Judgment : Heard. 2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. By consent of parties, the application is taken up for final hearing and heard finally. 3. This Criminal Application is filed for seeking quashment of criminal case R.C.C. No.198 of 2011, which is pending in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Parli-Vaijinath, District Beed, for offences punishable under Sections 23(1), 25 and 29 of Preconception and Pre-Natal Diagnostic Techniques (Prohibition of Sex Selection) Act, 1994 (for short, 'the Act'). 4. The applicants are accused. It is common ground that applicant No.1 is a medical practitioner and owner of Ultra-Sound Clinic by name 'Tirupati Diagnostic Centre', Anjali Clinic at Parli Vaijinath. Applicant No.2 is her husband and is a Radiologist. The Ultra Sound Clinic is registered in the name of applicant No.1 and applicant No.2 is consulting Radiologist alongwith one more Radiologist Dr. Kurme. 5. On 16th June, 2011, at about 04.00 p.m., the appropriate authority of Parli-Vaijinath appointed under the provisions of the Act visited the Clinic of the applicants, inspected the record and found that the applicants had not filled up Form-F of the patients. The appropriate authority then recorded panchnama, took in charge the "incomplete" forms 'F' alongwith other related documents, sealed two sonography machines installed at the Clinic. He, thereafter, sent a notice to the applicants to show cause why action should not be taken against them. To this, applicant No.1 sent a reply that the forms 'F' of the patients which were seized by the appropriate authority are completely filled up and she had not committed any contravention of any provision of the Act or Rules. Despite of this reply, the complaint was ultimately lodged on 20th July, 2011 and at present the same is pending before the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, who is, I am told, recording evidence before charge. 6. The applicants challenged the legality of action mainly on the ground that the allegation made against them is completely false. As said above, the only allegation made against the applicants is that they did not fill-up forms 'F' completely of certain patients who were subjected to ultra-sound sonography. In order to verify the correctness of this allegation, I perused the forms and found that the forms are completely filled up. Only items which are left untouched by the applicants are item Nos.9 and 13 of Form-F. They read as under : "9. In order to verify the correctness of this allegation, I perused the forms and found that the forms are completely filled up. Only items which are left untouched by the applicants are item Nos.9 and 13 of Form-F. They read as under : "9. History of genetic/medical disease in the family (specify) Basis of diagnosis: (a) Clinical (b) Bio-chemical (c) Cytogenetic (d) Other (e.g., radiological, ultrasonography etc., specify)." "13. Laboratory tests recommended (i) Chromosomal studies (ii) Biochemical studies (iii) Molecular studies (iv) Preimplantation genetic diagnosis." 7. Item No.9 requires information regarding history of genetic or medical disease in the family of the patient. In no forms in question this information is filled up. The question is what is the importance of this information? This information would reveal history of genetic or medical disease in the family of the patient if it existed. It would help the doctor in diagnosis. It would also prompt the doctor to examine the patient radiologically. All the patients in question were referred for sonography test for examining as to whether the child is healthy. In this back ground if the information regarding patients genetic disease in the family is not mentioned in item No.9, it clearly indicates that there was no genetic medical disease in the family of the patient. If the form is otherwise completely filled up, the applicants would not have left this item incomplete. The non-filling of this item thus is not contravention. It is not even lapse or inadvertence. Besides, there is one more reason why item No.9 and it's incomplete status cannot be given any importance. All the patients in question were referred by Gynaecologists who are practicing elsewhere. They referred their patients to applicant No.1 for sonography test. Applicant No.1 then sent such patients to sonography clinic and arranged their sonography test through the Radiologist who is employee of the clinic. In all these cases, radiological or sonography test was conducted by Dr. Kurme, who is authorized radiologist of this clinic. If one goes through the referral letters annexed to Form-F of the patient, one would find provisional diagnosis of the patient made by the Gynaecologist. If the Gynaecologist who referred the patient to the applicants for examination did not mention history of genetic or medical disease in the family of the patient, then there is no reason why the Radiologist would fill this item No.9. 8. If the Gynaecologist who referred the patient to the applicants for examination did not mention history of genetic or medical disease in the family of the patient, then there is no reason why the Radiologist would fill this item No.9. 8. Item No.13 is in respect of laboratory test recommended. This item is clearly made applicable wherever laboratory test is recommended. The asteric mark on the word 'recommended' clearly suggests that this item is required to be filled up by a Laboratory and not by ultrasound Clinic. 9. Thus, the allegation that these two items were left incomplete by the applicants, would not attract contravention of Sections 5 or 6 of the Act. 10. The learned counsel appearing for the applicants placed before this Court a copy of general instructions issued by the State Family Welfare Bureau Maharashtra to all Civil Surgeon General Hospital, Medical Officer of Health, Municipal Corporation etc in respect of Form-F and instructions for inspection etc. The contents of these instructions would confirm my view, which I expressed above on this subject, which reads as under :- "It has come to the notice of this office the during the crash inspection programme, some of the Appropriate Authorities are sealing the machines or harassing the owner of the centre on flimsy grounds like not writing the full name of radiologists, writing only initials of the doctors or writing the short forms in various columns of F-Forms. It has also come to the notice of this office that owners of Sonography Centres/Genetic Considering Centres/Genetic Clinics/Genetic Labs etc are being harassed for simple spelling or grammatical mistakes in the records/F. Forms." "While inspecting the Sonography centres Genetic Counseling Centres/Genetic Clinics Genetic Lab etc all Appropriate Authorities are directed to follow the instructions prescribed under Pre Conception and Pre Natal Diagnostic Techniques (Prohibition of Sex Selection) Act 1994 and they should act only against the defaulters of the provisions of the PCPNDT Act. They should ensure that there is no discrimination while conducting the inspection of the Sonography Centres. They should ensure that there is no discrimination while conducting the inspection of the Sonography Centres. Genetic Counseling Centres/Genetic Clinics/Genetic Lab etc and also that there is no harassment of the owners of these facilities and at the same time action should be taken against the concerned owner radiologist of Geneologist committing the breach of the provision of the Act." "Herewith please find enclosed a model Form fully filled as per the Pre Conception and Pre Natal Diagnostic Techniques (Prohibition of Sex Selection Act) 1994 for information and guidance of all appropriate Authorities. The same may please be circulated amongst the concerned owners/ radiologists/ Medical geneticists etc working under your jurisdiction." A copy of above instructions is placed on record which is marked 'A' and is also quoted above for ready reference. It is thus clear that the Additional Director Health Service and State Appropriate Authority of the State Government has already noticed that in some cases even if flimsy mistakes were committed by doctors, owners of clinics, the local appropriate authorities are sealing machines and prosecuting them. It is also recognized that this kind of action amounts to harassment of medical practitioners. In my earlier orders I have very specifically opined that since the provisions of this Act are very strict, the appropriate authority before taking action against the medical practitioner must act meticulously. In view of this, the application is allowed. Regular Criminal Case No.198 of 2011 quashed. Rule is made absolute. At the request of learned A.P.P., the effect of this order is kept in abeyance for eight weeks.