(1.) Heard Mr. D.B. Thoke, the learned Counsel for the petitioner. Heard Mr. P.P. More, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent.
(2.) Rule. By consent, Rule made returnable forthwith. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor waives service on behalf of the respondent. By consent, heard finally forthwith.
(3.) The petitioner is the accused in Regular Criminal Case No. 220/2011, pending in the court of Judicial Magistrate (First Class), Chalisgaon [District : Jalgaon]. The case is in respect of offences punishable under the Pre-Conception and Pre-Natal Diagnostic Techniques (Prohibition of Sex Selection) Act, 2003 [For short, "PCPNDT Act"] and the Rules framed thereunder. Evidence before charge is being adduced. Seven witnesses for the prosecution, before charge, have been examined. The complaint has been filed by one Dr. Baviskar. In the course of cross examination of the prosecution witnesses, the petitioner (hereinafter referred to as the "accused") raised some questions about the authority of Dr. Baviskar to file the complaint in question. It is because, apparently, no document showing that he was authorized to file the complaint in question had been produced before the trial court till then. In the cross examination of the prosecution witness no.6 - one Dr. Lalikar - it was put to him that, 'his claim that Dr. Baviskar had been appointed as the proper authority was not true'. In the cross examination, on being questioned, he submitted that 'if time would be given to him, he would produce the document / record showing that Dr. Baviskar had been appointed as appropriate authority' - as contemplated under Clause (a) of Section 2 of the PCPNDT Act. The accused therefore, required production of the said document by the said witness and, therefore, made an application (Exhibit 68) to the court, praying that as agreed by the PW 6, he be directed to produce the relevant document / record. Now, this application was rejected by the learned Magistrate by an order dated 6-1-2014.