RAJESH KUMAR KANCHHAL Vs. DIPAKBHAI S. BHAVSAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Ms. R V Acharya, learned advocate for the applicant- original complainant, Mr. S P Kotia, learned advocate who has appeared for Mr. Deepakkumar Jatav, learned advocate for the respondent nos. 1 and 2- original accused and Ms. C M Shah, learned Additional Public Prosecutor who has appeared on behalf of the State. Rule returnable forthwith. Mr. Deepakkumar Jatav, learned advocate waives service of Rule on behalf of respondent nos. 1 and 2 and Ms.Shah, learned Additional Public Prosecutor waives service of Rule on behalf of the respondent State.

(2.) This application is filed seeking leave to appeal under Sec. 378(4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure challenging the judgment and order of acquittal dtd. 25/10/2019 passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Surat in Criminal Case No.18915 of 2011 in connection with the offence registered under Sec. 25 of the Pre-Conception and Pre-Natal Diagnostic Techniques (Prohibition of Sex Selection) Act, 1994 (hereinafter referred to as "PC & PNDT Act").

(3.) Ms. Acharya, learned advocate for the applicant- original complainant has submitted that the learned Magistrate has failed to appreciate the provisions of the PC & PNDT Act, more particularly, Rule 4 & 5 of Rules, 1996. She has submitted that it has come on record that Sonography Machine was found in the clinic of respondent nos. 1 and 2- original accused and as per the aforesaid Rules, the respondents -accused were expected to get themselves registered prior to using sonography machine. Admittedly, no evidence has come on record to indicate that the respondents- accused have obtained registration under the prescribed Rules prior to use of sonography machine. She, therefore, submitted that case was made out for the offence committed by the respondent nos. 1 and 2 under the PC & PNDT Act. She, therefore, urge this Court to grant leave to appeal.