A Complaint Filed by One Is No Complaint at All Under PNDT Act: Punjab & Haryana High Court Acquits Doctors in Ultrasound Centre Case

“Law Was Always Clear—Only a Three-Member Authority Can Prosecute”, - In a crucial ruling impacting prosecutions under the Pre-Conception and Pre-Natal Diagnostic Techniques (Prohibition of Sex Selection) Act, 1994, the Punjab and Haryana High Court held that a complaint filed by a single individual, even if a Civil Surgeon, is not legally maintainable unless backed by a three-member District Appropriate Authority as required under Section 17(3)(b) of the Act.

Justice Jasjit Singh Bedi, deciding M/s Kamboj Ultrasound and Diagnostic Pvt. Ltd. and Others v. State of Haryana, allowed the revision petition, set aside the convictions, and acquitted all petitioners, observing that:

“The complaint filed by a single member was fundamentally defective in law. The subsequent proceedings, including convictions, stand vitiated.”

The case arose from a complaint filed in December 2006 against M/s Kamboj Ultrasound and Diagnostic Pvt. Ltd., Hisar, and its directors Dr. Mahender Kamboj and Dr. Renu Kamboj. The complaint, filed by Dr. S.K. Naval, Civil Surgeon, alleged multiple violations under Sections 4(3), 5(1)(b), 29 and Rule 9 of the PC & PNDT Act relating to improper record-keeping and unauthorized signatories on mandatory Form F documents.

On the basis of these allegations and seized ultrasound records, the Trial Court convicted both doctors in January 2008, awarding them rigorous imprisonment of up to three years and fines. The Appellate Court in August 2008 partly modified the sentence but upheld the convictions. The petitioners then approached the High Court in revision, challenging the very maintainability of the complaint.

Who Can File a Valid Complaint Under the PNDT Act?

The core legal issue before the High Court was whether a single-person complaint, filed solely by the Civil Surgeon acting as District Appropriate Authority, was valid under Section 17(3)(b) and Section 28 of the PNDT Act.

Justice Bedi answered in unequivocal terms: “Section 17(3)(b) mandates a three-member body even for a part of the State. The Act does not envision a single individual prosecuting on behalf of such a body.”

The Court cited its own binding precedents, notably in Help Welfare Group Society v. State of Haryana (2014), Dr. Ritu Prabhakar v. State of Haryana (2016), and Dr. Anil Bansal v. District Appropriate Authority, Gurugram (2020), all of which held:

“Even at district level, the Appropriate Authority must consist of three members: a health official, a woman representative, and a legal officer.”

The Court emphasized that this interpretation was not new law, but the correct reading of the statute from its very inception.

Quoting from Lily Thomas v. Union of India, the Court said: “Courts do not make law—they interpret it. Such interpretation relates back to the date the law came into force. A wrong earlier reading of the law does not sanctify invalid action.”

Complaint and Trial Were Void Ab Initio

Justice Bedi noted that the 2006 complaint was filed solely by Civil Surgeon Dr. S.K. Naval, with no evidence of joint authorization, signature, or resolution from the two other mandatory members of the Appropriate Authority. As such, the complaint lacked jurisdictional validity, and every proceeding flowing from it—including trial, conviction, and appeal—was legally unsustainable.

“The foundation of the prosecution being flawed, the edifice of conviction cannot stand. The complaint was never validly instituted,” the Court declared.

Further, the Court dismissed the State’s argument that the multi-member requirement was only judicially clarified in 2014, holding that:

“The law was always clear; judicial interpretation in 2014 merely clarified what was already implicit. It binds retrospectively.”

Having held the complaint as legally defective, the High Court set aside the conviction and sentence orders of both the Trial Court and the Appellate Court. The petitioners—Dr. Mahender Kamboj and Dr. Renu Kamboj—were acquitted of all charges under the PNDT Act.

“The judgments of the Trial Court as well as of the Lower Appellate Court are hereby set aside. The petitioners are acquitted of the charges framed against them,” concluded Justice Bedi.

All pending applications in the matter were also disposed of.

This landmark decision reasserts a crucial procedural safeguard under the PNDT Act—that only a properly constituted multi-member District Appropriate Authority can launch a criminal complaint under the law. The judgment sends a clear signal to regulatory authorities and prosecutors: technical shortcuts cannot override statutory mandates, especially when liberty and professional reputation are at stake.

“The law protects the process as much as the outcome. Where the process is flawed, the prosecution cannot be sustained,” the Court's reasoning implies.

In effect, the High Court has drawn a judicial red line against single-member prosecutions under the PNDT regime, reinforcing that strict adherence to statutory form is essential in criminal proceedings under welfare legislation.

Date of Decision: 15 May 2025