DATTATRAYA Vs. 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 Pre -conception and Pre -natal Diagnostic Techniques (Prohibition of Sex Selection) Act, 1994 (hereafter referred as "Act") and the Pre -conception and Prenatal Diagnostic Techniques (Prohibition of Sex Selection) Rules, 1996 (hereafter referred as "Rules").

(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.) ON behalf of the Respondents, affidavit -in -reply has been filed by the Medical Superintendent, Rural Hospital, Rahata. In affidavit -in -reply the claims made by the Petitioner are denied. According to the Respondent, there are irregularities in record keeping as per revised Form F. As per the Respondents, Petitioner has not completely filled up Form F and only half portion of the Form is filled up. Second part of the Form F is filled up, which is also incomplete. The affidavit claims that in the forms concerned, the Petitioner has not mentioned how many issues are there i.e. male/female. It is further the affidavit that in the declaration given by doctor, authorized signatory was radiologist Dr. Yogendra Sachdeo, but the declaration is signed by the present Petitioner. For such reasons, the Respondents want the Petition to be rejected.