An appellate court will not interfere with an order of acquittal if the trial court’s findings are reasonable and supported by evidence, particularly where the prosecution fails to establish its legal authority to initiate proceedings or comply with mandatory search and seizure procedures.

CAV JUDGMENT

1. Feeling aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the judgment and order of acquittal dated 13.12.2017, passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Bhavnagar, in Criminal Appeal No.76 of 2015, for the offences punishable under Section 23(1) of the Pre-Conception and Pre-Natal Diagnostic Techniques (Prohibition of Sex Selection) Act, 1994, (for short, ‘the Act, 1994’) and Section 6 of the Indian Medical Degrees Act, 1916 (for short, ‘the Act, 1916’) the appellant – Authority has preferred this appeal under Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, “the Code”).

2. The prosecution case as unfolded during the trial before the Sessions Court is that the accused were running Krishna Maternity and Sonography Clinic at Sihor, District : Bhavnagar; the place was visited by Block Health Officer and Executive Magistrate, Sihor and found that the accused No.1 - Dr.Bharatkumar Purohit breached the provisions of the Act, 1994; that the patient - Kavuben Ashokbhai Solanki alleged that though he was not qualified to use the sonography machine, he made sonography test on her. It was also found that there was a poster affixed in a Clinic of Akrol of Pharmaceutical Company, which indicates that the sex could be determined by the sign; that the required Form `F’ and `G’ were not filled out duly by the examining doctor, and also the copy of the Act, 1994 was found illegible by the common people. On the basis of the same, the complaint was filed on 15.02.2008 and the offence under Sections 22(3), 23(1), 25 and 29(1) of the PC & PNDT Act and Sections 6, 6(A), 7 and 8 of the Indian Medical Degrees Act, 1916 were registered before the Sihor Police Station and after due investigation, a charge-sheet was filed against both the accused.

3. The learned trial Court, after recording the depositions of the complainant and other witnesses and after appreciation of evidence, convicted both the accused for the offence under Section 23(1) of the Act, 1994 and ordered to undergo rigorous punishment of 2 years and fine of Rs.10,000/- each and in default thereof, imposed further imprisonment of 3 months. The learned trial Court has convicted accused No.1 – Dr.Bharatkumar R. Purohit for the offence under Section 6 of the Act, 1916 and imposed a penalty of Rs.250/-, and in default thereof, ordered to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one day.

4. Being aggrieved by the said judgment of the learned trial Court, the accused filed an appeal before the learned Sessions Court. The learned Sessions Court, by the impugned judgment, acquitted the accused from the said offences, which is challenged by way of this appeal by the complainant-Authority.

5. Learned advocate for the appellant – Authority has pointed out the facts of the case and having taken this Court through both, oral and documentary evidence, recorded before the learned trial Court, would submit that the learned trial Court has failed to appreciate the evidence in true sense and perspective; and that the trial Court has committed error in acquitting the accused. It is submitted that the learned trial Court ought not to have given much emphasis to the contradictions and/or omissions appearing in the evidence and ought to have given weightage to the dots that connect the accused with the offence in question. It is submitted that the learned trial Court has erroneously come to the conclusion that the prosecution has failed to prove its case. It is also submitted that the learned Judge ought to have seen that the evidence produced on record is reliable and believable and it was proved beyond reasonable doubt that the accused had committed an offence in question. It is, therefore, submitted that this Court may allow this appeal by appreciating the evidence led before the learned trial Court.

6. As against that, learned advocate/s for the respondent/s would support the impugned judgment passed by the learned trial Court and has submitted that the learned trial Court has not commi