Is pasting images of gods on sonography machine a crime?

A doctor couple facing criminal proceedings for violation of the Pre-Conception and Prenatal Diagnostic Techniques (Prohibition of Sex Selection) Act, (PCPNDT) has claimed that pasting images of gods and goddesses on sonography machines is not a crime.

Vinayak Khedkar and his wife Jyoti, both 44, had approached the Bombay Court after government officials shut down their sonography centre at Jyoti Maternity Home and Sonography Clinic in Surananagar, Aurangabad in 2012 and revoked its registration.

Authorities had also registered a first information report against the couple, citing improper record maintenance and failure to adhere to norms prescribed under the PCPNDT Act. The complaint against the doctors also included sticking of religious pictures on the machine.

However, Justice AIS Cheema of the Aurangabad bench of the HC refused to quash the FIR stating that it was for the trial court to decide after recording evidence whether there were deficiencies and inaccuracies committed by the doctors.

“It would not be proper for this Court (HC) to consider the arguments that what is pointed out is no deficiency or no inaccuracy. It would be prejudging the matter,” observed justice Cheema.

Following an inspection on June 4, 2012, a complaint was registered by competent authority against the Khedkars on the ground that Form F, declaration by a pregnant woman that sex determination of the foetus was not done during sonogrphy, has not been properly filled, sealed sonography machines and suspended the registration, argued public prosecutor SV Kurundkar.

It was also mentioned in the complaint that sonography machine, pictures of gods and goddess have been pasted.

Several forms were blank and on some forms only names of patients were mentioned. On several blank forms, signatures of sonologists were already taken. Also, affidavits of pregnant women have not been taken in Marathi, said the complaint.

On some affidavits signatures of pregnant lady are not there, while on some affidavits signatures of sonologists are not there, adds the complaint.

VD Hon, advocate for Vinayak contended that merely putting photograph of Ganpati was no violation of rules. He also argued that it was not the case of the complainant that the petitioners had disclosed the sex of a foetus to anybody.

The doctors contended that the signatures of pregnant women were taken on affidavit but in some forms the ink faded.

Rejecting the petition, the judge said that when prima facie there is evidence then the HC cannot quash the complaint.