The main legal point established in the judgment is the need for strict implementation of the Pre-Conception and Pre-Natal Diagnostic Techniques (Prohibition of Sex Selection) Act, 1994 to prevent female foeticide, including the requirement of notice before taking cognizance, preservation of records, and the prohibition of sex determination techniques.

Sujoy Paul, J.

The petitioner has invoked the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to challenge the proceedings of Criminal Case No. 1248/2009 pending before Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bhind. The petitioner has also challenged the order of Revisional Court dated 7.8.2009.

2. Shri Raju Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is running an ultra sound clinic in the name and style of Divyam Ultrasound Centre at Bhind. The petitioner is a qualified Radiologist and Sonologist. The petitioner's clinic is duly registered under the provisions of Pre-Conception and Pre-Natal Diagnostic Techniques (Prohibition of Sex Selection) Act, 1994 (for brevity, the "Act of 1994"). Shri Sharma submits that respondent No.1 is a habitual complainant. He preferred series of vague complaints against various doctors of Bhind. None of these complaints could fetch any result and allegations mentioned therein could not be proved. Attention of this Court is drawn on a compilation prepared and filed on 28.9.2015. By taking this Court to page 55, 68, 99, 107 and 108 of this compilation, it is argued that the respondent No.1 preferred various complaints before various authorities. No allegation of complainants could be established, which shows that he is habitual complainant and makes such complaint to harass the doctors/clinic operators. Shri Sharma further submits that a plain reading of complaint (page 68 of compilation) shows that the allegations mentioned against the petitioner are vague/ambiguous. As per the face value of the allegations itself, it can be safely said that no offence is made out against the petitioner. Putting it differently, by applying the acid test laid down by the Supreme Court in AIR 1992 SC 604 (State of Haryana v. Bhajanlal), Shri Sharma submits that if allegations of the complainant are accepted on its face value, no offence of any nature is established against the petitioner. Thus, the Court below has committed an error in taking cognizance of such an unworthy complaint.

3. Shri Sharma also relied on Section 28 of the Act of 1994 to submit that it is condition precedent to submit a notice before the appropriate authority. Only after completion of 15 days time from the date of giving notice, the complaint could have been preferred. Shri Sharma submits that the notice dated 28.3.2008 makes it clear that it does not fulfill the requirement of Section 28(1)(b) of the said Act. Complainant has not disclosed the "alleged offence" in the said notice qua petitioner and, therefore, the complaint itself was not tenable. Shri Sharma read out the statement of complainant and his witness (page 93 and 94 of the compilation). On the strength of this, it is urged that the Court below has erred in taking cognizance of the complaint.

4. The next attack is on the revisional order. Shri Sharma has taken pains to submit that the revisional court has exceeded its jurisdiction. There was no occasion for the revisional court to act as a court of first instance. The revisional court was only required to examine the decision making process of the trial court. Putting it differently, Shri Raju Sharma submits that the revisional court has acted as a court of first instance and examined the entire material before it which is legally impermissible. Shri Sharma relied on various provisions of the Act of 1994 to submit that petitioner has not committed any offence whatsoever and courts below have mechanically taken cognizance against the petitioner. He relied on following judgments of Supreme Court in support of his contention:-

(i) AIR 1992 SC 604 (State of Haryana and others v. Ch. Bhajan Lal and others).

(ii) AIR 1992 SC 637 (Daman Municipal Council and another etc. v. M/s Paramount Traders and others).

(iii) (1998) 5 SCC 749 (Pepsi Foods v. Special Judicial Magistrate).

(iv) 2015(2) Recent Apex Judgments