VINOD Vs. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. With the consent of the learned counsel for the parties taken up for final hearing. I have heard Shri R.N. Dhorde, learned Senior counsel i/b. Shri Pravin Patil, advocate for the petitioner, and Shri V.H. Dighe, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent Nos. 1 and 2.

(2.) The only point that is agitated before this court by the learned Senior counsel is that Regular Criminal Case No. 354 of 2011 filed against the present petitioner is filed by a person who, on the date of filing of the complaint, was not competent to file the said complaint.

(3.) The complaint under Sections 4(3), 5, 6, 29 r/w 28 of the Pre-Conception and Pre-Natal Diagnostic Techniques (Prohibition of Sex Selection) Act, 2003 and under Rule 9(1)(4), 10(1A) of the Pre-Conception and Pre-Natal Diagnostic Techniques (Prohibition of Sex Selection) Rules, 1996 read with Sections 23 and 24 of Pre-Conception and Pre-Natal Diagnostic Techniques (Prohibition of Sex Selection) Act, 2003, was filed on 28.9.2011 before the court of Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Chalisgaon. The said complaint is filed by Dr. B.P. Baviskar, Medical Superintendent, Rural Hospital, Chalisgaon as an appropriate authority, but since the only question of authority and competence to initiate or launch the prosecution against the present petitioner is agitated, this court is restricting this judgment only in that respect.