PUSHAP LATA vs STATE OF PUNJAB AND ANR. — CRR/2686/2010

Case under No Acts Defined. Disposed: Contested--DISMISSED on 10th April 2026.

Case disposed Next hearing 28-Sep-2010

CNR: PHHC010576662010

Filing Number

CRR/2686/2010

Filing Date

27-Sep-2010

Registration No

CRR/2686/2010

Registration Date

27-Sep-2010

Judge

Justice (To Be Nominated)

Coram

Justice (To Be Nominated)

Bench Type

Single

Category

37.4 - CRIMINAL REVISION (AGAINST CONVICTION) ( 173 )

Sub-Category

( 944 )

Judicial Branch

CRIMINAL BRANCH

Decision Date

10-Apr-2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--DISMISSED

Last updated 12-May-2026

Acts & Sections

No Acts Defined

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.PUSHAP LATA

    Adv. VINOD GHAI

  2. 2.PUSHAP LATA

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.STATE OF PUNJAB AND ANR.

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 10-Apr-2026

    Justice (To Be Nominated)View PDF

    Summary The High Court dismissed a criminal revision petition by Dr. Pushap Lata, who was convicted under the Pre-Conception and Pre-natal Diagnostic Techniques (Prohibition of Sex Selection) Act, 1994 for violating record-maintenance requirements. The court held that documents showing her ultrasound clinic failed to maintain mandatory Form F records with doctor signatures were admissible evidence despite procedural irregularities in the search, and upheld her 2-year rigorous imprisonment sentence (reduced to 1 year on appeal) plus fine, finding no manifest illegality or miscarriage of justice warranting interference. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 08-Nov-2010

    —

    Mr. Justice Jai Singh Sekhon

  4. 28-Sep-2010

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  5. 27-Sep-2010

    Case filed

    Registration No. CRR/2686/2010

casestatus.in Summary

Summary The High Court dismissed a criminal revision petition by Dr. Pushap Lata, who was convicted under the Pre-Conception and Pre-natal Diagnostic Techniques (Prohibition of Sex Selection) Act, 1994 for violating record-maintenance requirements. The court held that documents showing her ultrasound clinic failed to maintain mandatory Form F records with doctor signatures were admissible evidence despite procedural irregularities in the search, and upheld her 2-year rigorous imprisonment sentence (reduced to 1 year on appeal) plus fine, finding no manifest illegality or miscarriage of justice warranting interference. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

District Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case