Courts Should 'Prioritize' PCPNDT Act’s Purpose Over Technicalities While Deciding Applications Seeking Condition Of Delay: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court has observed that courts should prioritize the purpose and objective of Pre-Conception and-Natal Diagnostic Techniques Act, 1994, while adjudicating the applications seeking condonation of delay in cases pertaining to the enactment.

“The primary intent of PC&PNDT Act is to safeguard the rights of the unborn girl child and promote gender equality by curbing the misuse of diagnostic techniques for sex determination. Therefore, while deciding applications seeking condonation of delay, Courts should prioritize the Act's underlying purpose over technicalities,” Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma said.

The court made the observation while dealing with a plea moved by a District Magistrate against the dismissal of the revision petition before the sessions court, solely on account of unexplained delay of 28 days in filing the same.

The case related to an FIR which was registered under the PCPNDT Act and Indian Penal Code against a diagnostic centre, one of its doctors and two others for allegedly performing ultrasounds and disclosing the sex of fetus to the patients.

The FIR was registered in March 2016. After investigation, chargesheet was filed before the metropolitan magistrate and the accused persons were summoned. A criminal complaint was also filed by the District Magistrate under Section 28 of PCPNDT Act against the accused persons which was dismissed by the MM on April 15, 2019.

Section 28 states that no court shall take cognizance of an offence under the enactment except on a complaint made by the Appropriate Authority concerned or any officer authorised by the Central or State Government.

The District Magistrate challenged the rejection before the sessions court which dismissed the revision petition on the ground of unexplained delay of 28 days.

While condoning the delay and remanding the matter back to the trial court for deciding the revision petition on merits, Justice Sharma said:

“Though in every case, the delay in filing the a petition cannot be condoned, however, in cases where the larger interest of the society is involved, denying trial of the case by dismissing an application for condonation of delay of 28 days will result in miscarriage of justice as the crime alleged is an offence against society.”

It added: “Thus, keeping in view the mandate of judicial precedents and law, as discussed above, this Court is inclined to allow the present petition and condone the delay of 28 days in filing the revision petition before the Revisionist Court. Accordingly, the case is remanded back to the court of learned ASJ to decide the revision petition on merits, as per law.”

Title: DISTRICT MAGISTRATE WEST DISTRICT THROUGH NEHA BANSAL v. JOSAN DIAGNOTICS CENTRE & ORS.

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 661

Click Here To Read Order