Punjab-Haryana High Court
Pushap Lata vs State Of Punjab And Anr. on 10 April, 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
(205) CRR-2686-2010 (O&M)
Reserved on : 20.03.2026
.2026
Pronounced on : 10.04.2026
.2026
Uploaded on: 10.04.2026
Pushap Lata ......Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab & another .....Respondents
CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAMESH CHANDER DIMRI
Present:- Mr.Aman Bansal,, Advocate, for the petitioner.
Mr.Kuljeet
Kuljeet Singh, Addl.A.G., Punjab
Punjab.
RAMESH CHANDER DIMRI, J. :
1. This judgment shall dispose of a Criminal Revision Petition
filed against the judgment dated 23.09.2010 passed by the Learned
Addl.Sessions Judge, Barnala (for brevity, ”Appellate Court’) by which an
appeal filed by the petitioner/accused
/accused (for brevity, ”petitioner’) against
gainst the
judgment of conviction dated 10.05.2010 and an order of sentence of that
very date passed by Learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Barnala (for
brevity “Magistrate”),
“Magistrate”) arising out of a complaint under Secti
Section
on 28(1) of
The Pre-Conception
Conception and Pre-natal
Pre natal Diagnostic Techniques (Prohibition of
Sex Selection) Act, 1994 (for brevity, ‘1994 Act’) for violation of Section
29 of the said Act and Rules
Rule 9(1) and 9(4) of Th
The Pre-natal
natal Diagnostic
Techniques (Prohibition of Sex Selection) Rules, 1996 (for brevity, ‘1996
Rules’) punishable under Section 23(1) of the 1994 Act was dismissed
except for reduction of sentence of rigorous imprisonment for two years to
SAILESH RANJAN
2026.04.10 14:20
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
CRR-2686-2010 (O&M) -2-
rigorous imprisonment for one year. Default sentence of payment of fine
was confirmed.
2. Facts necessary for disposal of the present petition are that the
respondent No.2/complainant (for brevity ‘complainant’) filed the above-
stated complaint against the petitioner thereby alleging that he has been
appointed as a Sub-Divisional Appropriate Authority under Section 17(2)
of the 1994 Act through Punjab Government Gazette notification dated
20.06.2001. The petitioner is owner of M/S Mittal Maternity & Scan
Centre, Barnala. She applied for registration under 1994 Act on
23.06.2001. The District Appropriate Authority Sangrur, issued a
certificate of registration for the said clinic and approved diagnostic
procedure of ultrasound to be carried out in the same for a period of 5
years ending 31.12.2005. Premises of the said clinic were inspected by a
team headed by the complainant on 19.01.2005. Other members of the
team were Dr.Sunita Goel, Medical Officer, Civil Hospital, Barnala and
Shri Devinder Kumar, Cashier, office of Senior Medical Officer, Civil
Hospital, Barnala. After investigation, the said team noticed as under:
“(a) Records required to be maintained under the Act/rules
were not properly maintained (details explained in
subsequent paras). Some of the records were not all together
preserved. It amounts to violation of Section 29 of the PNDT
Act.
(b) Record keeping of Forms ‘F’ was not as per guidelines
provided in the Act. Besides other discrepancies none of the
49 forms inspected bore the signature of the Doctor
SAILESH RANJAN
2026.04.10 14:20
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
CRR-2686-2010 (O&M) -3-
conducting ultra sound procedure (photo copies of forms
attached as Annexure C3 to C51).
(c) Four referral slips of the ultra sound parients were not
produced.
(d) Ultrasound films w/r to all the 49 Forms mentioned at (b)
were not produced.”
3. He then alleged in the complaint that the said discrepancies
violate Rules 9(1) and 9(4) of the 1996 Rules and the said team collected
following record from the said clinic:
“(i) 49 Forms ‘F’ dated 01.01.2005 to 19.01.05 (photo copies
of the Forms enclosed as annexure C3 to C51).
(ii) The photo copies of the register (supplied by the
complainant to the accused) for the period 09.11.04 to
30.12.04 (Photo copies of the same are attached as annexure
C52 to C56).”
4. The complainant then alleged that copy of the inspection
report was supplied to the petitioner at the spot. Ultrasound machine
installed in the clinic was sealed by the complainant. A search memo was
prepared. Thereafter the complainant concluded that it will not be in the
fitness of things as well as in the interest of general public to allow the
said clinic to conduct pre-natal diagonostic procedure. Accordingly the
complainant, vide its letter dated 20.01.2005, suspended registration of the
said clinic with immediate effect. Appeal filed by the petitioner before
Civil Surgeon/District Appropriate Authority, Sangrur was rejected by the
said authority through its letter dated 24.03.2005. The said authority did
SAILESH RANJAN
2026.04.10 14:20
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
CRR-2686-2010 (O&M) -4-
not even allow further appeal to the State Appropriate Authority. Said fact
was conveyed to the petitioner vide letter dated 16.05.2005. The
complainant remained on medical leave for about 22 days thereafter and
was then posted as Civil Surgeon, Faridkot in the first week of June, 2005.
Latest order of Civil Surgeon-cum-District Appropriate Authority, Sangrur
to initiate further action in the matter was conveyed to the complainant
vide letter dated 22.07.2005. In this manner, the petitioner has violated
provisions of the 1994 Act and 1996 Rules. By doing so, she had
committed offences under the same. The complainant ultimately prayed in
the complaint that the petitioner may be dealt with under Section 23(1)
read with Section 28(1) of the 1994 Act. With the complaint, the
complainant also appended documents Annexures C1 to C59.
5. On receipt of the complaint, the concerned Magistrate issued
notice thereof to the petitioner. Upon service, she appeared. She also
filed Crl.Misc.No.8962-M of 2006 titled as “Dr.[Mrs.] Pushap Lata
Mittal Vs. Dr.S.P.Gupta, Civil Surgeon Faridkot” before this Court.
In it, further proceedings before the concerned Magistrate were ordered to
be stayed. The said stay order remained in force for a long time. Vide
order dated 15.01.2008, the said petition was dismissed. In pre-charge
evidence, the complainant examined himself and Cashier Devinder Kumar
as CW1 and CW2. After closure of pre-charge evidence, the concerned
Magistrate heard parties on framing of charges against the petitioner. Vide
order dated 24.12.2009, it charge-sheeted the petitioner under Section
29(1) read with Section 28 of the 1994 Act. Thereafter, at request of the
petitioner, both the above-stated witnesses were permitted to be further
SAILESH RANJAN
2026.04.10 14:20
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
CRR-2686-2010 (O&M) -5-
cross-examined. In after charge evidence, the complainant also examined
CW3 Dr.Sunita Goyal. On conclusion of evidence of the complainant,
statement of the petitioner under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 (for brevity “1973 Code”) was recorded. In such
statement, she denied the incriminating evidence put to her. In her
defence, she examined DW1 Bharat Modi and DW2 Navdeep Gupta,
Handwriting and Finger Prints Expert. After closure of evidence, the
Learned Magistrate heard parties on merits of the case. After such
hearing, it, through the impugned judgment dated 10.05.2010, convicted
the petitioner under Section 29(1) of the 1994 Act punishable under
Section 23 of the said Act and accordingly, vide order of that date,
sentenced her to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 2 years and to pay a
fine of Rs.5000/-. In default of payment of fine, she was further sentenced
to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 2 months.
6. Aggrieved of the said conviction and sentence, the petitioner
filed an appeal. However, the same was dismissed by the Learned
Appellate Court vide impugned judgment dated 23.09.2010. Aggrieved
of the said dismissal, the petitioner is in revision before this Court.
7. I have heard Shri Aman Bansal, Advocate for the petitioner
and Shri Kuljeet Singh, Learned Addl.A.G., Punjab, on merits of the
Revision Petition. With their assistance, I have perused summoned record.
8. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the search
in question was not made in terms of the relevant provisions of the above-
said Act and Rules. Since the same was in violation of the said provisions,
it has no sanctity in law. Copy supplied to the petitioner is not true copy
SAILESH RANJAN
2026.04.10 14:20
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
CRR-2686-2010 (O&M) -6-
of the report placed on record. Copy supplied to the petitioner does not
indict her in the case in question. In view thereof, a doubt is cast upon the
prosecution case and its evidence. Defence raised by the petitioner is a
plausible defence and ought to have been believed/accepted by the
Learned Courts below. A serious prejudice has been caused to the
petitioner by the impugned judgments and order. The same are perverse
as well as contrary to the evidence on record. The petitioner is now aged
more than 80 years and leniency may be shown to her in the matter of
sentence also. He has accordingly prayed for acceptance of the petition.
9. On the other hand, Learned Addl.A.G., Punjab has argued
that documents Ex.C1 to C59 show that the petitioner did not follow the
provisions contained in the 1994 Act and 1996 Rules. Such non-following
is punishable under the above-mentioned provisions of the said Act and
Rules. Documents Ex.C3 to C56 all belong to the clinic of the petitioner.
Even if some procedural violations in respect of search are there, since the
said documents belonged to the petitioner and her clinic, the said
violations, in the facts/circumstances of the present case, deserve to be
overlooked. The impugned judgments and order are self-speaking calling
for no interference in revision. He has accordingly prayed for dismissal of
the revision petition.
10. After such hearing and perusal, I may state that revisional
powers of this Court can be exercised in terms of Section 401 of 1973
Code. Since the petitioner has filed a revision petition against the
impugned judgments and order, it has to be dealt within the parameters
SAILESH RANJAN
2026.04.10 14:20
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
CRR-2686-2010 (O&M) -7-
prescribed in the said Section. Said section is therefore reproduced as
under:-
“401. High Court’s powers of revision.–
(1) In the case of any proceeding the record of which has
been called for by itself or which otherwise comes to its
knowledge, the High Court may, in its discretion, exercise any
of the powers conferred on a Court of Appeal by sections 386,
389, 390 and 391 or on a Court of Session by section 307,
and, when the Judges composing the Court of Revision are
equally divided in opinion, the case shall be disposed of in the
manner provided by section 392.
(2) No order under this section shall be made to the prejudice
of the accused or other person unless he has had an
opportunity of being heard either personally or by pleader in
his own defence.
(3) Nothing in this section shall be deemed to authorise a
High Court to convert a finding of acquittal into one of
conviction.
(4) Where under this Code an appeal lies and no appeal is
brought, no proceeding by way of revision shall be
entertained at the instance of the party who could have
appealed.
(5) Where under this Code an appeal lies but an application
for revision has been made to the High Court by any person
and the High Court is satisfied that such application was
SAILESH RANJAN
2026.04.10 14:20
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
CRR-2686-2010 (O&M) -8-
made under the erroneous belief that no appeal lies thereto
and that it is necessary in the interests of Justice so to do, the
High Court may treat the application for revision as a
petition of appeal and deal with the same accordingly.”
11. I may also state that in respect of scope of revisional powers
of a High Court, a three Judge Bench of Hon’ble the Supreme Court, in
the report “Pakalapati Narayana Gajapathi Raju & others Vs.
Bonapalli Peda Appadu & another“, (1975) 4 SCC 477, observed as
under:-
“3. Section 439 (1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure
provides that in exercise of revisional jurisdiction, the High
Court may exercise any of the powers conferred on a court of
appeal. This provision is made expressly subject to sub-
section (4) of Section 439 under which nothing contained in
the section shall be deemed to authorise a High Court to
convert a finding of acquittal into one of conviction. Section
439 has been interpreted in several decisions of this Court
which have taken the view that the revisional jurisdiction,
when invoked by a private complainant against an order of
acquittal, ought not to be exercised lightly and that it can be
exercised only in exceptional cases where the interests of
public justice require interference for the correction of a
manifest illegality or the prevention of a gross miscarriage of
justice.(See Satyendra Nath Dutta v. Ram Narain, (1975) 3
SCC 398; Akalu Ahir v. Ramdeo Ram, (1974) 1 SCR 130;
SAILESH RANJAN
2026.04.10 14:20
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
CRR-2686-2010 (O&M) -9-
Changanti Kotaiah v. Goginoni Venkateshwara Rao, (1973)
3 SCR 867. It is clear from these decisions that the revisional
jurisdiction cannot be invoked merely because the lower
court has not appreciated the evidence properly. The High
Court has in its judgment referred to the decisions of this
Court but in applying those decisions it has transgressed the
limits of its revisional powers.”
12. In respect of scope of revisional powers of a High Court, a
three Judge Bench of Hon’ble the Supreme Court, in the report “Duli
Chand Vs. Delhi Administration“, (1975) 4 SCC 649, observed as
under:-
“4. …… Now, the jurisdiction of the High Court in a Criminal
Revision Application is severally restricted and it cannot
embark upon reappreciation of the evidence, but even so, the
learned single Judge of the High Court who heard the
revision application, examined the evidence afresh at the
instance of the appellant. This was, however, of no avail, as
the learned single Judge found that the conclusion reached by
the lower Courts that the appellant was guilty of gross
negligence, was correct and there was no reason to interfere
with the conviction of the appellant. …..
5. …..The High Court in revision was exercising supervisory
jurisdiction of a restricted nature and, therefore, it would
have been justified in refusing to re-appreciate the evidence
for the purpose of determining whether the concurrent finding
SAILESH RANJAN
2026.04.10 14:20
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
CRR-2686-2010 (O&M) -10-of fact reached by the learned Magistrate and the learned
Additional Sessions Judge was correct. But even so, the High
Court reviewed the evidence presumably for the purpose of
satisfying itself that there was evidence in support of the
finding of fact reached by the two subordinate courts and that
the finding of fact was not unreasonable or perverse. The
High Court came to the conclusion that the evidence clearly
established that the death of the deceased was caused on
account of the negligent driving of the bus by the appellant.
…..”.
13. In respect of such powers, a two Judge Bench of Hon’ble the
Supreme Court, in the report “Janata Dal Vs. H.S.Chowdhary“, (1992) 4
SCC 305, observed as under:-
“130. The object of the revisional jurisdiction under Section
401 is to confer power upon superior criminal Courts – a kind
of paternal or supervisory jurisdiction – in order to correct
miscarriage of justice arising from misconception of law,
irregularity of procedure, neglect of proper precaution or
apparent harshness of treatment which has resulted on the
one hand, or on the other hand in some undeserved hardship
to individuals. The controlling power of the High Court is
discretionary and it must be exercised in the interest of justice
with regard to all facts and circumstances of each particular
case, anxious attention being given to the said facts and
circumstances which vary greatly from case to case.
SAILESH RANJAN
2026.04.10 14:20
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
CRR-2686-2010 (O&M) -11-
131. xxxx xxxx xxxx
132. The criminal Courts are clothed with inherent power to
make such orders as may be necessary for the ends of justice.
Such power though unrestricted and undefined should not be
capriciously or arbitrarily exercised, but should be exercised
in appropriate cases, ex debito justitiae to do real and
substantial justice for the administration of which alone the
Courts exist. The powers possessed by the High Court under
Section 482 of the Code are very wide and the very plenitude
of the power requires great caution in its exercise. Courts
must be careful to see that its decision in exercise of this
power is based on sound principles.”
14. While quoting observations made in Janata Dal’s report
(supra) with approval, a three Judge Bench of Hon’ble the Supreme
Court, in the report “T.N.Dhakkal Vs. James Basnett & another”,
(2001) 10 SCC 419, observed as under:-
“9. We are in agreement with the above exposition of law. We
are of the opinion that though the High Court has revisional
jurisdiction under Section 401 of the Code and can exercise
its discretionary jurisdiction to correct miscarriage of justice,
but whether or not, there is justification for the exercise of
that discretionary jurisdiction would depend upon the facts
and circumstances of each case. The controlling power of the
High Court under Section 401 of the Code being
discretionary is required to be exercised only in the interest
SAILESH RANJAN
2026.04.10 14:20
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
CRR-2686-2010 (O&M) -12-of justice, having regard to all the facts and circumstances of
each particular case and not mechanically.”
15. In respect of revisional jurisdiction of a High Court, a two
Judge Bench of Hon’ble the Supreme Court, in the report “State of
Kerala Vs. Puttumana Illath Jathavedan Namboodiri“, (1999) 2 SCC
452, observed as under:-
“Having examined the impugned Judgment of the High Court
and bearing in mind the contentions raised by the learned
counsel for the parties, we have no hesitation to come to the
conclusion that in the case in hand, the High Court has
exceeded its revisional jurisdiction. In Its revisional
jurisdiction, the High Court can call for and examine the
record of any proceedings for the purpose of satisfying itself
as to the correctness, legality or propriety of any finding,
sentence or order. In other words, the jurisdiction is one of
Supervisory Jurisdiction exercised by the High Court for
correcting miscarriage of justice. But the said revisional
power cannot be equated with the power of an Appellate
Court nor can it be treated even as a second Appellate
Jurisdiction. Ordinarily, therefore, it would not be
appropriate for the High Court to re-appreciate the evidence
and come to its own conclusion on the same when the
evidence has already been appreciated by the Magistrate as
well as the Sessions Judge in appeal, unless any glaring
SAILESH RANJAN
2026.04.10 14:20
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
CRR-2686-2010 (O&M) -13-feature is brought to the notice of the High Court which
would otherwise tentamount to gross miscarriage of justice.”
16. Observations made in Duli Chand’s report (supra) and
those made in a report “State of Orissa Vs. Nakula Sahu“, (1979) 1 SCC
328 as well as Puttumana Illath’s report (supra) were approved by a
three Judge Bench of Hon’ble the Supreme Court in the report “Raj
Kumar Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh“, (2008) 11 SCC 76.
17. Applying the above reproduced observations to the present
case, I may state that the 1994 Act is a social welfare legislation. It is a
law enacted to prohibit sex selection leading to female foeticide. It in fact
aims to arrest the declining sex ratio in our country. It’s objectives declare
that it provides for prohibition of sex selection before or after conception
and for regulation of pre-natal diagnostic techniques for preventing misuse
thereof for sex determination leading to female foeticide and for matters
connected therewith or incidental thereto. It was conceived in the light of
the skewed sex ratio in our country and to avoid the consequences of the
same. It is an effort to save the girl child. It’s focus is to preserve right to
life of a girl child under Article 21 of our Constitution. It’s Section 4
regulates pre-natal diagnostic techniques whereas Section 6 thereof
prohibits sex determination. Section 23 of the said Act talks of offences
and penalties under it. Section 29 of the said Act regulates maintenance of
records. The said section is reproduced as under:
“29. Maintenance of records.-(1) All records, charts, forms,
reports, consent letters and all other documents required to
be maintained under this Act and the rules shall be preservedSAILESH RANJAN
2026.04.10 14:20
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
CRR-2686-2010 (O&M) -14-for a period of two years or for such period as may be
prescribed:
Provided that, if any criminal or other proceedings are
instituted against any Genetic Counselling Centre, Genetic
Laboratory or Genetic Clinic, the records and all other
documents of such Centre, Laboratory or Clinic shall be
preserved till the final disposal of such proceedings.
2. All such records shall, at all reasonable times, be made
available for inspection to the Appropriate Authority or to
any other person authorised by the Appropriate Authority in
this behalf.”
18. In exercise of the powers conferred under Section 32 of the
said Act, the Central Government has made 1996 Rules. Rule 9 thereof
also talks of maintenance and preservation of records. The said rule is
accordingly reproduced as under:
“9. Maintenance and presenration of records.-[(1) Every
Genetic Counselling Centre, Genetic Laboratory, [Genetic
Clinic including a Mobile Genetic Clinicl, Ultrasound Clinic
and Imaging Centre shall maintain a register showing, in
serial order, the names and addresses of the men or women
given genetic counselling, subjected to pre-natal diagnostic
procedures or pre-natal diagnostic tests, the names of their
spouse or father and the date on which they first reported for
such counselling, procedure or test.]
(2) The record to be maintained by every Genetic Counselling
Centre, in respect of each woman counselled shall be as
specfied in Form D.
[(3) The record to be maintained by every Genetic
Laboratory, in respect of each man or woman subjected to
any pre-natal diagnostic procedure/technique/test, shall be as
specified in Form E.]SAILESH RANJAN
2026.04.10 14:20
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
CRR-2686-2010 (O&M) -15-
[(4) The record to be maintained by every [Genetic Clinic
including a mobile Genetic Clinic], in respect of each man or
woman subjected to any pre-natal diagnostic procedure/
technique/test, shall be as specified in Form F.]
(5) The Appropriate Authority shall maintain a permanent
record of applications for grant or renewal of certificate of
registration as specified in Form H. Letters of intimation of
every change of employee, place, address and equipment
installed shall also be preserved a permanent records.
(6) All case related records, forms of consent, laboratory
results, microscopic pictures, sonographic plates or slides,
recommendations and letters shall be preserved by the
[Genetic Counselling Centre, Genetic Laboratory, Genetic
Clinic, Ultrasound Clinic and Imagrng Centre] for a period
of two years from the date of completion of counselling, pre-
natal diagnostic procedure or pre-natal diagnostic test, as the
case may be. In the event of any legal proceedings, the
records shall be preserved till the final disposal of legal
proceedings, or till the expiry of the said period of two years,
whichever is later.
(7) In case the [Genetic Counselling Centre or Genetic
Laboratory or Genetic Clinic or Ultrasound Clinic or
Imaging Centrel maintains records on computer or other
electronic equipment, a printed copy of the record shall be
taken and preserved after authentication by a person
responsible for such record.
[(8) Every Genetic Counselling Centre, Genetic Laboratory,
Genetic Clinic, Ultrasound Clinic and Imaging Centre shall
send a complete report in respect of all pre-conception or
pregnancy related procedures/techniques/tests conducted by
them in respect of each month by 5th day of the following
month to the concerned Appropriate Authority.]”
SAILESH RANJAN
2026.04.10 14:20
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
CRR-2686-2010 (O&M) -16-
19. In respect of preparation of Form F mentioned in Rule 9 of
the 1996 Rules, Hon’ble the Supreme Court, in the report “Federation of
Obstetrics and Gynaecological Societies of India (FOGSI) Vs. Union
of India“, (2019) 6 SCC 283, observed as under:-
“98. Non-maintenance of record is springboard for
commission of offence of foeticide, not just a clerical error. In
order to effectively implement the various provisions of the
Act, the detailed forms in which records have to be
maintained have been provided for by the Rules. These Rules
are necessary for the implementation of the Act and improper
maintenance of such record amounts to violation of
provisions of Sections 5 and 6 of the Act, by virtue of proviso
to Section 4(3) of the Act. In addition, any breach of the
provisions of the Act or its Rules would attract cancellation
or suspension of registration of Genetic Counselling Centre,
Genetic Laboratory or Genetic Clinic, by the appropriate
authority as provided under Section 20 of the Act.
99. There is no substance in the submission that provision of
Section 4(3) be read down. By virtue of the proviso to Section
4(3), a person conducting ultrasonography on a pregnant
woman, is required to keep complete record of the same in the
prescribed manner and any deficiency or inaccuracy in the
same amounts to contravention of Section 5 or Section 6 of
the Act, unless the contrary is proved by the person
conducting the said ultrasonography. The aforementioned
proviso to Section 4(3) reflects the importance of records in
such cases, as they are often the only source to ensure that an
establishment is not engaged in sex determination.
100. Section 23 of the Act, which provides for penalties of
offences, acts in aid of the other sections of the Act is quite
reasonable. It provides for punishment for any medical
geneticist, gynaecologist, registered medical practitioner or aSAILESH RANJAN
2026.04.10 14:20
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
CRR-2686-2010 (O&M) -17-person who owns a Genetic Counselling Centre, a Genetic
Clinic or a Genetic Laboratory, and renders his professional
or technical services to or at the said place, whether on
honorarium basis or otherwise and contravenes any
provisions of the Act, or the Rules under it.
101. Therefore, dilution of the provisions of the Act or the
Rules would only defeat the purpose of the Act to prevent
female foeticide, and relegate the right to life of the girl child
under Article 21 of the Constitution, to a mere formality.
102. In view of the above, no case is made out for striking
down the proviso to Section 4(3), provisions of Sections
23(1), 23(2) or to read down Section 20 or 30 of the Act.
Complete contents of Form F are held to be mandatory……”
20. The complainant says that when clinic of the petitioner was
inspected on 19.01.2005, discrepancies/violations/omissions enumerated
in the present complaint were detected to have been committed by the
petitioner. The complainant then says that the said violations/omissions
are contrary to Section 29 of the 1994 Act read with Rule 9 of 1996 Rules.
To prove his such stand, the complainant has produced/exhibited
documents Ex.C3 to C58 on record. A perusal of the documents Ex.C3 to
C51 i.e. copies of Form F prepared by clinic of the petitioner shows that
the same do not contain signatures of the Doctor conducting ultra-
sonography etc. on the concerned patient/s. Preparation of the said form,
as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the above-stated report, is
mandatory. The said form is required to be maintained under Rule 9(4) of
the 1996 Rules. The petitioner, at no stage, has come forward with a plea
that the said documents do not belong to her clinic. May be that at one
SAILESH RANJAN
2026.04.10 14:20
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
CRR-2686-2010 (O&M) -18-
stage, she says that the complainant has forged reports Ex.C57 and
Ex.C58. At the same time, she nowhere has come forward with the plea
that the documents Ex.C3 to Ex.C51 were not recovered from her clinic on
19.01.2005. Other violations mentioned in the complaint, in the facts/
circumstances of the present case, have categorically been deposed to have
been committed by clinic of the petitioner. However the petitioner
nowhere has come forward with a plea that documents Ex.C3 to Ex.C51
were not taken into possession from her clinic. Rather, a perusal of
document Ex.C58 shows that the said documents were taken into
possession from her clinic and reports Ex.C57 & C58 were handed-over to
her. CW1 Dr.S.P.Gupta has also deposed in that regard. The said
facts/omissions on the part of the petitioner and her clinic, therefore, are
clear-cut violations of Section 29 of the 1994 Act read with Rule 9 of the
1996 Rules.
21. Coming to the argument of learned counsel for the petitioner
that procedure prescribed in Section 30 of the 1994 Act read with Rule 12
of the 1996 Rules was not followed by the complainant at the time of
inspecting the premises in question, I may observe that no doubt the
procedure adopted by the complainant at the time of inspecting the clinic
of the petitioner does not comply with the said seciton/rule in letter and
spirit. At the same time, the said inspection is stated to have resulted into
recovery of the above-stated documents from clinic of the petitioner. Only
on the ground of non-compliance of the said section/rule meticulously, the
documents seized during search of the premises in question which the
petitioner does not dispute to be belonging to her clinic, are evidence
SAILESH RANJAN
2026.04.10 14:20
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
CRR-2686-2010 (O&M) -19-
which can certainly be taken into consideration for deciding the matter in
question. In fact, in the report “Radha Kishan Vs. State of Uttar
Pradesh“, AIR 1963 SC 822, in respect of search operations under
Sections 103 and 165 of the 1973 Code, a three Judge Bench of the
Hon’ble Supreme Court held that even if it is assumed that the search was
illegal, the seizure of the articles is not vitiated. In the said report, Hon’ble
the Supreme Court observed as under:
“5……….So far as the alleged illegality of the search is
concerned it is sufficient to say that even assuming that the
search was illegal the seizure of the articles is not vitiated. It
may be that where the provisions of Sections 103 and 165 of
the Code of Criminal Procedure are contravened the search
could be resisted by the person whose premises are sought to
be searched. It may also be that because of the illegality of
the search the court may be inclined to examine carefully the
evidence regarding the seizure. But beyond these two
consequences no further consequence ensues. The High Court
has chosen to accept the evidence of the prosecution with
regard to the fact of seizure and that being a question to be
decided only by the court of fact, this Court would not re-
examine the evidence for satisfying itself as to the correctness
or otherwise of the conclusions reached by the High
Court………”
22. In a report “Dr.Naresh Kumar Garg Vs. The State of
Haryana & others“, 2026 SCC Online SC 295, Hon’ble the Supreme
Court, in respect of the evidence collected during an illegal search,
observed as under:
SAILESH RANJAN
2026.04.10 14:20
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
CRR-2686-2010 (O&M) -20-
“50. While there is infraction of Section 30 of the PCPNDT
Act qua the search carried out by the respondents on Vatika
Medicare in as much as it was an individual decision of the
Chairperson instead of being the collective decision of the
District Appropriate Authority which has vitiated the search,
and in this connection we are bound by the ratio laid down by
the Coordinate Bench in Ravindra Kumar; we are however of
the view that the evidence collected in the course of the
search in the form of the seized record etc cannot be
discarded altogether, like the baby with the bath water.
While the search may be illegal, the materials or evidence
gathered or collected in the course of such search can still be
acted or relied upon subject to the rule of relevancy and the
test of admissibility. We are fortified in adopting such a view
by several decisions of this Court a couple of which are by
Benches of larger strength.
51. xxx xxx xxx
52. R.M. Malkani Vs. State of Maharashtra 1973 (1) SCC
471 is a two-Judge Bench decision of this Court. In that case,
this Court was examining admissibility of tape recorded
conversation. In that context, this Court held that tape
recorded conversation is admissible provided, firstly, the
conversation is relevant to the matter in issue; secondly, there
is identification of the voice; and thirdly, the accuracy of the
tape recorded conversation is proved. Rejecting the
contention of the appellant that the tape recorded
conversation was obtained by illegal means, this Court held
that even if evidence is illegally obtained, it is admissible.
However, by expressing a word of caution, this Court
observed that the Judge has a discretion to disallow evidence
in a criminal case if the strict rules of admissibility would
operate unfairly against the accused. This Court referred to
with approval its earlier decision in Magraj Patodia Vs. R.K.
SAILESH RANJAN
2026.04.10 14:20
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
CRR-2686-2010 (O&M) -21-
Birla AIR 1971 SC 1295 which held that a document which
was procured by improper or even by illegal means could not
bar its admissibility provided its relevance and genuineness
were proved. Referring to English decisions, this Court held
that as long as evidence is not tainted by an inadmissible
confession of guilt evidence even if it is illegally obtained is
admissible.
53. A Constitution Bench of this Court in Pooran Mal Vs.
Director of Inspector (Investigation), New Delhi (1974) 1
SCC 345 was examining a challenge to search and seizure of
certain premises under Section 132 of the Income Tax Act,
1961 on the ground that the authorisation for the search as
also the search and seizure were illegal. After referring to
various provisions of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, this
Court opined that it had permitted relevancy as the only test
of admissibility of evidence; the Indian Evidence Act or any
other similar law in force does not exclude relevant evidence
on the ground that it was obtained under an illegal search or
seizure. Elaborating further, this Court held that courts have
a discretion to admit evidence obtained as a result of illegal
search. Unless there is an express or necessarily implied
prohibition in law, evidence obtained as a result of illegal
search or seizure is not liable to be shut out. Finally, the
Constitution Bench concluded as under:
25. In that view, even assuming, as was done by the
High Court, that the search and seizure were in
contravention of the provisions of Section 132 of the
Income Tax Act, still the material seized was liable to
be used subject to law before the Income tax authorities
against the person from whose custody it was seized
and, therefore, no Writ of Prohibition in restraint of
such use could be granted. It must be, therefore, held
that the High Court was right in dismissing the twoSAILESH RANJAN
2026.04.10 14:20
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
CRR-2686-2010 (O&M) -22-
writ petitions. The appeals must also fail and are
dismissed with costs.”
23. Keeping in view the above reproduced observations,
documents C3 to C51, despite the fact that at the time of seizing the same,
procedure prescribed in Section 30 of the 1994 Act and Rule 12 of the
1996 Rules was not meticulously followed, since the said documents are
relevant and admissible in evidence in the present case, could certainly be
taken into consideration to decide the matter in question. If the same are
taken into such consideration, it is proved that the petitioner and her clinic
have violated Section 29 of the 1994 Act read with Rule 9(4) of the 1996
Rules. No doubt the petitioner says that the document Ex.C57 is not the
same as is the document Ex.D1. At the same time, a perusal of the
document Ex.D1 also shows that it demonstrates that record of ultrasound
performed on pregnant mothers was not kept as per declaration of the
registration form. It also records that copy of the report of ultra-
sonography had not been kept by the clinic of the petitioner. Therefore,
contents of the document Ex.D1 also show and establish non-compliance
of Section 29 of the 1994 Act and Rule 9 of the 1996 Rules. The said
document has been signed by Dr.Sunita Goyal as well as the complainant.
It also contains signatures of one Om Parkash and Dr.Surinder. Same is
the case with document Ex.C57. It also contains signatures of the said Om
Parkash and Dr.Surinder. May be that factum of their signing the said
documents has not come on record. At the same time, the document
Ex.D1 is stated to have been received by the petitioner herself. She admits
the same to have been received by her against her signature. From their
signatures on the said document, it can be inferred that they were present
SAILESH RANJAN
2026.04.10 14:20
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
CRR-2686-2010 (O&M) -23-
at the time of seizure in question. If that is so, Section 30 of the 1994 Act
and Rule 12 of the 1996 Rules appear to have been materially complied
with at the time of conducting the search in question. Even non-
compliance of the said provisions, considering relevancy and admissibility
of the documents Ex.C3 to Ex.C51, for what has been observed above, has
no significance. The document Ex.D1 specifically mentions that remarks
were contained in the report submitted by PW1 Dr.S.P.Gupta. Report in
that regard prepared by him is Ex.C58. It establishes violations/omissions
done by clinic of the petitioner as referred to above. The said documents
have been proved by the prosecution on record. PW1 Dr.S.P.Gupta and
CW3 Dr.Sunita Goyal have deposed about the search in question in
minute details. The petitioner does not dispute that the search in question
took place on the above-stated date and time. She also does not dispute
that the above-stated documents were not taken into possession from her
clinic on the said date. In the absence of such dispute, it does not lie in the
mouth of the petitioner to contend that the impugned judgments and order
are liable to be set aside for alleged non-compliance of the said provisions.
24. No doubt the petitioner is stated to be now 80 years old. At
the same time, considering the acts/omissions committed by her in
violation of the provisions of the 1994 Act and the 1996 Rules, no
leniency can be shown to her in the matter of imposition of sentence also.
25. I have also minutely perused the impugned judgments and
order. However, I am of the considered opinion that there is no manifest
error on the point of law resulting in flagrant miscarriage of justice in the
same. They have not caused any mnifest illegality or miscarriage of
SAILESH RANJAN
2026.04.10 14:20
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
CRR-2686-2010 (O&M) -24-
justice. Reappreciation of evidence is not permissible while exercising a
revisional jurisdiction. Non-compliance of the procedure prescribed in the
1994 Act and 1996 Rules in the present case has already been held as
inconsequential. Findings rendered in the said judgments and order are
not perverse or unreasonable. The same do not show neglect of proper
precaution or apparent harshness of treatment resulting in undeserved
hardship to the petitoner. Interest of justice does not require exercise of
revisional power in the present case. Such power cannot be exercised
capriciously or arbitrarily and rather it should be exercised based on sound
principles. The impugned judgments and order have done real and
substantial justice in the matter. Arguments of the learned counsel for the
petitioner therefore have no substance and are accordingly rejected.
26. For what has been stated above, I am of the considered
opinion that there is no ground to interfere in the impugned judgments and
order in the exercise of revisional jurisdiction under Section 401 of the
1973 Code. In turn, the present revision petition is dismissed. All interim
application(s), if any, stand disposed of.
10.04.2026 (RAMESH CHANDER DIMRI)
Sailesh JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes
Whether Reportable : Yes
SAILESH RANJAN
2026.04.10 14:20
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
