the time when the team reached near the clinic and when the team entered the clinic. They remained inside the clinic for about four hours and thereafter they reached the police station. They remained in the police station for about 2.5/3 hours. He hasdeposed that neither Ms. Sonia had produced any report of ultra sonography before them nor he had seen the same. Dr. Madhulika had checked the ultra sonography machine in respect of the ultra sonography of Ms. Sonia. He is not aware if any print out of the ultra sonography was taken by Dr. Madhulika. He hadseen the registers. There was an entry in respect of Sonia. The said entry did not bear the signatures of Ms. Sonia. Vol. there were signatures of Ms. Krishna. He had checked the receipt book. Cash memo was issued in the name of Ms. Sonia for Rs. 800/­. There was no entry in any record regarding Rs. 6000/­. He had singed the documents at the spot. He has denied the suggestion that he was not a member of raiding team and had signed the documents at the behest of senior officers. He has denied the suggestion that Dr. Mahesh Garg had not conducted any ultra sonography on Ms. Sonia. He has denied the suggestion that he had not disclosed the sex of the fetus. He has denied the suggestion that noting was recovered in his presence. He has denied the suggestion that he has deposed falsely.

43. PW­13 SI Amarjeet has interalia deposed that on 03.01.2014 he was posted at PS South Rohini as SI and on that day he had come to know that the SDM Saraswati Vihar had conducted a raid at A­1, Avantika Market, Sector­2, Rohini, Delhi at the clinic of Dr. Mahesh Garg. Thereafter he alongwith SHO, PS South Rohini, WSI Nisha and HC Satender had gone to the clinic of Dr. Mahesh Garg where Sh. M.B. Malhotra, SDM Sarawati Vihar, Pardeep Kumar Naib Tehsildar and FIR No. 09/14 State Vs. Mahesh Garg 53/75 PS South Rohini Dr. Madhulika and others from Bahadurgarh were present. He has deposed that SDM M.B. Malhotra handed over Dr. Mahesh Garg to SI Rahul and told that Dr. Mahesh Garg was apprehended for detection of sex of the fetus. SDM handed over a written complaint to SI Rahul who made endorsement and got the case registered through HC Satender. SI Rahul made enquires from SDM and on his pointing out, site plan was prepared. SDM had seized the ultra sound machine, UPS and printer alongwith two registers and receipt book. IO seized the same vide seizure memo already EX PW­ 2/C and EX PW­2/D both bearing his signature at point ­G. The accused was interrogated by the IO and Rs. 6000/­was produced by him and IO seized the same vide seizure memo already EX PW­2/E bearing his signature at point G. The personal search of the accused was conducted and he was arrested vide arrest and personal search memo already EX PW­2/G and EX PW­2/H respectively and both bearing his signature at point P. Case property was brought outside the clinic and clinic was sealed by Sh. M.B. Malhotra, SDM. He has correctly identified the accused Mahesh Garg. He can identify the aforesaid case property if produced before him. The abovesaid recovered currency note are already EX P­1(colly.), UPS is already EX P­ 2, Printer is already EX­P­3, Registers are already EX P­4 and P­5 and the Cash Book already EX­P­6. The identity of the ultra sound machine seized from the abovesaid clinic of accused Mahesh Garg was not disputed during the testimony of PW­5 Sh. M.B. Malhotra.

44. He was duly cross examined by Ld. defence counsel. In his cross examination he has deposed that they left the police station at about 8:30 pm and reached the clinic at 8:40 pm. When they reached the clinic the police from Bahadurgarh was not present. They remained at the clinic for about four hours. Statement of Sonia, Krishna and Ganga were not recorded in his presence. However, they were interrogated. He had not seen the ultrasound report of Smt. Sonia nor the same was taken out from the ultrasound machine. The doctors had not checked the machine in FIR No. 09/14 State Vs. Mahesh Garg 54/75 PS South Rohini his presence. He was not present at the time when Sonia, Krishna and Ganga had visited the clinic nor any ultrasonography was done in his presence. SI Rahul had checked the records. It is correct that no records was recovered from the clinic to suggest that ultrasonography of Ms. Sonia was done by Dr. Mahesh Garg. He has denied the suggestion that he has not visited the clinic or that he had singed the documents at the behest of senior officers. He has denied the suggestion that he is deposing falsely.

45. PW­14 Smt. Poonam Saini has posted at office of SDJM, Sub Division Bahadurgarh, District Jhajjar, Haryana as Deputy Record Keeper. He hase brought the summon record pertaining to FIR number 300/13, u/s 3/4/5 MTP Act and u/s 15 (2), 15 (3)IMC Act, PS Line Paar, Bahadurgarh, Haryana. Copy of the same is EX PW­14/A (OSR).

46. She was duly cross examined by Ld. APP for the State. In her cross examination she has deposed that the summoned record is a judicial record. The case has been finally disposed off on 14.05.2018 and as per record both the accused namely Smt. Manju and Sh. Bhagat Singh have been acquitted of the charges U/s 5(2),5(3) & 5(4) of Medial Termination of Pregnancy Act, 1971 and Section 15 of Indian Medical Council Act, 1956. She has deposed that as per record, an application for two days police custody remand was moved by an Officer of Police Station Linepar Bahadurgarh on 03.01.2014. PC remand for one day was granted vide order dated 03.01.2014. He had compared the certified copy with the original record and the same is Ex. PW14/D1 (OSR). The copy of the order is Ex. PW14/D2 (OSR). He had seen disclosure statements of Smt. Manju and Dr. Bhagat Singh, copies thereof are Ex. PW14/D3 to Ex. PW14/D7 (OSR) respectively.

47. PW­15 Inspector Nisha has interalia deposed that on 03.01.2014 she was posted at PS South Rohini as SI. On that day she received information that Dr. Mahesh Garg apprehended at his clinic at A­1, Avantika Market, Sector­2, Rohini FIR No. 09/14 State Vs. Mahesh Garg 55/75 PS South Rohini while conducting sex determination test. Thereafter, she alongwith SHO PS South Rohini, SI Rahul, SI Amarjeet, HC Satender reached at the aforesaid clinic of Dr. Mahesh Garg, where they met Sh. M.B. Malhoatra, SDM Saraswati Vihar, Naib Tehsildar Padeep Kumar, Dr. Manmohan Taneja, Senior District Drug controller Jhajjar, Dr. Madhulika Medical Officer, General Hospital, Bahadurgarh, Haryana, Ms. Ganga Devi, Pharmacist, General Hospital Bahadurgarh, Haryana, Rakesh Dahiya Drug Controller, District Jhajjar, Dr. Kamal Kumar, Dr. Meenakshi, Dr. Vinod Kumar Garg and decoy patient Soniya and her mother Smt. Krishna. Thereafter SDM Sh. M.B. Malhotra gave a complaint to SI Rahul. SI Rahul endorsed the said complaint and lodged the said FIR. IO SI Rahul prepared site plan on the instance of Sh. M.B. Malhotra. In the meanwhile HC Satender returned back to the spot and handed over copy of FIR and original complaint to SI Rahul. She has deposed that the handing over memo of Rs. 15000/­ to decoy patient Smt. Soniya was given to SI Rahul by Sh. M.B. Malhotra. The consent letter given by decoy patient Soniya to Dr. Madhulika was handed over to SI Rahul by aforesaid doctor Madhulika. Dr. Kamal handed over the recovered register, note book, receipt book to SI Rahul and SDM M.B. Malhotra handed over ultra sound machine, UPS and printer to SI Rahul after duly sealed the same with the seal of election commission of Delhi. IO seized the same and took into police possession. She has deposed that IO/SI Rahul interrogated Dr. Mahesh Garg who handed over Rs. 6000/­ given by Smt. Krishna for the sex determination test and IO took into police possession the aforesaid recovered Rs. 6000/­ IO arrested the accused Mahesh Garg in the present case. After completion of the aforesaid investigation at the aforesaid clinic Sh. M.B. Malhotra, SDM Saraswati Vihar sealed the aforesaid clinic of Dr. Mahesh Garg. She has correctly identified the accused Mahesh Garg. IO recorded her statement in this regard.

48. She was duly cross examined by Ld. defence counsel. In her cross examination FIR No. 09/14 State Vs. Mahesh Garg 56/75 PS South Rohini she has deposed that she left the PS at about 6­6:30 pm and reached at the clinic of Dr. Mahesh Garg within 10 minutes. No police official of Bahadurgarh police was present at the said clinic when she reached there. They remained there for about two hours. She has denied the suggestion that she has not visited the clinic or that she is deposing falsely at the instance of the IO or that accused was falsely implicated in the present case.

49. PW­16 Dr. Ajit Singh Gulia has interalia deposed that during the investigation of the present case, on 16.07.2015 IO of the present case met him and inquired regarding the admission of Ms. Sonia W/o Ajay Kumar and her delivery vide his letter Ex. PW16/A and he had replied the same from point X to X1, bearing his signature at point A. The aforementioned Sonia gave birth to a male child on 08.04.2014 in her Nursing Home i.e. Gulia Nursing Home. He had provided the copy of the said entry to the IO, same is Ex. PW16/B (OSR), bearing his signature and stamp at point A. Sonia was admitted to his nursing home on 07.4.2014 and an entry was made in this regard in Admission Register, copy thereof is Ex. PW16/C (OSR), bearing his statement and signature at point A.

50. He was duly cross examined by Ld. defence counsel. In his cross examination he deposed that as per entry in Admission Register of the Nursing Home, the patient was a Primi Patient with full term pregnancy with cephalic presentation with labour pains with leaking per vaginam.. The result was full term normal delivery with epiziotomy and the same patient was discharged on 09.04.2014. Full terms pregnancy means pregnancy of about 40 weeks.

51. PW­17 HC Satender Pal has interalia deposed that on 03.01.2014 he was posted at PS South Rohini as HC. On that day one information was received at PS through SDM, Saraswati Vihar that he had conducted raid at the clinic of accused Dr. Mahesh Garg at A­1, Avantika Market, Sector­2, Rohini, Delhi. Thereafter, he alongwith SI Amarjeet, SI Rahul, WSI Nisha reached at the aforementioned clinic of FIR No. 09/14 State Vs. Mahesh Garg 57/75 PS South Rohini Dr. Mahesh Garg. On reaching at the spot they met with Sh. M.B. Malhotra, SDM, Saraswati Vihar, Sh. Pardeep Tehsildar and team of doctors from Delhi and Bahadurgarh alongwith the decoy patient Ms. Sonia and her mother Smt. Krishna. Sh. M.B. Malhotra, SDM, Saraswati Vihar gave a written complaint to SI Rahul, IO/SI Rahul prepared rukka and same was handed over to him for registration of the case at PS South Rohini. Accordingly, he went to the PS and got the present case registered. After getting the case registered he returned back to the spot and handed over copy of FIR and original rukka to IO. IO interrogated the accused. SDM gave handing over slip of Rs. 15,000/­ to IO, Dr. Madhulika handed over consent letter of decoy patient Sonia to IO and IO seized the same. Dr. Kamal handed over register, notebook, receipt book to IO and IO seized the same. SDM handed over ultrasound machine, UPS and printer duly sealed with the seal of election commission of Delhi to IO SI Rahul and IO seized the same. IO arrested the accused in present case. SDM Sarawati Vihar sealed the clinic of accused. Thereafter they all reached the PS South Rohini. IO recorded the statement of witnesses. He has deposed that he alongwith SI Rahul went to BSA hospital for the medical examination of the accused. After medical examination of the accused he was brought to the PS and put behind the bar. IO recorded his statement.

52. He was duly cross examined by Ld. defence counsel. In his cross examination has deposed that they left the PS at about 8:26 pm and reached at the clinic of accused within ten minutes. When they reached there no police official from PS Bahadurgarh was found present at the aforementioned clinic. They finally left the spot at about 11:00pm. He denied the suggestion that he never joined the investigation and reached at the spot or that he never took the rukka to PS for registration of the case or that whole proceedings were conducted while sitting in the PS. He denied the suggestion that he is deposing falsely at the instance of the IO or that accused was falsely implicated in the present case.

FIR No. 09/14                         State Vs. Mahesh Garg                   58/75
PS South Rohini

53. PW­18 SI Sudhir Rathi has interalia deposed that on 04.01.2014 he was posted at PS South Rohini as HC and on that day he joined the investigation alongwith SI Rahul Kumar and had taken out accused Mahesh Garg from lock up and he was produced in the concerned case. IO moved an application for two day PC remand of accused, hon'ble court gave only one day PC remand of the accused. Thereafter accused was brought to the PS where IO recorded supplementary statement of accused Mahesh Garg, same is EX PW­18/A bearing his signature at point A. Accused led us to flat no 101, Akash Kunj, Sector­2, Rohini, Delhi and from where got recovered two laptop and IO seized the same vide seizure memo EX PW­18/B bearing his signature at point A. Thereafter medical examination of accused conducted at Dr. BSA hospital and accused put behind the bar. He has deposed that IO recorded his statement. He can identify the abovesaid recovered laptop if produced before him. Photographs of the aforementioned laptop which are on judicial file were shown to the witness, witness correctly identified the same. Photographs are collectively EX P­1. He has correctly identified the accused.

54. He was duly cross examined by Ld. defence counsel. In his cross examination he did not remember at what time accused was produced before concerned court and what time he was taken from lock­up but he was brought out from lock up around afternoon. He also could not tell the time when they reached at the house of the accused and what time the medical examination was got conducted. He did not remember how much time was taken in recording of the statement. He deposed that he could not tell at the time of his visit at 101, Akash Kunj, and at the time of recording of disclosure statement who else was present with him and SI Rahul. It is wrong to suggest that I was not present at the time of recovery of laptops or at the time of recording of disclosure statement. He has denied the suggestion that he has not taken the accused for the medical examination and to the court. He has denied the suggestion that he is deposing falsely.

FIR No. 09/14                        State Vs. Mahesh Garg                   59/75
PS South Rohini

55. PW­19 HC Akhilesh has interalia deposed that he has brought the summoned record i.e. register no. 19 containing the entries made at Sl. No. 2492 dated 03.01.2014 vide which SI Rahul deposited two register and one receipt book, one ultrasound machine, UPS, printer, articles found in personal search of the accused. Vide entry at Sl. No. 2494 dated 04.01.2014, SI Rahul had deposited two laptops. Copy of the said entries are Ex. PW­19/A1 (OSR) and PW­19/A2 (OSR) respectively. He has deposed that on 08.10.2015 one sealed pullinda containing memory card of ultrasound machine sealed with the seal of CDMO was sent to Trivitron Heath Care System Pvt. at B/A­12, Second Floor, Mohan Cooperative Industrial Estate, Main Mathura Road, Delhi vide RC no. 81/21/15. Copy is Ex. PW­ 19/A­3 (OSR).

56. He was duly cross examined by Ld. defence counsel. In his cross examination he has deposed that he has brought the original register no. 19. There is no entry in respect of sending the sealed pullinda containing memory card of ultrasound machine sealed with the seal of CDMO to the above said company. There is no entry in respect of receiving back the pullinda containing memory card of ultrasound machine.

57. PW­20 Const. Rajesh has interalia deposed that on 08.10.2015 he was posted at PS South Rohini as Constable. On the directions of SI Pawan he had taken one sealed pullinda containing memory card of ultrasound machine sealed with the seal of CDMO vide RC No. 81/21/15 to Trivitron Heath Care System Pvt. at B/A­12, Second Floor, Mohn Cooperative Industrial Estate, Main Mathura Road, Delhi. He deposed that one person met him there who opened the sealed parcel and thereafter informed that the memory card was that of an old machine manufactured his company and the production has been stopped. He further informed that the technology being an old one, the memory card could not be opened. He refused to give anything in writing. Thereafter, he returned to police station and informed the FIR No. 09/14 State Vs. Mahesh Garg 60/75 PS South Rohini entire facts to his senior officers. The memory card was deposited in the malkhana and the RC was returned.

58. He was duly cross examined by Ld. defence counsel. In his cross examination he has deposed that he did not remember if an entry was made in register no. 19 in respect of sending the memory card. He deposed that an entry was made in register no. 19 when he returned the memory card to MHC (M). He did not remember if the person present in the company after opening the seal had re­sealed the same while handing over the memory card to him. His statement was recorded by the IO. He did not remember if he haddeposed before the IO in his statement about re­sealing. Statement Ex. PW­20/DX is shown to the witness. He has admitted that the fact of re­ sealing the memory card is not mentioned in the statement Ex. PW20/DX. He denied the suggestion that he has deposed falsely.

59. PW­21 Const. Mahipal has interalia deposed that on 03.01.2014, he was posted at PS: South Rohini as Constable. He was working as computer operator and on that day, FIR no. 09/14 was registered and on that day the aforesaid computer was in lawful control of him and he had issued certificate u/s 65B Evidence Act regarding registration of the aforesaid FIR which is Ex. PW­21/A bearing his signature at point A.

60. He was duly cross examined by Ld. defence counsel. In his cross examination he has admitted that the time of recording the FIR and the time when Ex. PW­21/A was issued is not mentioned.

61. PW­22 HC Harinder Malik has interalia deposed that on 07.09.2015, he was posted at PS: South Rohini, as Constable and on that day, instruction of IO, he had taken one sealed pulanda and one seal envelope i.e. FSL result to CDMO (NW) Office from MHCM vide RC no. 68/21/15, copy of which is Mark X and handed over the same to Dr. Meenakshi. Dr. Meenakshi opened the said pulanda and envelope and after checking the same, again sealed the said envelope and pulanda with the seal of FIR No. 09/14 State Vs. Mahesh Garg 61/75 PS South Rohini CDMO (NW) and on reaching at PS, he deposited the same with MHCM. He has deposed that he did not temper with the said pulanda and envelope when it was remained in his possession and also did not allow anyone to temper the same. IO recorded his statement in this regard.

62. He was duly cross examined by Ld. defence counsel. In his cross examination he has deposed that it is correct that RC Mark X did not bear any endorsement from Dr. Meenakshi in respect of the opening of the sealed envelope and sealed pulanda. He admitted that the fact that the envelope and the pulanda were resealed with the seal of CDMO (NW) is also not mentioned on Mark X. He has also admitted that he had not obtained any certificate from Dr. Meenakshi in respect of desealing and resealing of the envelope and pulanda.

63. PW­23 SI Pawan Kumar has interalia deposed that on 29.05.2015, he was posted at PS­South Rohini as SI and on that day, further investigation of this case was assigned to him. During investigation, he sent a notice to CDM Office, North­West regarding the documents pertaining to the complaint case and the inquiry in whose name the clinic of accused Dr. Mahesh Garg was registered and same is Ex. PW­ 23/X­1. A reply was received in response to the notice and the same is Ex. PW­ 23/X­2. He recorded the statement of Dr. Minakshi Hembram. He had also recorded the statement of SI Rahul and sent exhibits to FSL vide receipt dated 09.07.2015. Same is Ex. PW­23/A bearing his signature at point A. He has deposed that during investigation, he had contacted the decoy patient Ms. Sonia who disclosed that delivery had taken place and she had given birth to a male child. He collected the medical record from Gulia Nursing Home where the delivery of Ms. Sonia had taken place. The record is already Ex. PW­16/A, Ex. PW­16/B and Ex. PW­16/C. He has deposed that he obtained the FSL report which is already Ex. X­2. He had sent a letter to CDMO Office, North­West to examine the FSL report and the exhibits. The CDMO Office examined the same and directed to send the exhibits to the FIR No. 09/14 State Vs. Mahesh Garg 62/75 PS South Rohini manufacturer of the ultrasound machine i.e. M/s Vinatech Medical Systems Pvt. Ltd. He sent the exhibits to the said company who disclosed that they are only the distributors of the ultrasound machines and the technology of the manufacturer of the ultrasound machine is an obsolete one/old technology and they are unable to examine and report about the exhibits. The company however refused to give any reply in writing. The CDMO office was intimated accordingly vide letter Ex. PW­23/B bearing his signature at point A. The CDMO office acknowledged the same on 23.10.2015 vide endorsement at point X. After the completion of the investigation, the charge­sheet was prepared and filed before Hon'ble court through SHO concerned.

64. He was duly cross examined by ld. defence counsel. In his cross examination he has deposed that the FSL had opined that the machine was of an old technology and they could not examine the same with the latest technology available with them. He has admitted that there was no report qua the ultrasound of Ms. Sonia. He has also correct that the company where the exhibits were taken did not report about any ultrasonography of Ms. Sonia.

65. PW­24 Sh. Udit Prakash has interalia deposed that on 03.01.2014, Director DFW informed him that one raiding team from Haryana and State of Delhi is going to conduct a raid at Diagonstic Centre of Dr. Mahesh Garg at Rohini, Delhi. He has deposed that he also constituted a raiding team headed by SDM, Sarswati Vihar, Sh. M.B. Malhotra along with two or three doctors from CDMO Office. The team raided the premises of Dr. Mahesh Garg in the evening and thereafter, submitted their report which was put up before him on file based on the facts put up on the file, he issued show cause notice on 24.05.2014 which is Ex. PW­24/A bearing his signature at point A to Dr. Mahesh Garg. Thereafter, Dr. Mahesh Garg submitted the written submission on 04.08.2014 and also given a personal hearing on 04.09.2014 which is Ex. PW­24/B bearing his signature at point A. In the personal hearing Dr. Mahesh FIR No. 09/14 State Vs. Mahesh Garg 63/75 PS South Rohini Garg submitted that he has nothing to add in his written submission hence, the order dated 18.09.2014 was passed cancelling the registration of the Centre of Dr. Mahesh Garg which is Ex. PW­24/C bearing his signature at point A and directed the CDMO Office and SDM to file a complaint under relevant sections of PC & PNDT Act. He has deposed that he is the appropriate authority to issue directions vide notification dated 23.04.2014 bearing F No. F.9 (1)(2)PNDT/DFW/03/3304­3319 which is marked as Mark 'A'. He identify the signature of Sh. Sanjay Goel, IAS, DM, District North­West who is the complainant in the present case. The Complaint is Ex. PW­ 24/D (objected to by Ld. Defence Counsel). He has correctly identified the accused.

66. He was duly cross examined by Ld. defence counsel. In his cross examination he has deposed that he had issued written instructions for constituting the raiding team under the supervision of SDM, Sarawasti Vihar. He has admitted that copy of such orders is not placed on judicial records i.e. the police case and the complaint case. He has denied the suggestion that he had not passed any such order that is why no copy has been placed on record. He has deposed that at the relevant time, he was the District Appropriate Authority as appointed by the notification marked as Mark A. As a District Magistrate, North­West, he was the only person appointed as the District Appropriate Authority. He has depose that at the relevant time, he was well versed with the PC & PNDT Act. At the relevant time there were no rules in respect of taking consent of the decoy patient as per my knowledge. He had seen the records filed in his office by the team headed by the SDM. As far as he remember there was no consent letter from the decoy patient in the record. He had seen the copy of the FIR. He never interacted with the decoy patient in the present case. He has deposed that the show cause notice was for the cancellation of the registration. The registration was for a particular address of the centre. He had gone through the reply dated 04.08.2014 submitted by Dr. Mahesh Garg. He has admitted that Dr. Mahesh Garg had informed through the reply that the premises which was on rent was got de­ FIR No. 09/14 State Vs. Mahesh Garg 64/75 PS South Rohini sealed by the orders of the Ld. MM and the premises after de­sealing has been vacated and handed over to the land lady. He had not discussed the factum of de­ sealing or vacation while passing the cancellation order. He has denied the suggestion that he had passed the orders in mechanical way without applying his judicial mind. He has denied the suggestion that he is deposing falsely.

67. PW­25 SI Rahul Kumar has interalia deposed that on 03.01.2014, he was posted at P.S. South Rohini as SI. On that day, on receiving DD No. 38­A dt. 03.01.2014 he went at A­2, Sector­2, Avantika Rohini, Delhi where accused Mahesh Garg is running a clinic and SDM Saraswati Vihar Sh. M.B. Malhotra with other team members had raided the premises of accused Dr. Mahesh Garg. He has correctly identified the accused. He has deposed that he alongwith SHO, Insp. Naresh Malik, SI Nisha, SI Amarjeet and HC Satyender reached the spot. Upon reaching there, accused Dr. Mahesh Garg, SDM Saraswati Vihar alongwith other team members and decoy patient namely Sonia and her mother were present at the spot. SDM Sh. M.B. Malhotra gave his complaint which is already Ex. PW5/A and the rukka as Ex. PW25/A bearing his signatures at point A was prepared and handed over to the HC Satyender for registration of FIR. After sometime, HC Satyender came back at the spot alongwith copy of FIR which is Ex. X1 and original rukka and handed over the same to him. He has deposed that he prepared the site plan at the instance of the SDM which is Ex. PW25/B bearing his signatures at point B. Thereafter, SDM handed over me the currency notes handed over memo that were given to decoy patient which were seized by him which is already Ex. PW2/B bearing his signatures at point F. The consent letter of decoy patient which was attested by Dr. Madhulika was also seized vide seizure memo Ex. PW25/C bearing his signatures at point A. Thereafter, Dr. Kamal handed over him the registers and receipt books of the clinic of accused which were seized vide seizure memo already Ex. PW2/C bearing his signatures at point H. SDM sealed the UPS, Ultrasound Machine, FIR No. 09/14 State Vs. Mahesh Garg 65/75 PS South Rohini Printers which were seized vide seizure already Ex. PW2/B bearing his signatures at point H. He arrested and personally searched the accused vide memos already Ex. PW2/G and Ex. PW2/H bearing his signatures at point H respectively. Thereafter, Rs. 6,000/­ which were given by mother of decoy patient to accused Dr. Mahesh Garg were recovered and seized vide seizure memo already Ex. PW2/E bearing his signature at point H. He has deposed that the disclosure statement of accused was recorded vide memo aready Ex. PW2/F bearing his signatures at point B. The supplementary disclosure statement of accused was recorded vide memo already Ex. PW18/A bearing his signature at point B. He recorded the statement of all witnesses correctly u/s 161 Cr.P.C. at P.S. and all were taken to P.S. The case property were deposited in MHC(M). Accused was got medically examined at BSA Hospital. The search of the house of the accused was made where two laptops were recovered from the house of the accused which were seized vide memos already Ex. PW18/B bearing his signatures at point B. Three photographs of the laptops are shown to the witness and witness correctly identified the same which are already Ex. P1 (colly). He has deposed that accused was produced before the Hon'ble court and one day P.C. remanded was taken and further investigation was taken with regard to superdari and regarding de­sealing of the clinic. Thereafter, he got transfer and case file was deposited with MHC(R) and he was relieved from the investigation.

68. He was duly cross examined by Ld. defence counsel. In his cross examination he has deposed that the entry in register vide DD No. 38A was done by the SHO. He had gone through the same. He has admitted that there is no mention in the said DD about the call being made by the SDM. He has also admitted that the address of the clinic is not mentioned in the DD entry. They had reached the spot at about 08:45 PM. He has deposed that as soon as they reached the spot, the SDM explained the situation to them and thereafter handed over the complaint at about 09:00 PM. He had gone through the said complaint. The SHO visited the spot alongwith them, FIR No. 09/14 State Vs. Mahesh Garg 66/75 PS South Rohini however, SHO did not sign any document and he is not cited as witness. He has admitted that the total amount which was handed over to the decoy patient was Rs. 15,000/­. He had seen the handed over memo. He has admitted that the documents of handing over of currency memo to the decoy patient is already Ex. PW1/DA which did not bear the signatures of Ms. Sonia, Ms. Krishna and Ms. Ganga. The documents Ex. PW2/B is in his handwriting. He had mentioned the name of the person who had signed Ex. PW1/DA in the memo of Ex. PW2/B. The names of Dr. Kamal, Dr. Meenakshi, Dr. Madhulika and Dr. Rakesh Dahiya are mentioned in the memo. He has admitted that there is no mentioned of the name of the SDM who had purportedly attested Ex. PW1/DA. He had not mentioned in Ex. PW2/B that Ex. PW1/DA had been attested by the SDM. He has deposed that he had recovered Rs. 6,000/­ in this case. He had made enquiries from the witnesses about remaining Rs. 9,000/­. He had not seized the remaining amount of Rs. 9,000/­. He had not recorded the statement of any witnesses regarding the remaining amount of Rs. 9,000/­. He is not aware as to what happened with Rs. 9,000/­. He deposed that he had seen the register and the cash memo and had scrutinized . He can only tell after seen the record if the last cash memo issued was of Rs. 800/­ in the name of Ms. Sonia. He did not make any enquiry from the decoy patient or the witnesses accompany him. He did not seize the original cash memo from the witnesses. He has admitted that the raiding team did not make any complaint in respect of the record or maintenance thereof. He has deposed that the writing work was done in the clinic between 08:45 PM till 11:30 PM. The clinic sealed at about 11:30 PM. He could say if the SDM had informed him at the time when he reached the spot that the clinic had been sealed. It is definitely correct that the entire writing work was done in the clinic till 11:30 PM. It is correct that the SDM has mentioned in his complaint that the Ultrasound centre and Ultrasound machine were sealed and relevant record has been seized. I could not say if the complaint Ex. PW5/A was prepared on the computer of the police station.

FIR No. 09/14                       State Vs. Mahesh Garg                       67/75
PS South Rohini

The accused was asked to sign the seizure memo of the record and the ultrasound machine etc. Ex. PW2/C and Ex. PW2/D. He has deposed that some of the seizure memos were prepared in his handwritting and some in the handwriting of his colleague. The colleague had signed on the said seizure memos as witness. The disclosure statement of accused Mahesh was not recorded in presence of SDM. He had come to know that the accused had performed ultrasound of patient Sonia. He had asked the doctors of raiding team to give the report of ultrasound but they did not give the same. He had not asked the team of raiding doctors to look into the ultrasound machine if the accused had performed any ultrasound. He did not make efforts to take the report of the ultrasound from the ultrasound machine. He has denied the suggestions that he and the doctors of the raiding team had made efforts to find the ultrasound of patient Sonia but could not find the same as no such ultrasound was performed. He had not shown the position of the raiding team inside and outside the clinic of the accused. He had not prepared the site plan depicting the inside of the clinic showing the position of the ultrasound machine, position of accused, patient's table, furniture or the position of accompainying witness. He has deposed that the the information about the present raid was received from the doctors of Haryana governement and the doctors from Haryana government were the member of raiding team. Dr. Bhagat singh was not the member of the raiding team. The Haryana police was not present at the time of the raid. The copy of the FIR in respect of Dr. Bhagat singh was provided by the doctors of the Haryana government. He had not prepared any seizure memo in that regard. He denied the suggestions that Dr. Bhagat Singh alongwith Haryana Police was present at the spot and he deliberately did not join them in the investigation. He has denied the suggestion that accused had not performed any ultrasound in violation of law. He has denied the suggestion that a false case was registered against accused He has denied the suggestion that he is deposing falsely.

FIR No. 09/14                       State Vs. Mahesh Garg                      68/75
PS South Rohini

69. The accused in the present case has been charged under Section 5 section 6 section 20 and section 23 of the PC and pndt act. To sustain a conviction under these sections it is necessary that prenatal diagnostic tests were conducted by the accused for the purpose of determination of sex of the foetus . The prosecution has relied upon the testimony of PW to miss Sonia and PW 3 miss Krishna. Both these witnesses have stated that that when they reached the clinic of the doctor, the doctor asked for relevant document or prescription. Both of them told the doctor that they are not having any prescription but they are accompanied by doctor Madhulika. The concerned doctor asked them to call the doctor Madhulika. When they came out of the clinic to call the doctor , they found that doctor Madhulika along with some persons was entering in the clinic. They also took them to the Police Station along with them despite their repeated request that they had to go to their home. On reaching the police station they obtained signatures of her and her mother on some return and on some blank papers . Both PW2 and PW3 were cross examined by APP for the state as they did not support the case of the prosecution both these witnesses were contradicted and confronted with the statements recorded under section 161 Crpc. Witnesses have identified their signatures but have denied the contents of the memos. Further the witnesses have stated that the police officials obtained their signatures on blank papers and the contents were never read over to them. In the cross examination by defence counsel the witness has stated that she or her in laws have never shown any desire of having a male child. She never showed any desire to get herself examined for the purpose of sex determination. The witness has further stated that she never intended to know whether it was a female child or a male child. It is further stated by the witness that doctor Madhulika examined her and suggested for an ultrasound to which she had agreed and she had given her consent for ultrasound only she has never consented for sex determination . Perusal of the consent letter which is exhibited as PW2/A reveals that PW 2 has not mentioned in FIR No. 09/14 State Vs. Mahesh Garg 69/75 PS South Rohini her consent that she was willing for determination of sex of foetus and she has only consented for ultra sonography. Further the witnesses have stated that no ultrasound was conducted and thus there was no occasion for the doctor to declare the sex of the foetus . The doctor had even returned the amount of Rs.800 to her has no ultrasound was conducted. PW1 Gangadevi has deposed in her examination in chief that on reaching the clinic the mother of the patient Sonia asked doctor Mahesh to conduct sex determination test as her daughter Sonia was pregnant at that time. Thereafter accused Mahesh Garg asked for Rs.6000 for sex determination test. Thereafter, Smt. Krishna i.e. the mother of the patient Soniya handed over Rs.6000/­ in the denomination of Rs.1000 each. Thereafter, Dr. Mahesh made entry in the register. During her cross examination the witness has stated that she had not seen what happened inside the chamber between the doctor and the patient she was present in the waiting room. If she was present in the waiting room and she did not see what happened inside the chamber between the doctor and patient then there was no occasion for her to see or hear if ultrasound was conducted by the doctor for the purpose of sex determination. Moreover the witness has stated that the written consent which is exhibited as PW2/A has no mention of the consent of Sonia in respect of sex determination foetus. The witness has further admitted that there is no mention of any raid to be conducted in the said consent. It is further admitted that the clinic of the accused was located in the market and was surrounded by other shops. None of the shopkeepers were asked to join the raiding team. Non joining of the public witness's cast a serious doubt about the bona fide of the raid which was conducted. At least some of the member of the public must have been made witnesses by the raiding party. The witness has further deposed that no written report was obtained from the accused. She does not remember if the film of the ultrasound was taken into possession or not. She was aware of the microphones and micro cameras and no such devices were used in the present case. Non use of the microphones and FIR No. 09/14 State Vs. Mahesh Garg 70/75 PS South Rohini micro cameras also cast serious aspersions about the bona fide of the raid.

70. PW 4 Manmohan Taneja also admitted in his cross that public persons were present in and around the office of the SDM. He did not request any public person to join the raid . Public persons were also present near Jaipur Golden hospital but he did not request anyone to join the raid. No doctor,nurse or any other staff from Jaipur Golden hospital was asked to join the raid. This again cast serious doubt about the bona fide of the raid. This witness has further stated that the test was not conducted in his presence nor did the doctor inform the sex of the foetus in his presence. The testimony of PW4 is inconsequential to prove the guilt of the accused as the test was not conducted in his presence.

71. PW 5 MB Malhotra has stated in his cross examination that it is necessary that consent of the decoy patient should be there. He further stated that HE IS NOT AWARE IF ONE OF THE CONDITION IS THAT PATIENT WOULD undergo abortion after knowing the sex of the foetus. Testimony of PW5 is also inconsequential to prove the guilt of the accused as he was not present at the time when the alleged ultrasonography was performed by the doctor.

72. Similarly PW6 Pradeep Kumar has stated that he was not present inside the clinic at the time and the alleged ultrasound of Smt. Soniya was conducted. He did not make any specific enquiry about the written report from them. He had not checked the ultrasonography machine if any ultrasonography in respect of Sonia was Conducted. The witness further stated that he does not remember if the doctors in the team had extracted any report from the ultrasound machine. Thus, the testimony of PW6 is also inconsequential to prove the guilt of accused.

73. PW7 Dr. Madhulika has stated during her cross examination that the consent letter was prepared in the Govt. hospital Bahadurgarh, Haryana at about 1:00PM. She admitted that the consent of a pregnant lady is must before her ultra sonography. It is also necessary that there should be a prescription of a doctor before ultra sonography FIR No. 09/14 State Vs. Mahesh Garg 71/75 PS South Rohini can be conducted. She admitted that only one consent of Ms. Sonia was prepared which is EX PW­2/A. The consent letter exhibit PW 2/A bears mention of only ultrasonography and there is no mention of sex determination. She has further admitted that none of the members of the team were able to operate the ultras sound machine . No report was obtained after the ultrasonography of Ms.Sonia. Moreover, the witness has stated that she was not inside the clinic so there was no occasion for her to ask the accused to prepare a report for Sonia and either Sonia or her mother would be knowing ultrasonography was done or not . Thus, testimony of PW 7 is also inconsequential to prove the guilt of the accused .

74. Similarly PW 8 Dr. Anuj also was not present when ultrasonography of miss Sonia was done. Thus, testimony of PW8 is also inconsequential to prove the guilt of the accused .

75. PW 9 Dr.Kamal Kumar has stated in his cross examination that the accused did not perform any ultrasonography in his presence nor any report of any ultrasonography was derived from the machines and no report or evidence or the ultrasonography was found at that time. Thus testimony of PW9 is also inconsequential to prove the guilt of the accused .

76. PW10 Dr. Meenakshi Hembram has admitted in her cross examination that she had scrutinised the record seized from the clinic and they were found to be in order. No report or any ultrasonography was derived from the machine .She has further admitted that no ultrasound of the accused was conducted in her presence. Thus testimony of PW10 is also inconsequential to prove the guilt of the accused.

77. PW11 Vinod Kumar Garg has admitted in his cross examination that he had scrutinized the records seized from the clinic and they were found to be in order. No report of any ultrasonography was derived from the machines . He has admitted that no report or evidence or the ultrasonography was found at that time and no ultrasonography was conducted by the accused and presence. Thus, the testimony of FIR No. 09/14 State Vs. Mahesh Garg 72/75 PS South Rohini PW11 is also not sufficient to prove the guilt of the accused.

78. PW12 Rakesh Dahiya has admitted in his cross examination that he does not remember if Ms.Sonia had given consent for the detection of sex of the foetus. He admits that he is aware that consent of the lady is required before ultrasonography can be conducted. He admits that the consent letter exhibit PW2/A does not have any mention regarding the determination of sex of the foetus. The witness has further stated that neither Ms. Sonia had produced any report of ultrasonography before them nor he had seen the same. He is not aware of any print out of the ultrasonography was taken by Dr Madhulika .Thus, the testimony of PW12 does not prove the guilt of the accused.

79. PW13, PW14, PW15, PW17 and PW18 are all police witnesses they have stated that they along with the SHO, PS South Rohini had gone to the clinic of Dr. Mahesh. None of these witness was part of the raiding team. None of them has seen the accused conducting ultrasonography.

80. PW19 Head Constable Akhilesh has stated that one sealed pullinda containing memory card of ultrasound machine sealed with the seal of CDMO was sent to Trivitron Health Care System Pvt. Ltd wide RC number 81/21/15 copy of which is exhibit PW19/A­3(OSR). In his cross examination the witness has stated that he has brought the original register no.19. There is no entry in the register in respect of sending the sealed pullinda containing memory card of ultrasound machine sealed with the seal of CDMO to the above said company. There is no entry in respect of receiving back the pullinda containing memory card of the ultrasound machine.

81. PW 20 Constable Rajesh has also stated that he had taken the sealed pullinda containing memory card of ultrasound machine sealed with the seal of CDMO to Trivitron Healthcare System Delhi. He deposed that one person met him there who opened the seal parcel and thereafter informed that the memory card was of an old machine manufactured by his company and production of this machine has stopped.

FIR No. 09/14                        State Vs. Mahesh Garg                   73/75
PS South Rohini

He further stated that the technology being an old one the memory card could not be opened . He refused to give anything in writing. Thereafter the memory card was deposited in the malkhana and RC was returned. In his cross examination the witness has stated that he does not remember if an entry was made in register number 19 in respect of sending the memory card. He has also admitted that the fact of sealing and resealing of the memory card is not mentioned in the statement exhibit PW 20 /DX.

82. PW 23 SI Pawan has stated in his cross examination that the FSL had opined that the machine was of an old technology and they could not examine the same with the latest technology available with them. He admitted that there was no report qua the ultrasound of Ms. Sonia. He has also admitted at the company where the exhibits were taken did not report about any ultrasonography of Mrs Sonia.

83. PW 25 SI Rahul Kumar has stated in his cross examination that he asked the doctors of raiding team to give the report of ultrasound but they did not give the same. He did not make any efforts to take the report of the ultrasound from the ultrasound machine. Moreover the witness was not present at the time when ultrasound test of Ms. Sonia was conducted. Thus, the testimony of witness also is inconsequential to prove the guilt of accused.

84. Now considering all the evidences and facts of the case British it is clear that the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of the accused. The decoy witness PW2 Ms. Sonia and her mother did not support the case of the prosecution they have categorically stated that no ultrasonography was conducted by the doctor. The witness has further stated that she never consented for sex determination and that she only consented for ultrasonography and the same was never performed by the doctor as they did not have any prescription with them. No report was derived from the ultrasound machine and no effort was made by anyone to derive the same. When the ultrasound machine was sent to FSl and to the manufacturer , even they could not procure any report from the machine in respect of the decoy patient Ms. Sonia. All FIR No. 09/14 State Vs. Mahesh Garg 74/75 PS South Rohini the other witnesses who are member of the raiding team as well as officials of the Delhi Police cannot prove the factum of ultrasound being conducted upon the patient as none of them was present at the time when the alleged ultrasonography was conducted by the doctor. There are many discrepancies in the statements of witnesses some of them have stated that all the paperwork was done in the police station while some of them have stated that some of the documentation was done on the spot and the other documentation was done in the police station. The prosecution has miserably failed to prove the guilt of the accuse and to bring home the charge against the accused. Therefore, the accused Mahesh Garg is acquitted for offences u/s 5 and 6 of the PC and PNDT Act Punishable u/s 23 of PC and PNDT Act 1994 and Rule 9 r/w section 4(3) of the PC and PNDT Act punishable u/s 25 of PC and PNDT Act 1994. Digitally signed by VIVEK BENIWAL VIVEK Date:

BENIWAL 2021.08.31 18:53:54 +0530 Announced in the open (Vivek Beniwal) court on 31.08.2021 Metropolitan Magistrate­07, North West District, Rohini Court, Delhi FIR No. 09/14 State Vs. Mahesh Garg 75/75 PS South Rohini