Dr. Ramesh v. State of Maharashtra & Anr.
Background
The appellant, a doctor running a sonography centre, had his equipment seized after an inspection found deficiencies in the mandatory "Form F" records required under the PCPNDT Act (a law meant to prevent sex-selective abortion). A Magistrate took cognizance and ordered criminal proceedings against him under Sections 4(3), 5, 6 and 29 of the Act. The doctor challenged this before the Bombay High Court (Aurangabad Bench), arguing the Civil Surgeon who authorised the complaint was not the "Appropriate Authority" under the Act and that the record-keeping lapses were merely technical, inadvertent errors. The High Court rejected both arguments, and he appealed to the Supreme Court.
Decision Breakdown
The Supreme Court held that a government notification dated 15 May 2015 validly designated the District Civil Surgeon as the Appropriate Authority, so the complaint and cognizance were lawful. On the second point, the Court held that errors or blanks in Form F are not trivial: the proviso to Section 4(3) makes any deficiency or inaccuracy in the mandatory record itself amount to a contravention unless the doctor proves otherwise, and whether the lapses were genuinely technical is a matter to be thrashed out at trial, not at the cognizance stage. The Court reaffirmed the strong public purpose behind the PCPNDT Act in combating female foeticide and sex-selective practices, citing its own earlier ruling in Voluntary Health Assn. of Punjab v. Union of India. The appeal was dismissed and the criminal proceedings against the appellant were allowed to continue.
Lesson Learnt
Medical practitioners operating sonography/genetic clinics must meticulously maintain Form F records for every patient. The law itself treats any gap or inaccuracy as a violation unless the doctor proves it was not, so courts will rarely quash prosecution at the threshold stage on a claim that record-keeping errors were merely technical.