Research › Search › Judgment

Orissa High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 1091 (ORI)

Suren Prasad Dash v. State of Odisha

2016-11-11

B.K.NAYAK

body2016
ORDER : Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner arid learned Additional Standing Counsel. 2. The petitioner challenges the order of cognizance dated 20.07.2015 passed by the learned S.D.J.M., Berhampur in 2(c) C.C. Case No. 963 of 2015 under Sections 22(3), 23(1), 23(2), 23(3) and 25 of the Pre-Conception and Pre-natal Diagnostic Techniques (Prohibition of Sex Selection) Act, 1994 and also prays for quashing the entire proceeding on the ground that no offence has been made out as per the allegations made in the complaint filed by the authorities. 3. The complaint petition in the aforesaid case filed under Annexure-1 reveals that surprise inspection of Ultra Sound Clinic of the petitioner was made on 12.06.2015 by a team along with the Executive Magistrate and the local Police and it was found that petitioner's ultra sound machine having model No. RT 3200 was dysfunctional since last two years and no information was given to the District Appropriate Authority under PC & PNDT Act and therefore, it was alleged to be a violation of Rule 13 of the PC & PNDT Rules, 1996, which is punishable under the sections of the Act for which cognizance has been taken. 4. Rule 13 of Pre-Conception and Pre-natal Diagnostic Techniques (Prohibition of Sex Selection) Rules, 1996 as amended since 04.06.2012 runs as under: "13. Intimation of changes in employees, place of equipment – Every Genetic Counselling Centre, Genetic Laboratory, Genetic Clinic, Ultrasound Clinic and imaging Centre shall intimate every change of employee, place, address and equipment installed, to the appropriate Authority at least thirty days in advance of the expected date of such change, and seek re-issuance of certificate of registration from the Appropriate Authority, with the changes duly incorporated." 5. A plain reading of Rule 13, suggests that where a change of machine is proposed for which re-issuance of certificate of registration would be necessary, the appropriate authority should be intimated about such proposed change at least 30 days before the actual change takes place. The object of the Rule is to intimate the authority about change of equipment either wholly or partly, but it cannot be said to mean that a dysfunction, defect, or disorder that would arise in the machine should be intimated to the authority in advance, since it is not possible on the part of the person to foresee when the machine would go out of order. Therefore the word, 'change' used in the Rule would not mean any error, defect, or disorder in the machine. 6. It is the admitted case of the prosecution that the machine of the petitioner has totally become dysfunctional since two years prior to the date of inspection i.e. sometime in July, 2013. Therefore, no violation of Rule 13 has been committed for failure of the petitioner to intimate about non-functioning of the machine, and hence no offence is made out and the order of cognizance dated 20.07.2015 is bad. Hence the criminal proceeding in 2(C) C.C. Case No. 963 of 2015 is quashed. If the machine in question has been seized only for violation of Rule 13 of PC & PNDT Act and there is no other allegation, the same be released forthwith in favour of the petitioner. CRLMC is accordingly disposed of. Issue urgent certified copy. CRLMC disposed of.