JUDGMENT :

1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith.

2. By consent of both the sides, heard finally at admission stage.

3. This petition under Section 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India and Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure takes exception to the order dated 13th January, 2015, passed in RCC No. 56/2012 dismissing the application for discharge and confirmation of the said order by Additional Sessions Judge in Criminal Revision Application No. 19/2015 vide order dated 5th October, 2017.

4. Petitioners are medical practitioners. Petitioner No. 1 runs registered Sonography Center in the name and style as “Suvidha Hospital, Maternity Home and Sonography Center” since 2006. Registration certificate issued in favour of petitioner No. 1 expired in the year 2011 and an application was made for renewal thereof on 14th October, 2011. The said certificate was renewed by order dated 3rd November, 2012 with effect from 17th November, 2011 to 16th November, 2016. It is the contention of petitioners that prior thereto inspection of the sonography machine was done on 3rd December, 2011 covering period from 15th May, 2011 to 9th June, 2011. It is alleged against petitioner No. 1 that there are discrepancies in Form F. On that day, Form F, report files and MTP register etc. were seized under panchanama. Sonography machine was also sealed. A show cause notice was issued on 9th December, 2011, which came to be replied on 12th December, 2011. Since reply was found unsatisfactory, complaint came to be registered by the Appropriate Authority under Section 4(3), 5, 6 and 29 of The Pre-conception and Pre-natal Diagnostic Techniques (Prohibition of Sex Selection) Act, 1994 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘PCPNDT Act’).

5. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the act of renewal of registration certificate for a period of five years clearly shows that there was no failure on part of petitioners to comply any provision of PCPNDT Act and in any case there is condonation of alleged non-compliance of Form F. He submits that the sonography machine was desealed by order of the District Authority after explanation of petitioner was found satisfactory. In such circumstances, unless any opinion/advise was sought from the District Authority, it was not open for the complainant to lodge complaint against the petitioners. Exception is also taken to the authority of complainant to file complaint with the contention that he is not Appropriate Authority as defined by Section 2(a) of the PCPNDT Act. According to him, Medical Superintendent of the Rural Hospital was notified to be the Appropriate Authority to take action under the provisions of the PCPNDT Act. He made reference to the evidence of complainant wherein it is stated that he is the Medical Superintendent of Sub-District Hospital, Jamner and that there is Rural Hospital at Pahur. Thus, according to him, since complainant has no locus standi to file complaint and on this ground alone the petitioners ought to have been discharged by the learned Trial Court. By referring to the judgments of this Court in the case of Dr. Alka w/o Anant Gite vs. The State of Maharashtra in Criminal Application No. 3500/2011, it is sought to be contended that non-compliance of Form F does not amount to offence as it is clerical work. He also placed reliance on the judgment of Chattisgarh High Court in the case of Rajkumari Badwani vs. Collector, 2016 Cri.L.J. 4995. Finally, it is contended that considering the drastic provisions of Section 23(2) of the PCPNDT Act, the aforesaid circumstances call for discharge of petitioners. According to him, framing of charge has consequence of suspension of registration of petitioners. Thus, in view of the aforesaid submissions amongst other, he seeks interference in the impugned order and discharge of the petitioners.

6. Learned APP supported the impugned order by referring to the averments in the complaint and provisions of PCPNDT Act. According to him, the Rural Hospital