Back
2023 Supreme(Bom) 619
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD
KISHORE C. SANT, J.
Ranjana Pagar-Gawande - Petitioner
Versus
Nivrutti Kashinath Deshmukh (Indorikar) & Ors. - Respondents
Criminal Writ Petition No. 546 of 2021 and Criminal Application No. 1371 of 2023 In Criminal Writ Petition No. 851 of 2021
Decided On : 16-06-2023
For the Petitioner: Mr. Jitendra V. Patil & Ms. Neha Kamble.
For the Respondents:Mr. Rajendra Deshmukh, Senior Advocate i/b Smt. R.S. Navandar & Mr. P.B. Pawar, Advocate a/w Mr. Sanket A. Jadhav, Mr. P.N. Kutti, APP.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation of the provisions of the PCPNDT Act, particularly regarding the conditions for filing a complaint and the prohibition of advertisement relating to sex selection.
Headnote:
Locus Standi - Pre-Conception and Pre-Natal Diagnostic Techniques (Prohibition of Sex Selection) Act - Section 28 - Summary of the acts and sections referenced and discussed by the court: The court discussed the provisions of Section 28 of the PCPNDT Act, which outlines the conditions under which a complaint can be filed for offenses under the Act. The court analyzed the petitioner's locus standi in filing the petition and the requirements for filing a complaint under the Act. The interpretation of the provisions influenced the court's decision on the maintainability of the petition.
Fact of the Case:
The case involved a challenge to a common order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Sangamner in Criminal Revision No.16/2022. The petitioner, a social activist, filed a writ petition challenging the order that quashed the process issued against the respondent for propagating techniques for conceiving a male child, allegedly violating the PCPNDT Act.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioner in one of the petitions did not have locus standi to file the petition, but allowed the intervention of an applicant who assisted the Public Prosecutor. The court also found that the respondent's speeches did not amount to an offense under the PCPNDT Act, as there was no propagation of modern diagnostic techniques for sex selection.
Issues: The issues included the locus standi of the petitioner, whether the respondent's speeches violated the PCPNDT Act, and the interpretation of the provisions of the Act regarding the prohibition of advertisement relating to sex selection.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the interpretation of the provisions of the PCPNDT Act, particularly Section 28 and Section 22, and the finding that the respondent's speeches did not amount to an offense under the Act.
Final Decision: The writ petition filed by the social activist was dismissed for want of locus standi, while the other writ petition was allowed, restoring the order issuing process against the respondent. The trial court was directed to proceed with the trial without being influenced by the observations made by the higher courts.
JUDGMENT :
1. Heard both the petitions.
2. Rule was granted on 25-10-2021 in writ petition No. 851/2021 and matter was directed to be placed for final hearing on 22-11-2021. However, same could not be taken and was adjourned from time to time. So far as writ petition No. 546/2021 is concerned, same was not admitted. Since common order is challenged in both the petitions, the petitions are taken up together for final disposal by consent of the parties.
3. Writ petition No. 546 is filed by the private person claiming to be social activist in Andhashraddha Nirmoolan Samiti [ANIS i.e. Superstition Eradication Committee]. Both have challenged the common order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sangamner in Criminal Revision No.16/2022 dated 30-03-2021 filed by respondent Nivrutti Deshmukh (Indorikar). Criminal Revision came to be allowed by quashing and setting aside the order issuing process dated 03-07-2020 by the learned JMFC, Sangamner bearing RCC No. 207/2020. It is further prayed to restore the complaint RCC No. 207/2020.
4. At the outset learned Senior Advocate raised the objection so far as the maintainability of the criminal writ petition No. 546/2021 on the ground of locus standi to the petitioner. The petition, is therefore, heard on the point of maintainability as petitioner is not the competent authority under the Pre-Conception and Pre-Natal Diagnostic Techniques (Prohibition of Sex Selection) Act, 1994 (Hereinafter referred to as ‘the PCPNDT Act’).
5. Ms. Neha Kamble, learned advocate h/f Mr. Jitendra V. Patil, learned Advocate submits that complaint though was lodged by the competent authority, however, it was at the instance of this present petitioner. It is this petitioner who had brought the act of respondent to the notice of competent authority and therefore she has locus standi. In the revision application before the learned Sessions Judge and her intervention application was allowed as she was heard by the revisional court and therefore she has locus standi.
6. As against that the learned senior counsel for the respondent submits that in view of section 28 of the PCPNDT Act cognizance of the offence can be taken only on the complaint of the appropriate authority concerned or any officer authorized in this behalf by the Central or State Government. For ready reference section 28 of the PCPNDT Act is reproduced:-
Section 28:- Cognizance of offences: (1) No court shall take cognizance of an offence under this Act except on a complaint made by
(a) the appropriate Authority concerned, or any officer authorized in this behalf of by the Central Government or State Government, as the case may be, or the Appropriate Authority; or
(b) a person who has given notice of not less than fifteen days in the manner prescribed to the appropriate authority, of the alleged offence and of his intention to make a complaint to the court.
(2) No court other than that of a Metropolitian Magistrate or a Judicial Magistrate of the first class shall try any offence punishable under this Act.
(3) Where a complaint has been made under clause (b) of sub-section (1) the court may, on demand by such person, direct the Appropriate Authority to make available copies of the relevant records in its possession to such person.
7. Thus, the complaint can be filed by an appropriate authority or any officer in this behalf by the government or the appropriate authority as per clause-B. As per clause-B any other person can file complaint by giving notice of not less than 15 days in any manner prescribed to the appropriate authority showing his intention to make a complaint. Thus in this case this petitioner has not filed a complaint though she claims herself to be from a social organization. However, looking to the wording it is clear that this petition does not fall under clause-A and B of section 28(a). Though the petitioner tried to show that it is the petitioner who had given notice to the competent authority dated 01-01-2020. Looking to the nature
