Complete maintenance of Form F is mandatory; clerical errors in records constitute substantive prenatal diagnostic law violations.

The appellant, a medical practitioner running a sonography center, was subjected to a search and seizure operation by an authority under the PCPNDT Act.

An Advisory Committee concluded that prima facie violations of the Act existed, leading to the suspension of the center and seizure of equipment.

The Judicial Magistrate First Class (JMFC), Ardhapur, took cognizance and issued process under Section 204 CrPC for offenses punishable under Section 23 of the PCPNDT Act, specifically regarding violations of Sections 4(3), 5, 6, and 29, and relevant Rules.

The appellant challenged the cognizance on two grounds: first, that the Civil Surgeon was not the legally "Appropriate Authority"; and second, that deficiencies in "Form F" were merely technical/clerical errors without criminal intent.

Both the Revisional Court and the High Court rejected these challenges.

Section 17 of the PCPNDT Act regarding the appointment of the "Appropriate Authority" and Section 28, which restricts cognizance to complaints made by such Authority.

Section 4(3) (proviso), which mandates the maintenance of complete records and stipulates that any deficiency in Form F amounts to a contravention of Sections 5 or 6 (sex selection/communication) unless the contrary is proved.

The precedent Federation of Obstetrics Gynaecological Societies of India v. Union of India (2019) 6 SCC 283, which established that the maintenance of Form F is mandatory and its dilution would defeat the Act's purpose.

The Court dismissed the challenge to the Civil Surgeon's competence by noting a Government Notification dated 15th May 2015, which specifically designated the District Civil Surgeon as the "Appropriate Authority".

Regarding the errors in Form F, the Court rejected the appellant's argument that they were "clerical" or "inadvertent." Following the Federation of Obstetrics precedent, the Court reasoned that the Form F record is the "springboard" for the commission of foeticide and the primary tool for monitoring establishments.

The Court held that under the proviso to Section 4(3), any inaccuracy creates a statutory presumption of violation; whether these errors were indeed trivial or lacked intent is a matter for trial, not a ground to quash cognizance at the threshold.

The Court further contextualized this by analyzing national sex ratio data and emphasized that strict enforcement of record-keeping is essential to curb the social evil of female foeticide.

The appeal was dismissed, and the trial was ordered to proceed to determine the extent of the violations.