A.A. USMAN Vs. STATE OF C.G.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Challenge in this petition is to the order dated 13.04.2015, passed in Criminal Revision No.96/2015, passed by Additional Sessions Judge (Special Judge, C.B.I.), Raipur (C.G.), whereby the order dated 20.02.2015, passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Raipur is affirmed. The order pertains to rejection of grant of custody of sonography machine, seized from the petitioner and order of refusal to open the seal.

(2.) Brief facts of the case are that under the Pre-conception and Pre-natal Diagnostic Techniques (Prohibition of Sex Selection) Act, 1994 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act of 1994) and the rules made there under, a complaint was filed before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Raipur that the petitioner is carrying on the profession under the name and style of Modern Digital X-ray Center at Lalganga Shopping Mall, G.E. Road, Raipur and there are violation of Act and Rules of 1994. It is alleged that when the center was inspected it was found that breach of Section 4 (3) (v) and Rule 9 (4) and 10 (1) (A) were committed. Consequently, as a result there off, the sonography machine was seized and sealed. Further during such seizure, certain forms were also seized which were blank, but were containing the signature of the doctor, the petitioner. Further register was also seized and on inspection it came to notice that sonography machine might have been used for determination of sex of child in womb.

(3.) Subsequently, after the seizure, an application under Section 457 of Cr.P.C. was filed by the petitioner to get the custody of the sonography machine and to open the seal of chamber of sonography. The learned Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Raipur has rejected the application by holding that the machine was seized according to the Act of 1994. It was further held that the documents could have been seized under Section 29 of the Act and the seized articles may be required during the course of evidence. It was further observed that if the sonography machine is handed over, it may be tampered which may damage the evidence, therefore, the application to get the custody of machine was rejected.