Articles

Mere omission to sign on “F Form” does not make the Doctor liable for prosecution

Mere omission to sign on “F Form” does not make the Doctor liable for prosecution

Hon. Bombay High Court. The recent judgment of Hon. Bombay High Court, providing much needed relief.

Case details : Dr. Udaysingh Mansingh Patil V/s. State of Maharashtra, Cri.Appln. No. 2574/2014, Aurangabad Bench, decided on 08-12-2016, recently reported in 2027(2) Mh.L.J.232.

Facts in Short :. 1.The Appellant Doctor challenged the order of framing of charges by Ld. J.M F.C., Jalgaon, under PCPNDT Act, on the complaint filed by AA. 2. At the time of visit of AA to the clinic of the Petitioner, it was alleged that the deficiencies relating to Non signing on few F forms were found. Some F forms were missing the signatures of the pregnant women and in some forms details of living children of the patient were missing. Hence the complaint was filed and the Ld. JMFC framed the charges

 

Held : 1. His Lordship Hon. Z.A. Haq J. , observed it is to be ways seen that whrther deficiencies in F Forms are of such nature that invite for prosecution. 2. No doubt the filling up and maintaining F Forms is mandatory under the PCPNDT ACT. However in the entire complaint it is not averred that the omission to fill up F forms wad deliberate on part of the Petitioner nor it was averred that the Petitioner was indulged in sex determination tactics. 3. Even though some omissions are there, the forms were submitted through the clinic registered and run by the Petitioner himself. 4. Moreover, the Petitioner has signed below the declration on most of the F forms, merely because he has not signed below Column No. 19, he is liable to face the prosecution. 5. The AA also failed in seeking explanation from the petitioner for such omissions Thus the orders of Lower Courts was quashed and set aside. This order is certainly a sigh of relief for Doctors in current scenario. After the recently busted sex determination racket in Mhaisal, Maharashtra, the inspection of clinics will be made strict and such omissions are likely to be found. One would fail to understand as to the Doctor who wants to indulge in sex determination tactics, he will try to keep such record straight or may ‘manage’ to keep record straight…. Thus the inference cannot be drawn (always) that where there are omissions in keeping of record like F forms, Doctor is involved in viloating the provisions of PCPNDT Act. After the Mhaisal incident, no doubt the perpetrator Dr will be strictly dealt with as per Law, but those who ask for sex determination must also be strictly dealt with…

 Adv. Rohit Erande. Pune.©

Start the Discussion