### Registration under PCPNDT Act is Equipment-Specific; Deemed Renewal of Clinic Registration Does Not Authorize New Machine Installation. Summary: The Madhya Pradesh High Court dismissed a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking quashment of charges under Section 3B of the PCPNDT Act. The petitioners, employees of a medical technology company, supplied an ultrasound machine ("BPL Alpinion Ecube8LE") to a hospital that held an expired registration for a different model ("SONOTECH ST9"). The Court held that registration under the PCPNDT Act is equipment-specific, not institution-centric. Referring to Rule 13 and Forms A & B, the Court clarified that any change in equipment must be specifically authorized by the Appropriate Authority. Furthermore, the Court ruled that the "deemed renewal" of a clinic’s registration under Rule 8(6) applies only to existing authorized equipment and cannot be stretched to legalize the installation of a new, unregistered machine. Since the petitioners were experienced suppliers, the plea of lack of *mens rea* was rejected, affirming their statutory obligation to ensure valid, machine-specific registration prior to supply.

The petitioners, employees of BPL Medical Technologies Pvt. Ltd., supplied a “BPL Alpinion Ecube8LE” ultrasound machine to Karuna Hospital, Betul, following a purchase order dated July 29, 2021

The hospital provided an expired registration certificate (valid 2012–2017) which authorized a different machine model (“Logiq 100”)

Following reports of illegal prenatal sex determination at the hospital, an FIR was registered under the IPC, MTP Act, and PCPNDT Act

The petitioners were charge-sheeted under Section 3B of the PCPNDT Act for supplying the machine without a valid, equipment-specific registration certificate

The petitioners sought quashment of the proceedings under Section 482 Cr.P.C., arguing they acted in good faith and that the hospital had a "deemed renewal" of registration

Section 3B of the Pre-Conception and Pre-Natal Diagnostic Techniques (Prohibition of Sex Selection) Act, 1994, which prohibits the sale or supply of ultrasound machines to any laboratory or clinic not registered under the Act

Rules 3A, 8(6), and 13 of the PCPNDT Rules, 1996, alongside "Form A" and "Form B," which mandate that registration is granted for specific equipment by make and model

Standard for quashing criminal proceedings under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. (now Section 528 BNSS), following Satish Mehra v. State (NCT of Delhi), which permits quashment only if the materials completely rule out the possibility of conviction

The Court rejected the petitioners' contention that the hospital's status as a "registered entity" exempted the suppliers from liability. The Court reasoned that the statutory scheme—specifically Form A and Form B—requires equipment-specific registration, meaning a certificate for one machine cannot be used to purchase a different model

Under Rule 13, any change in equipment must be intimated for a modified certificate. The Court held that "deemed renewal" under Rule 8(6) only applies to the existing authorized machine and cannot be stretched to authorize the installation of new, undisclosed models

Furthermore, as experienced distributors, the petitioners had a statutory duty to ensure the specific machine supplied was covered by a valid certificate; the absence of mens rea regarding sex determination is irrelevant to the technical violation of Section 3B

The Court found that the facts presented disputed questions of fact that must be decided at trial rather than in a quashment petition

The petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. was dismissed. The Trial Court was directed to expedite the trial, clarifying that these observations are limited to the quashment proceedings.