( 1 ) RULE. Mr. M. R. Mengdey, learned APP waives service of rule on behalf of the respondent - State.

( 2 ) CRIMINAL Misc. Application No. 10158 of 2007 is filed by the petitioner-Doctor under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code ('cr. P. C. ' for short) to quash and set aside the complaint being Criminal case No. 3251 of 2006 pending in the Court of learned 6th JMFC, ahmedabad (Rural) for contravention of Pre-Conception and Pre-natal diagnostic Techniques (Prohibition of Sex Selection) Act, 1994 hereinafter referred to as ('pndt Act' for short ).

( 3 ) CRIMINAL Misc. Application No. 10160 of 2007 is also filed by the petitioner- Doctor under section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code to quash and set aside the complaint being criminal case No. 845 of 2006 pending in the Court of learned Metropolitan Magistrate, Court No. 9, ahmedabad for contravention of PNDT Act more particularly under section 4 (3), 5 (1) of the said Act and Rules 9 (4) and 10 (1) (A) framed under the said Act.

( 4 ) AS common question of facts and law arise in both these application, they are being disposed of by this common judgment. Criminal Case No. 3251 of 2006 is filed by the Dr. R. R. Vaidya, for and on behalf of the Appropriate Authority under PNDT Act against the petitioner - Doctor who is having maternity and nursery home at chandlodiya, Ahmedabad in the Court of learned 6th JMFC, Ahmedabad (Rural) alleging inter-alia that he is functioning as Chief District Health officer and he is declared Appropriate Authority under the PNDT Act vide Government Notification dated 07. 02. 1996 under Section 2 (a) of the pndt Act and Rules framed thereunder. It is further alleged in the said complaint that in discharge of his duty under the PNDT Act he found that accused has failed to observe and comply with the provisions of the act. It is alleged that on 21. 02. 2006 primary inspection of the clinic of the accused was undertaken by Dr. Shipla Patel, Block Health Officer, city. The observations and reasons were recorded by her and on 21. 02. 2006 the infirmity / lapses as observed by the Appropriate Authority was communicated to the accused and said infirmity / lapses are produced at Annexure - A to the said complaint. As the provisions of the Act were violated, USG machine was sealed. That on 21. 06. 2006 a show cause notice was issued to the accused as to why the registration of the accused should not be suspended / cancelled. That the accused preferred an appeal no. 42 of 2006 before the State Appropriate Authority, Gandhinagar. That by order dated 16. 03. 2006, Registration of the accused under the PNDT act was suspended. That the said complaint was filed on the following grounds:

"1. Form-F is a statutory form and requires to be filled in completely and send before 5th of the next month to the A. A. As per the provisions of the Act/ Rules, sending of the Form F by the 5th of the next month is mandatory. 2. Authenticity of from Is not signed by the accused can never be ascertained by any one and in such cases the entire form is useless. This in turn flouts the requirement of filling up of form for every patient under going USG. Accused and/or patient can disown the contents of the very same from, in future to defy probable Medical Termination of pregnancy - MTP and may be suggestive of the possibility of the accused maneuvering number of USG done and equal number of forms filled up. The same can not be ruled out. 3. If signature of the doctor is missing on the forms, presumption can be drawn that as the doctor has not been able to comply the declaration, the doctor has not put the signature. Otherwise whenever there is signature put by the doctor, declaration as envisaged by the Act is accepted. In other words non-signing the declaration means non-observance of the same i. e. sex determination and declaration has been carried out and is in total derogation of the statutory provisions of the act. 4. Indication, date are missing in the form