Punjab and Haryana High Court – Leave to Appeal by State Dismissed in PNDT Act Case Owing to Non-Compliance with Mandatory Provisions
Case Name: State of Haryana v. Amit
Citation: CRM-A No. 2502 of 2019
Date of Judgment: 6 January 2020
Bench: Justice Raj Mohan Singh
Held: The Punjab and Haryana High Court dismissed the State’s application for leave to appeal against the acquittal of the respondent in a case under the Pre-Conception and Pre-Natal Diagnostic Techniques (Prohibition of Sex Selection) Act, 1994. The Court observed that the prosecution had failed to comply with mandatory provisions under Sections 17 and 28 of the Act and Rule 12, and could not prove ownership, possession, or use of the ultrasound machine by the respondent. With the main accused deceased and co-accused already acquitted, the acquittal of the respondent could not be interfered with.
Summary: On 20.04.2011, a raid was conducted at House No. 182, Sector 8, Karnal, on information of unauthorized sex determination. Respondent Amit Kumar and Dr. Brij Sharma were found present, while a pregnant woman, Neelam, was also apprehended. The respondent was allegedly carrying a bag with an ultrasound machine and accessories. A complaint under Sections 3, 4, 5, 6, 18, 22, 23 of the Act and Rules was filed, and the trial Court convicted the respondent with three years’ RI and fine of ₹50,000.
On appeal, the Additional Sessions Judge, Karnal, acquitted the respondent, holding that the prosecution had failed to prove ownership of the ultrasound machine, his employment or connection with Dr. Brij Sharma, or actual conduct of any test. No decoy patient was used, no independent witness was joined, and compliance with mandatory statutory provisions was absent.
The State sought leave to appeal. The High Court found that with the main accused Dr. Brij Sharma deceased, co-accused Neelam acquitted, and no evidence to prove possession or use of the machine by the respondent, the acquittal was justified. The prosecution had also failed to comply with mandatory provisions regarding seizure and witness joining.
Decision: The High Court dismissed the State’s application for leave to appeal under Section 378(3) CrPC. Consequently, the appeal also stood dismissed.