Dr. Jasveer Singh v. State of NCT of Delhi
Revision No.56384/2016, decided by Ms. Smita Garg, Addl. Sessions Judge, FTC,(West)Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi, on
Facts: Pursuant to a piece of information regarding sex determination of foetus being carried out at Josan Diagnostics, a raid was conducted by the team of a designated Authority under PC & PNDT Act at the clinic of the revisionist on 2-3-2016 and one ultrasound machine with probes, one computer CPU and one DVR being used in the clinic were seized. On 18.04.2016, the revisionist moved the application for release of the above articles on superdari before the Ld. M. M. IO of the case filed a reply giving no objection to the release of the machine by stating that the hard disc of the ultrasound machine and computer CPU had already been removed and sent to FSL. However, the Ld. M. M. dismissed the application by observing that the revisionist was using the machine for the purpose of sex determination and there was an apprehension that he might use it again for the said purpose in case the machine is released to him.
Grounds in Revision : That the trial court erred in discarding the report filed by the IO and failed to appreciate that after the removal of hard disc, the ultrasound machine and computer CPU are only the statue of iron and are of no use for the purpose of trial. That the machine in question is very expensive and sensitive and would be reduced to scrap if allowed to remain in the custody of police. Reliance was placed on decision rendered on 2-12-2013 by Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in W. P. (C) No.4482/13 titled as ‘Rahul Yadav v. Govt. of NCT & Ors’ and judgment dated 14-8-2009 passed by the Hon’ble High Court of Bombay in W. P. No.1587/09 titled as “Dr. Dadasahab v. State of Maharashtra’.
Observations: At the outset, it is important to note that the object of PC & PNDT Act is to prohibit prenatal diagnostic techniques for determination of sex of the foetus leading to female foeticide. While the prenatal diagnostic techniques like amniocentesis and sonography were developed for the detection of genetic or chromosomal disorders or congenital malformations or sex linked disorders etc. but it has been noticed that these techniques are being used on a large scale to detect the sex of the foetus and to terminate the pregnancy of the unborn child if found to be female. Now a days techniques are also being developed to select the sex of child before conception.
A perusal of the impugned order shows that considering the allegations against the revisionist that he was using the ultrasound machine for the purpose of sex determination and with a view to prevent the repetitive misuse of machine, the Ld. M. M. had declined to release the ultrasound machine on superdari. While doing so, he had also placed reliance upon the judgment dated 23-1-2012 of Hon’ble High Court of Bombay in W. P. No.4399/2012 titled as ‘Dr. Vandana Ramchandra Patil v. State of Maharashtra & Anr.; judgment dated 17-11-2011 of Hon’ble High Court of Bombay in W.P. No.1939/11 titled as ‘Radiological Imaging Association v. UOI & Ors.’ and ‘Voluntary Health Association of Punjab v. UOI” (2013) 4 SCC.
Held: 1.Considering the observations made in Vandana Ramchandra Patil’s case relied upon by the Ld. M. M., I find no infirmity in the impugned order.
2. Rahul Yadav’s case & Dr. Dadasaheb’s case relied upon by the revisionist do not render any assistance to him as the facts of the case on hand are clearly distinguishable. While in the former case relied upon by the revisionist, there was no allegation of misuse of machine for sex determination, in the latter case, the ultrasound machine was directed to be released as it was found that the machine had not been sealed in accordance with law.
3. As far as the apprehension of the revisionist that the machine would lose its worth if allowed to remain in the police custody is concerned, it has already been taken care of by the trial court by directing the DCP and SHO concerned to keep it in safe and proper custody so as to avoid any harm to it.
For the foregoing reasons, the revision petition is found to be without merits and its, accordingly, dismissed.