Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 1126 (PAT)

Gyan Ranjan v. State of Bihar

2014-11-13

ASHUTOSH KUMAR

body2014
ASHUTOSH KUMAR, J.:–Heard Mr. Kumar Kaushik, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Sunil Kumar Pandey, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State. 2. The petitioner seeks quashing of the order dated 16.05.2013 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Darbhanga in connection with G.O. Case No. 31 of 2013, whereby cognizance has been taken under Sections 23, 24 and 25 of the Pre-Conception and Pre-Natal Diagnostic Techniques (Prohibition of Sex Selection) Act, 1994 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’). 3. The Chief Medical Officer, Darbhanga, on secret information raided the premises of A.S.Memorial Hospital, which is the Ultrasound clinic and found that an ultrasound machine was installed. The model number of the machine has been stated in the complaint petition. During course of enquiry, it was learnt by the Chief Medical Officer that the centre was being run by the petitioner and one qualified Sonologist. The machine was sealed as there was a violation of the provisions of the Act, namely, non-registration of the clinic under the Act. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that with respect to the registration of the unit, of which the petitioner is shown as the proprietor, necessary application was filed on 11.04.2012. The application was rejected only on 16.04.2013. Learned counsel for the petitioner further pointed out that the inspection was conducted by the Chief Medical Officer, Darbhanga on 30.03.2013. It is also stated that after the application of the petitioner was rejected, the complaint, in which cognizance has been taken, was lodged on 13.05.2013. 5. With reference to the Rules in this regard, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the application for registering any such unit/laboratory has to be decided within a period of 90 days and a communication has to be made to the applicant. 6. Admittedly, the application was filed in the month of April, 2012. Even after the expiry of 90 days, there was no communication to the petitioner, whether his application for registration has been allowed or such a request has been turned down. In that view of the matter, it would be presumed, as has been argued, that such a registration could be deemed to have been given by the official concerned. That apart, learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that apart from the ultrasound machine, no other supporting equipments and peripherals were found during the course of the raid. In that view of the matter, it would be presumed, as has been argued, that such a registration could be deemed to have been given by the official concerned. That apart, learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that apart from the ultrasound machine, no other supporting equipments and peripherals were found during the course of the raid. This only leads to the inference that the machine was purchased and was installed. No effort was made to commence the work of the laboratory, as the petitioner was awaiting response from the concerned authority for registration of the laboratory under the Act. 7. The counter affidavit filed on behalf of the State does not answer to the above requirement of law, namely, communication of either approval or rejection of the application for registration within a period of 90 days. 8. Considering the above aspect of the matter, the order taking cognizance under various Sections of the Pre-Conception and Pre-Natal Diagnostic Techniques (Prohibition of Sex Selection) Act, 1994 is not sustainable in the eyes of law. The order taking cognizance dated 16.05.2013 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Darbahnga in connection with G.O. Case No. 31 of 2013 is set aside. The application is allowed. ?