Rule. By consent, Rule made returnable forthwith. The respondents waive service. By consent, heard finally.

2. The petitioner is being prosecuted vide R.C.C. no. 495 of 2011 pending before the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Dhule on the allegation that he has committed offences punishable under the Pre-conception and Pre-natal Diagnostics Techniques (Prohibition of Sex Selection) Act, 2003 (hereinafter referred to as "the PCPNDT Act") and Rules framed thereunder. According to the petitioner, no case for proceeding against him was made out from the complaint. The petitioner, therefore, made an application for discharge, which was rejected by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class by an order dated 08.01.2013.

Being aggrieved thereby, the petitioner has approached this Court invoking its constitutional jurisdiction.

3. I have heard Mr. P.M. Shah, the learned senior Advocate for the petitioner. I have heard Mr. S.B. Pulkundwar, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent nos. 1 and 2.

4. With the assistance of the learned counsel, I have gone through the Petition and the annexures thereto, including the copy of the complaint and the impugned order.

5. The case against the petitioner is that he runs a Sonography Center, which was inspected, without notice, by the complainant i.e. the Appropriate Authority, on 18.06.2011, when certain deficiencies and contraventions of the provisions of the PCPNDT Act and the Rules framed thereunder, were noticed. The petitioner was called upon to offer his explanation with respect to the contraventions allegedly noticed by the appropriate authority during the inspection on 18.06.2011. The petitioner replied stating that there had been no contraventions. The appropriate authority, however, was not satisfied with the explanation and as such, a complaint came to be filed.

6. As per the complaint, the contraventions/violations of the provisions of the PCPNDT Act and the Rules that were noticed by the appropriate authority are as follows :-

(a) That, at the time of inspection, the experience or eligibility certificate was not displayed at the Sonography Center.

(b) That, at the time of inspection, the record in respect of sonography center was not maintained and such record was not produced at the time of inspection.

(c) No trained person or qualified person was present at the sonography center.

(d) The sonography center/sonography machine was not registered under the provisions of the PCPNDT Act and the sonography machine had also not been registered.

7. As regards the alleged contravention at (a) above, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor could not point out any Rule or Regulation requiring such certificate to be displayed at a sonography center. In fact, that there is no such Rule, was conceded in the course of hearing.

8. As regards the contravention mentioned at (c) above, it is not disputed that the petitioner himself is duly qualified and authorized to run sonography center and possesses the requisite qualification. Thus, that this allegation is not proper or correct, is conceded.

9. As regards violation at (d) above, the same seems to be without any basis and factually incorrect. It is attempted to be supported by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, by claiming that in the certificate of registration issued after renewal of the original registration certificate, the 'make' of the sonography machine, as per column no. 3 of the printed prescribed proforma of the original certificate, has not been mentioned. Interestingly, this certificate has been issued by the competent authority i.e. by appropriate authority itself: and how the petitioner could be held responsible for not completely filling in the said certificate is difficult to comprehend.

The original certificate of the registration mentions the number of the sonography machine and the same number has been mentioned in the certificate issued after renewal.

In fact, while replying to the show-cause notice, the pet