PRABHAKAR Vs. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The first proceeding is filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Relief to set aside the order of issue process made in Regular Criminal Case No.73/2011 is claimed and the relief of quashing of the proceeding filed as a complaint by the public servant, authority under the provisions of the Pre-conception and Pre-natal Diagnostic Techniques (Prohibition of Sex Selection) Act, 1994 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") is claimed. The proceeding is pending before the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Omerga, District Osmanabad and it is filed under sections 23, 25, 29 of the Act and under Rule 9(4), (6) and (8) of the The Pre-conception and Pre-natal Diagnostic Techniques (Prohibition of Sex Selection) Rules, 1996 (hereafter referred to as "the Rules"). Criminal Revision Application No.9/2011 was filed against the order of issue process by the petitioners in Sessions Court but the revision is dismissed by the Sessions Court and so that decision is also challenged. Relief of getting custody of sonography machine seized by the authority is also claimed as a consequential relief. No interim custody was claimed before the Judicial Magistrate by the petitioners.

(2.) Petitioner No.1 owns and runs one hospital at Omerga and the petitioner No.2 works as a Radiologist in the hospital. The hospital has a registered sonography centre. On 19-6-2011 the authority created under the Act visited the hospital for inspection and the sonography center was also visited and inspection was done. After finding discrepancies and irregularities in the record which is required to be prepared and maintained in Sonography Centre, the sonography machine came to be seized. Complaint then came to be filed for the aforesaid offences.

(3.) It is the case of the complainant that Forms "F" which are required to be prepared and maintained by the Sonography Centre were not complete. It is contended that consent forms which are required to be obtained from the pregnant women were also not complete. It is contended that even when no pregnant woman was subjected to diagnosis by the hospital, when there was no record of reference, sonography of many pregnant women was done at this centre. It is contended that Dr. Prabhakar Tawshikar who was in-charge of the hospital had not referred the patient and he denied that patients were referred by him to the centre. On many forms his name was mentioned as the doctor who had referred the patient. Some forms were found blank and they were not having paging number. More particulars of the irregularities and discrepancies are given in the affidavit filed by the complainant in reply to the present proceeding.