New Delhi: The Delhi High Court has observed that courts should prioritise the core objectives of the Pre-Conception and Pre-Natal Diagnostic Techniques Act, 1994 (PC&PNDT Act) when considering applications for the condonation of delay in cases related to the enactment.
A bench of Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma said that the primary purpose of the PC & PNDT Act is to protect the rights of unborn female children and promote gender equality by preventing the misuse of diagnostic techniques for sex determination.
“Therefore, while deciding applications seeking condonation of delay, courts should prioritise the Act’s underlying purpose over technicalities,” she said.
Her observation was made in response to a plea filed by a District Magistrate challenging the rejection of a revision petition by a sessions court. The revision petition was dismissed due to an unexplained delay of 28 days in its filing.
The case involved an FIR registered against a diagnostic centre, a doctor, and others under the Act and Indian Penal Code for allegedly conducting ultrasound examination and disclosing the gender of foetuses to patients.
The District Magistrate also lodged a criminal complaint under Section 28 of the PC & PNDT Act against the accused, which was dismissed by the Metropolitan Magistrate in April 2019.
Justice Sharma, while allowing the plea to condone the 28-day delay and remanding the matter to the trial court for considering the revision petition on its merits, noted that although delay cannot be condoned in every case, in situations involving broader societal interests, denying the trial of a case due to a relatively short delay would lead to a miscarriage of justice.
“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,” she said.
The court said that in such cases where the alleged crime affects society at large, the larger interest should take precedence.
The judge directed the trial court to decide the revision petition on its merits in accordance with the law. “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 court concerned.
“Accordingly, the case is remanded back to the court of learned ASJ to decide the revision petition on merits, as per law,” Justice Sharma said.
–IANS
Comments are closed.