ZAHEDA Vs. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present Petition has been filed to quash complaint filed by Appropriate Authority (hereafter referred as "complainant") under the provisions of Preconception and Prenatal Diagnostic Techniques (Prohibition of Sex Selection) Act, 1994 (hereafter referred as "Act") and the Preconception and Prenatal Diagnostic Techniques (Prohibition of Sex Selection) Rules, 1996 (hereafter referred as "z 's").

(2.) The Petition is Admitted and has been heard finally. Learned counsel for the Petitioner as well as learned Public Prosecutor for the Respondents submitted elaborate arguments. With this matter some other similar matters were also argued and Counsel for Petitioners adopted arguments of each other on law points to request for quashment of Criminal Trials against Accused.

(3.) The case of Petitioner is that Mundadatai Charitable Trust runs Faijan Multi Speciality Hospital, Kaij, DistBeed and Petitioner is President of the Trust. Under necessary certificate and permission from Appropriate Authority, sonography centre was being run in the hospital by the Trust. The Petitioner claims that although she is President of the Trust, she is 10th failed house wife and non medico person. Competent and expert medical staff for providing treatment to the patients and radiologist, for operating and conducting sonography, was appointed in the hospital. On 20th June, 2011 Appropriate Authority conducted raid on the hospital. At that time sonography centre was locked and key was with radiologist Dr. Pradip P. Dama. Appopriate Authority fixed seal on the lock of the door and seized records and conducted Panchnama as well as issued notice to the Petitioner, informing the Petitioner that F Forms filled in were incomplete and her explanation was sought. Copy of the Panchnama and show cause notice is filed at Exhibit B. The Petitioner gave explanation. The Appropriate Authority filed private complaint against the Petitioner and also the radiologist Dr. Dama, for violation of Rule 9(4), 10(1) and (1A) as well as Section 29 read with 23(1) and 25 of the Act, before the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Kaij. The complaint has been registered as R.C.C. No.145 of 2011. According to the Petitioner, she is not concerned with the sonography tests which were being conducted and without considering this, process was issued against the Petitioner. The Petitioner is non medico and not competent to herself operate the machine and to maintain the records. The sonography centre is now closed. Against the order of issue of process, Criminal Revision No.26 of 2012 was filed before the Sessions Court at Ambajogai, but the same was dismissed. Thus, this Petition. According to the Petitioner, she is only President of the Trust which runs the hospital and she is not liable to maintain the record, as qualified radiologist had been appointed. She could not be proceeded against under Section 23 of the Act. Even under Section 26 of the Act, there is no liability if offence is committed without the knowledge of the person or inspite of due diligence by the person. She claims, she exercised due diligence. The Petitioner cannot be held responsible for non filling of columns of Form F. The Petitioner wants the criminal case to be quashed and set aside.