IMPORTANT POINT
The court established that a prima facie case must be supported by specific evidence linking the accused to the alleged offenses, particularly in cases involving serious allegations under the PCPNDT Act and IPC.

JUDGMENT/ORDER

1. The applicants have impugned the common order of the learned Assistant Sessions Judge Nanded below Exhs.9 and 14, in Sessions Case No. 200 of 2013, dated January 31 2014.

2. The applicants will be referred to as ''accused'', and respondents will be referred to as "State".

3. The facts giving rise to the prosecution of lodging the report against the applicants were that the applicant in Revision No. 8 of 2015 was a sonologist. He was working with Dr. Agrawal, who was running the hospital by the name Lifeline Hospital and had a registration certificate under the Pre-conception and Pre-natal Diagnostic Techniques (Prohibition of Sex Selection Act) 1994 (hereinafter referred to as "P.C.P. N.D.T. Act" for short.)

4. The applicant in Revision Application No. 8 of 2015 was a Nurse in the said hospital. It has been alleged against the accused that the victim had been to their hospital on 22/6/2013, and the accused/Dr. Gopal performed sonography on her. One Shaikh Arefabee w/o Khudabaksh, another accused, took the victim to the hospital where the accused Dr. Gopal, was doing the sonography on the pregnant woman. She instructed the victim that she should not talk to anybody and that she would manage everything. Firstly, she went to the hospital on 11/6/2013. She deposited the charges. Her form "F" as required under the PCPNDT Rules 1996, was also filled up. However, she left the hospital that day, and her sonography could not be done. Accused Arefabee brought her again to the hospital on 22/6/2013. That time, her sonography was done. It has been alleged that both accused had disclosed to Arefabee the sex of the foetus. After about a month, the accused Arefabee, terminated her pregnancy illegally at her house. The complainant had the secret information; hence, a raid was laid at the house of the accused Arefabee. She was caught red-handed treating the victim for illegal termination of pregnancy. The victim was taken to the Government Hospital, and on the next day, i.e. on 23/7/2013, she was aborted. During the investigation, the applicants were found involved in the illegal termination of the pregnancy. On the basis of the statements of the witnesses, they also had been there for sex determination at the said hospital long back; the accused have been arraigned as an accused in the crime. On the basis of the report, a crime bearing No. 83 of 2013 for the offence punishable under Ss. 312, 315, 316, 109 read with Sec. 34 of the Indian Penal Code, Sec. 5(3)(5) of the PCPNDT Act and Sec. 33(a) of the Maharashtra Medical Practice Act, 1961 was registered.

5. Both applicants had moved an application under Sec. 227 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for discharge. However, the learned Assistant Sessions Judge declined the prayer for discharge; hence, they are before this Court.

6. The learned counsel Mr. Katneshwarkar, for accused Dr. Gopal has vehemently argued that he had remotely no concern with the alleged illegal termination of pregnancy. He was strictly following the PCPNDT Rules. He never determined the sex of the foetus of the victim and never made it public, as prohibited under Sec. 5(2) of the PCPNDT Act.

7. The last sonography was done on 22/6/2013. After that, the victim never came to his hospital. However, on 24/6/2013, she went to Dr. Katte and requested for termination of the pregnancy, but he convinced her. Thereafter, on 22/7/2013, she went to the accused Areefabee and terminated her pregnancy illegally. He had no concern with the activities of the accused Areefabee. It was also argued that the prosecution had falsely created the evidence against him by recording the statements of witnesses, namely Gangaram and Kavita Aade. Considering the time which they have stated, that falsify the allegations. For such a long period, they never complained against the present applicant that they determined the sex and told the sex to the pregnant woman, her relatives or anybody else. Their statements were remote in time; therefore,