IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE RAJENDRA KUMAR VANI

th

ON THE 18 OF FEBRUARY, 2026 CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1725 of 2026 THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH Versus DR. DINESHWAR NAG Appearance:

Ms. Vineeta Sharma - Deputy Govt. Advocate for appellant/State.

Shri Manish Rajak - Advocate for respondent.

JUDGMENT This Criminal Appeal has been filed by the State of M.P. under Section 378(3) of Cr.P.C. for grant of leave to appeal, assailing the judgment and order of acquittal dated 09.12.2014 passed in Session Trial No.1782/2011 by learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Khandwa, District Khandwa (M.P.), whereby respondent - Dr. Dineshwar Nag (hereinafter referred to as 'the accused') has been acquitted of the offence under Sections 23 and 23(2) Pre-Conception and Pre-Natal Diagnostic Techniques (Prohibition of Sex Selection) Act, 1994.

2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 09.05.2011, 10.05.2011, 11.05.2011 and on some other dates also at Jeevan Jyoti Complex Sonography Clinic, Khandwa or nearby P.C. & P.N.D.T. Act when on 17.07.2013 to 12.08.2013 an investigation initiated, the entry were not found in the register properly regarding sonography test of pregnant women accordingly case registered under the P.C. & P.N.D.T. Act.

3. Upon receiving the information, the police registered the report against the respondent, arrested him, and prepared the spot map of the place of occurrence. The statements of the witnesses were recorded during the course of investigation. After collecting the necessary evidence and preparing the panchnama, the police completed the investigation and submitted the charge-sheet before the learned Trial Court.

4. The learned Trial Judge on the basis of the averments made against the accused person in the charge sheet framed charges punishable under Sections 23 and 23(2) Pre-Conception and Pre-Natal Diagnostic Techniques (Prohibition of Sex Selection) Act, 1994. The accused person abjured his guilt and claimed false implication. During examination under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., he denied the prosecution allegations.

5. The prosecution, in order to bring home the charges examined as many as 03 witnesses, namely, Dr. Azad Kumar Jain (PW1), Durga Shankar Gupta (PW-2), Anil Kumar Baheti (PW-3) and placed Ex.P/1 to P/11, the documents on record.

6. The learned Trial Court having analyzed and marshalled the testimonies of witnesses and the evidence available on record found that the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond all reasonable doubts and eventually acquitted the accused person of the charges under Sections 23 and 23(2) Pre-Conception and Pre-Natal Diagnostic Techniques (Prohibition of Sex Selection) Act, 1994. Hence, this appeal.

7. It is submitted by learned Dy. Govt. Advocate that despite the ample evidence on record learned trial Court has erroneously acquitted the respondent/accused from the offence charged against him. It is further submitted that Dr. Azad Kumar Jain (PW-1), Durga Shankar (PW-2), and Anil Kumar Baheti (PW-3) have fully supported the prosecution case and proved the relevant documents in support thereof. However, the learned Trial Court, on the ground that there was no delegation of power in favour of the officer who led the team by the competent authority/Collector, and that no such delegation order of the District Collector/competent authority was produced or proved before the Court, has recorded a finding adverse to the prosecution. The said finding is erroneous in law as well as on facts. The inspection report, as well as the documents seized from the accused’s clinic, were duly submitted before the learned Trial Court, and the evidence in that regard is available on record. Therefore, prayer is made to allow the appeal, set aside the impugned judgment, convict the accused in accordance with law, and sentence him appropriately.

8. Per contra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent/accused has opposed the prayer made in the appeal on