LAWS(BOM)-2013-4-145

DADARAO SITARM PARWE Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

Decided On April 05, 2013
Dadarao Sitarm Parwe Appellant
V/S
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned Counsel Shri Anand Deshpande for the applicant and Learned Additional Public Prosecutor Shri S.S. Doifode for the non-applicant. Admit. Heard finally by consent of learned Counsel for the parties.

(2.) The applicant has been prosecuted by the appropriate authority under the Pre-conception and Pre-natal Diagnostic Techniques (Prohibition of Sex Selection) Act, 1994 for the offences punishable under Sections 23 and 25 for having committed breaches of various provisions of the Act and Rules.

(3.) During the course of arguments, it was noticed that first ever breach alleged against the applicant is that he had disclosed the sex of foetus to one of the pregnant women. However, there is no further material in the complaint in this regard. Therefore, the charge in this respect appears to be highly questionable. As far as other breaches are concerned, the learned counsel for the applicant has not been able to place any material to show that provisions of the Act and Rules have been complied with and that the applicant has not committed any breach as alleged by the appropriate authority. In the absence of definite or admitted material before me it is not possible to examine the issues under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code. Learned Counsel Shri Anand Deshpande has further submitted that the appropriate authority cannot file any complaint without there being advise of Advisory Committee. After having gone through the provisions of the Act and Rules, I do not agree with the submission made by learned Counsel for the applicant. I am of the view that the appropriate authority may take into consideration the recommendations of the Advisory Committee. It is not the intent of law that the appropriate authority cannot file any complaint or take any action without there being advise of the Advisory Committee. In view thereof, I do not find any substance in the application for quashing the proceedings lodged against the applicant. At this stage, the learned counsel for the applicant prays for permitting the applicant to use the Sonography Machine seized by the appropriate authority. I am not inclined to grant this relief as, in my considered opinion, this case can be disposed of on merits within a period of two weeks of framing of charge or explaining the particulars, as the case may be. Hence, I pass the following order.