Document Fragment View
Fragment Information
Showing contexts for: pndt section 25 in State vs . Dr. Amrit Garg Etc. on 29 September, 2015Matching Fragments
2. The prima facie case was found to be made out against the accused persons. Accordingly, accused Leelawati and Narender were charged for the offences punishable U/s 23 PNDT Act r/w Sec. 312/34 IPC, accused Dr. Reshma Garg was charged for the offences u/s 23/25 PNDT Act and accused Dr. Amrit Garg was charged for the offence u/s 25 PNDT Act. The accusation was read over and explained to the accused persons to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
6. It is contended by the accused persons that the cognizance was bad and that for the sake of arguments, if it is presumed that the cognizance was taken on the complaint, even then, it cannot be treated the cognizance as required u/s 28 PNDT Act as there was no presummoning evidence led by the complainant in this case, nor was any notice given to the Authority concerned.
7. So far as the charges for the offences u/s 23/25 PNDT Act are concerned, it is pertinent to mention here that Section 28 PNDT Act, 1994 reads as follows :
17. Moreover, during crossexamination, it was admitted by Dr. Nutan Mundeja (PW3) that she did not make efforts to get the data recovered from Ultrasound Machine by scientific methods.
In view of the above, the prosecution has failed to prove the charges for the offences u/s 23 PNDT Act r/w Sec. 312/34 IPC qua accused Narender and Leelawati.
18. So far as the charges for the offence u/s 25 PNDT Act qua accused Dr Amrit Gag and Sec. 23/25 PNDT Act qua accused Dr. Reshma Garg respectively are concerned, Dr. Purnima Wagchu (PW1) and Dr. Nutan Mundeja (PW3) are the material witnesses in this regard.
Dr. Vasudha Bhakta (PW8) deposed that she had examined one patient namely, Leelawati at her clinic in the year 2005 or 2006. That she came to her clinic with three months pregnancy having bleeding. That she was advised an Ultrasound and she never come thereafter to her clinic.
20. To prove the charges for the offences u/s 25 PNDT Act qua accused Amrit Garg, firstly, it is to be proved whether the Ultrasound Test of accused Leelawati was conducted at Amrit Clinic and in the absence of the same, the question of submission of FormF does not arises. The prosecution has failed to prove that the Ultrasound of patient Leelawati was conducted at the said Hospital.