Case at a Glance
A doctor running a sonography centre in Maharashtra was prosecuted under the Pre-Conception and Pre-Natal Diagnostic Techniques Act, 1994 after inspection revealed deficiencies in records, including Form F. He argued that the District Civil Surgeon was not the Appropriate Authority and that the errors were technical and inadvertent. The Supreme Court dismissed his appeal, holding that the Civil Surgeon had been made the Appropriate Authority by a 2015 notification and that record-keeping errors under the Act ‘were not a trivial matter’. The extent of the violations is for trial.
After notice under Section 20(1) of the PC-PNDT Act, the appellant appeared before the Advisory Committee on 22 March 2016, which found prima facie material of violations. On 23 March 2016 his sonography centre was suspended and the machine seized; the machine was later released and registration restored. Proceedings were filed before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Ardhapur, on 28 April 2016.
On 9 June 2016 the Magistrate took cognizance and issued process under Section 204 CrPC for offences under Section 23 of the Act, including violations of Sections 4(3), 5, 6 and 29 and Rules 9, 8(5) and 18(9). His revision was dismissed on 21 August 2017, and the Bombay High Court at Aurangabad rejected his writ petition.
The Key Question Before the Court
Was the Magistrate right to take cognizance of PC-PNDT offences based on deficiencies in Form F and other records, on a complaint by the District Civil Surgeon?
Records Are the Backbone of the Act
On authority, the Court relied on the notification dated 15 May 2015, which ‘made the District Civil Surgeon, the appropriate Authority under the Act’, and held that the proceedings were in accordance with law. On the merits, it examined the scheme of Sections 2, 4, 5, 6, 23 and 28 of the Act. The proviso to Section 4(3) treats deficient or inaccurate ultrasonography records as a contravention of Section 5 or 6 unless the contrary is proved. Following Federation of Obstetrics and Gynaecological Societies of India v. Union of India, which held that ‘Complete contents of Form F are held to be mandatory’, the Court quoted that ‘Non-maintenance of record is springboard for commission of offence of foeticide, not just a clerical error.’
It also referred to Voluntary Health Association of Punjab v. Union of India on the social roots of female foeticide and to Dr. Naresh Kumar Garg v. State of Haryana, (2026) 02 SC CK 1795 on the 1996 Rules. Citing NFHS-5 (sex ratio at birth of 929 females per 1,000 males), Sample Registration System data (896 in 2015–17, rising to 918 in 2022–24, still below the ‘biologically expected level of around 950 or higher’) and India’s rank of 131 of 148 in the Global Gender Gap Report 2025, it concluded the law must be strictly enforced. ‘The keeping of records is essential to the Act and its avowed purpose,’ and ‘The extent and manner of violations in maintaining the record is a question of trial.’
What the Court Actually Held
- The District Civil Surgeon was the Appropriate Authority under the 15 May 2015 notification, so the complaint was validly filed.
- Errors in maintaining Form F and other records under the PC-PNDT Act are not trivial or merely clerical; complete Form F contents are mandatory.
- The extent and manner of record-keeping violations is a question for trial, and the Magistrate’s order taking cognizance was free of error.
- The appeal was dismissed.
Why This Judgment Matters
- It tells sonography centres that ‘technical error’ is not a defence at the threshold for incomplete Form F records.
- It relies on recent sex-ratio data to underline why strict enforcement of the PC-PNDT Act remains necessary.
- It confirms that challenges to the complainant’s authority fail where a valid notification appoints the Civil Surgeon.
What Should Advocates Take Away From the Judgment?
For Doctors and Diagnostic Centres
- Fill every column of Form F for each scan; blanks can lead to prosecution.
- Keep records for the statutory period and make them available for inspection.
For Counsel
- Check the notification appointing the Appropriate Authority before raising jurisdiction objections.
- Arguments that errors were inadvertent are for trial, not for quashing.
Key Takeaways
- Complete Form F contents are mandatory.
- Record errors are not a trivial matter under the PC-PNDT Act.
- The Civil Surgeon was a valid Appropriate Authority.
- Extent of violations is for trial; cognizance upheld.
Frequently Asked Questions
Is an incomplete Form F an offence under the PC-PNDT Act?
The proviso to Section 4(3) treats deficient or inaccurate records as a contravention of Sections 5 or 6 unless the contrary is proved, and the Court held such errors are not trivial.
Can a doctor get the case quashed by calling errors clerical?
Not here. The Court held that the extent and manner of the violations is a question of trial.
Who can file a PC-PNDT complaint?
The Appropriate Authority under the Act; here the District Civil Surgeon had been so appointed by a notification of 15 May 2015.
Conclusion
The judgment treats meticulous record-keeping as the heart of the PC-PNDT regime. Doctors who see Form F as paperwork risk prosecution, while their defence on intent and extent remains available at trial.
Practical takeaway: Diagnostic centres should audit Form F records now; incomplete entries alone can sustain a criminal case under the PC-PNDT Act.
Read the full judgment on CourtKutchehry: View judgment →
For more judgments, legal opinions and case analysis, visit courtkutchehry.com