In a significant ruling, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has quashed the 2008 conviction of a diagnostic center under the Pre-Conception and Pre-Natal Diagnostic Techniques (Prohibition of Sex Selection) Act, 1994 (PC & PNDT Act), citing that the complaint was not filed by a competent authority as mandated by law.

The case stemmed from a 2006 complaint against Kamboj Ultrasound and Diagnostic Pvt. Ltd. in Hisar, Haryana, alleging illegal sex determination practices. Following the complaint, the center was sealed and an ultrasound machine seized.

Authorities prepared a spot memo and a seizure memo, and the records suggested prima facie violations of the PNDT Act. Consequently, the center’s registration was suspended under Section 23, and the accused were barred from further activities under the Act.

The trial court subsequently convicted the directors of the center under Section 4(3) read with Rule 9, punishable under Section 23 of the Act, sentencing them to three years’ rigorous imprisonment. The conviction was challenged before the High Court.

Appearing for the appellants, Advocate S.S. Narula argued that the complaint was procedurally flawed as it had been filed solely by Dr. S.K. Naval, the then Civil Surgeon of Hisar, who claimed to be the District Appropriate Authority. However, under Section 17 of the Act, such authority must comprise a three-member committee constituted by a government notification.

The committee should include
(i) an officer of or above the rank of Joint Director of Health and Family Welfare (Chairperson),
(ii) an eminent woman from a women's organization, and
(iii) an officer from the Law Department of the respective State or Union Territory.

Justice Jasjit Singh Bedi accepted the argument, observing:

“The complaint was filed by Dr. S.K. Naval alone and it ought to have been filed by a three-member Committee, appointed by a Notification under Section 17 of the PC and PNDT Act. The same not having been done, the very complaint itself is not maintainable and therefore, the subsequent proceedings and conviction stand vitiated.”

The Court also relied on the Supreme Court's judgment in State of Haryana & Anr. v. Ritu Prabhakar & Anr. [CRLMP No(s).17069/2016], which underscored that only a properly constituted District Appropriate Authority can file a complaint under the Act. The Court in that case held that delegation of such authority is impermissible and any deviation from the statutory procedure renders the action illegal.

Justice Bedi emphasized that the requirement for a three-member Appropriate Authority under Section 17(3)(b) has been in effect since the enactment of the law on 20th September 1994, and is not merely a curable irregularity.

In light of these findings, the High Court set aside the conviction of the directors of Kamboj Ultrasound and Diagnostic Pvt. Ltd.

Case Title: M/s Kamboj Ultrasound and Diagnostic Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. v. State of Haryana
Counsel for Petitioners: Mr. S.S. Narula
Counsel for State: Mr. Munish Sharma, DAG, Haryana