Vijay Bishnoi, J. - (1.) THESE criminal misc. petitions under section 482 CrPC, including S.B. Cr. Revision Petition No. 504/2012 have been filed by the petitioners being aggrieved with the proceedings pending against them under the provisions of Pre -conception and Pre -natal Diagnostic Techniques (Prohibition of Sex Selection) PCPNDT Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the PCPNDT Act'). In all the cases, complaints have been filed against the petitioners under section 28 of the PCPNDT Act with the allegations that the petitioners have contravened the provisions of the PCPNDT Act and the Rules made thereunder known as The Pre -conception and Pre -natal Diagnostic Techniques (Prohibition of Sex Selection) Rules, 1996 (hereinafter after referred to as 'the Rules of 1996'). In some of the cases, even charges have been framed by the courts below and the revision petitions have also been dismissed by the revisional courts. In some of the cases, cognizance has been taken and the revision petitions have been dismissed by the revisional courts. In some of the cases, the petitioners have challenged the order of taking cognizance before this Court by way of these criminal misc. petitions, whereas in some of the cases, the petitioners have directly challenged the complaints. The criminal revision petition 504/2012 is filed against the order of framing charge against the petitioners for the offences under sections 3(1) and 23(1) of the PCPNDT Act.
(2.) SINCE common controversy is involved in all these cases, the same are tagged with each other by different orders passed by this Court and, therefore, they are being decided together by this common order. Learned counsel for the petitioners have challenged the proceedings pending against them under the PCPNDT Act mainly on the following grounds; ''(i) That the allegations levelled against the petitioners in the complaints are mostly in respect of alleged irregularities committed by them in maintenance of records. The other allegations are also in respect of minor irregularities such as non -availability of copy of the PCPNDT Act at the time of inspection, non -display of notice in the premises declaring that disclosure of sex of foetus is prohibited under law and non -display of name and designation on the dress worn by the nurse, employees and other persons associated with the Genetic Counselling Centre, Genetic Laboratory, Genetic Clinic, Ultrasound Clinic, Imaging Centre etc. It is contended that the said irregularities are minor in nature and cannot be equated with the major offences as prescribed in sections 5 and 6 of the Act. It is argued that such minor offences do not fall within the ambit of section 23 of the PCPNDT Act and only fall within the ambit of section 25 of the said Act. '' It is argued that the legislature in its wisdom enacted section 25 for the aforesaid category of offences and the proposition of law on this point is very clear that no provision can make the other provision redundant or otiose. Merely because of use of common expression in sections 23 and 25, the said authorities are not allowed to apply section 23 with virtually closed eye in all cases involving the cases of minor irregularities. The consequences of both these provisions are very different and as such, the consequences of section 23 are very harsh, whereas the consequences of section 25 are not that harsh and of course, section 468 of the CrPC providing bar to taking cognizance after lapse of the period of limitation also comes into play depending upon the provision, which is attracted. So far as section 25 of the PCPNDT Act is concerned, the period of limitation is one year because the offence is punishable with imprisonment not exceeding one year. But so far as section 23 is concerned, the period of limitation is three years as offence is punishable with an imprisonment exceeding one year. The authority in question in order to avoid the application of section 468(2)(b) of CrPC filed the complaint under section 23 of the PCPNDT Act on wholly wrong and misconceived basis. ''(ii) That the complaints against the petitioners alleging contravention of the provisions of the PCPNDT Act and Rules made thereunder filed by the persons, who are not authorized to file the complaint and, therefore, as per the provisions of section 28 of the PCPNDT Act, the courts below have erred in taking cognizance against the petitioners. (iii) That non -reaching of Form -F on the fifth day of the month cannot be termed as a violation of sub -rule (8) of Rule 9 of the Rules of 1996 as the Rule speaks of only sending such Form and not that the said Form should be reached up to fifth day of the month. (iv) That in some of the cases, the trial court without even condoning the delay in filing the complaints, took cognizance against the petitioners, though admittedly, those complaints were filed after three years from the date of inspection. It is contended that the trial court before entertaining the time barred complaints is required to hear the accused before condoning the delay. In support of the above contentions, learned counsels for the petitioners have placed reliance on decisions of this Court in Panney Singh & Ors. v. State of Rajasthan, : 1980 CRI.L.J. 339 as well as the decision of Allahabad High Court in Ravi Dutt Sharma v. State of U.P., : 2001 CRI.L.J. 4408. ''
(3.) PER contra, Mr. Rajesh Panwar -learned Additional Advocate General has argued that none of the provisions of the PCPNDT Act classifies the offences as major and minor. Section 23 of the PCPNDT Act deals with certain class of persons and it is provided that if either of the persons referred in that section, contravenes any provisions of the Act or Rules made thereunder, shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years or with fine. Whereas section 25 is in relation to those persons, who contravene any of the provisions of this Act or any rule made thereunder, for which no penalty has been elsewhere provided in this Act.;