( 1 )

crwp1248.19

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

BENCH AT AURANGABAD

CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 1248 OF 2019

Amol s/o. Ambadasrao Jain

..

Petitioner

Age. 62 years, Occ. Medical Practitioner,

R/o. Shraddha Diagnostic Center,

Near Kala Maruti Temple, Osmanabad,

Tq. & Dist. Osmanabad.

Versus

The State of Maharashtra

..

Respondent

Through Dr.Dhananjay Keshavrao Patil,

Age.50 years, Occ. Class-I and

Appropriate Authority,

Civil Hospital, Osmanabad,

Tq. & Dist. Osmanabad.

Mr.V.J. Dixit, Sr. Counsel i/b. Mr.S.S. Dixit, Advocate

for the petitioner.

Ms.R.P. Gaur, APP for the respondent/State.

CORAM : SURENDRA P. TAVADE, J.

RESERVED ON :

03.09.2021

PRONOUNCED ON :

22.09.2021

J U D G M E N T :-

01.

The petitioner has challenged the order dated

12.04.2019 passed by the learned Additional Sessions

Judge, Osmanabad in Criminal Revision Application No.39

( 2 )

crwp1248.19

of 2016, thereby confirmed the order dated 13.04.2016

passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Osmanabad in RCC

No.130 of 2014, whereby refused to discharge the

petitioner.

02.

It is contended that the petitioner is a Medical

Practitioner having qualification of MBBS, DMRD. The

petitioner has obtained Sonography Registration in the

year 1997 for running ultra-sound center. The petitioner

was running his center as per rules and regulations given

in the Pre-Conception and Pre-Natal Diagnostic Techniques

(Prohibition of Sex Selection) Act, 1994 [hereinafter

referred as “the Act”].

03.

It is contended that on 26.03.2014 the

respondent along with his squad visited the Diagnostic

Care Center of the petitioner and conducted inspection.

During the inspection, the squad has found certain

discrepancies such as Form “F” were not fully filled up.

It is further found that consent of pregnant women were

( 3 )

crwp1248.19

not obtained etc. It is alleged against the petitioner

that he had not maintained record as per the requirement

of the Act. The respondent had issued notice to the

petitioner, which was replied by him. The machine of the

petitioner was sealed by the squad. It is contended that

the respondent has not considered the reply of the

petitioner in proper perspective and filed complaint

before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Osmanabad, which is

registered as RCC No.130 of 2014.

04.

It is contended that the petitioner had filed

application for de-sealing of Sonography machine, but

same was rejected. Said order was challenged by way of

Criminal Revision Application No.10 of 2015, which was

rejected by the Sessions Judge. The petitioner had also

filed Writ Petition No.7330 of 2015 to challenge the

order of the Sessions Judge, but subsequently said writ

petition was withdrawn by the petitioner.

05.

To prove the charge against the petitioner, the

( 4 )

crwp1248.19

prosecution has examined the respondent (the original

complainant) and one witness namely Dr.Ashok Dhaktode.

Said witnesses were cross-examined on behalf of the

petitioner. It is contended that respondent No.1 was not

authorized to file the complaint. Said fact was not

properly considered by the Trial Court. It is contended

that respondent No.1 admitted that the petitioner used to

submit monthly report. Said reports were not having any

discrepancies. It is admitted by PW-1 that on 26.03.2014

and 24.03.2014 he had inspected the clinic of the

petitioner and did not find any discrepancy in the record

maintained by the petitioner. It is contended that

witness No.2 has categorically admitted that he had not

delegated powers to respondent No.1 to file the

complaint. It is contended that the complaint itself was

bad in law. But said fact was not considered by the

Trial Court. It is contended that the Trial Court has

wrongly held that there was sufficient material against

the petitioner to frame charge under the Act. Said order

was challenged by the petitioner before the Additional

( 5 )

crwp1248.19

Sessions Judge, but the Additional Sessions Judge also

did not conside