914

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

BENCH AT AURANGABAD

914 CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.756 OF 2016

THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

VERSUS

DR DEELIP PRABHAKAR KHARWADKAR

...

Mr. P. K. Lakhotiya, APP for the petitioner State.

Mr. Abhishek G. Kulkarni, Advocate for the respondent

CORAM

: A.S. GADKARI, J.

DATE

: 20th January, 2022

ORDER:

1.

The State of Maharashtra, through petitioner no.2, has

questioned the correctness of Judgment and Order dated 11.09.2015

passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Beed in Criminal

Revision No. 37 of 2015 allowing the said revision preferred by the

respondent thereby setting aside the order dated 02.02.2015 passed

below Exh.1 in R.C.C. No.39/2013 by the learned Chief Judicial

Magistrate, Beed.

2.

Heard Mr. P. K. Lakhotiya, learned APP for the petitioner

State and Mr. Abhishek G. Kulkarni, learned counsel for the

respondent. Perused the record.

3.

Record indicates that, a surprise search was conducted at the

hospital of the respondent and on 16.12.2011 and a case was

registered under section 28 of the Pre-conception and Pre-natal

Page 1 of 5

914

Diagnostic Techniques (Prohibition of Sex Selection) Act, 1994 ( for

short, ‘the PCPNDT Act’). A Sonography machine of the respondent

was sealed by the competent authority after the said raid. By Order

dated 06.01.2003, the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Beed had directed to

de-seal the said sonography machine of the respondent by further

directing him to maintain the record of the same in future as

contemplated under section 29 of the PCPNDT Act.

It further appears that on 13.01.2003, Dr. R. K. Jadhav, now

retired District Surgeon Beed, returned the documents including the

register which were seized by the competent authority to the

respondent.

4.

It is the contention of the State that, returning of the said

documents by Dr. R. K. Jadhav was without Orders of the Court.

Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Beed, therefore, by its order dated

10.05.2006, called explanation of Dr. R. K. Jadhav in that behalf. The

case in question was subsequently converted as a warrant triable case

by the Magistrate and was renumbered as R.C.C. No. 39/2013.

5.

Learned Judicial Magistrate took cognizance of the fact that,

the documents which were handed over by Dr. R. K. Jadhav to the

respondent (Page Nos.173 to 200 and Page Nos. 221 to 233 of the

Sonograpy Register) were subsequently either forged or tampered

with by the respondent to suit is convenience. When the said

Page 2 of 5

914

documents were inspected by the Magistrate, he found that offence as

contemplated under section 465 and 467 of the Indian Penal Code

(for short '

the IPC'

) has been committed by the respondent and

therefore though he dismissed the complaint filed under section 29 of

the PCPNDT Act against the respondent, directed the Assistant

Superintendent of his Court to lodge a complaint against respondent

under section 465 and 467 of the IPC for allegedly committing forgery

of the documents i.e. registers which were handed over in the

custody of Dr. Jadhav by his impugned Order dated 02.02.2015 passed

below Exh.1 in RCC No.39/2013.

6.

Feeling aggrieved by the said order dated 02.02.2015 passed

below Exh. 1 by the learned Chief judicial Magistrate, respondent

preferred Criminal Revision No. 37/2015 before the Sessions Court at

Beed. Learned Additional Sessions Judge, Beed, by its impugned Order

dated 11.09.2015 was pleased to allow the said Revision and quashed

and set aside the order dated 02.02.2015 passed by the trial court.

7.

At the outset it is to be noted here that, it is an admitted fact

on record that no valuable security or a will, or an authority to transfer

any valuabl