(1.) Heard Mr. D. Panda, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. P.K. Mohanty, learned Addl. Standing Counsel.
(2.) Challenge has been made to the order of framing charge for the offence under Sec. 420/34 I.P.C. read with Sec. 16 of Clinical Establishment (ControlRegulation) Act, 1990 (hereinafter called "the Act") and under section 23 of the Pre-ConceptionPrenatal Diagnostic Techniques (Prohibition of Sex Selection) Act, 1994 (hereinafter called "the P.C.P.N.D.T. Act").
(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that on the date of visit by the squad to the clinic in question does not disclose that the petitioner being the doctor was engaged in determining of sex contravening the provision of the P.C.P.N.D.T. Act on the date of visit of enforcement squad to the clinic. According to him, the clinic belongs to coaccused Md. Zamila Ahemad. In that clinic coaccused Sanjaya Kumar Sahu was found to have not obtained appropriate license for conducting ultrasound test. The material only shows that the petitioner occasionally attends the clinic whenever pregnant woman requires for such test. But there is no allegation that the petitioner made ultrasound test for determining the sex of any fetus since the allegation is mainly against the co-accused Sanjaya Kumar Sahu and Md. Zamila Ahemad and the present petitioner being a doctor by profession has attended the clinic as per the permission granted vide Annexure-2 to the petition to attend the clinic and there is no allegation of contravention of any provision of any statute. The impugned order of framing charge against the petitioner under such offences is abuse process of Court and per se illegal. Apart from this, the order sheet would go to show that no opportunity was given to the petitioner to hear on the point of charge because on the very same date when the police paper was supplied, the charge was framed against him by the learned J.M.F.C., Aul. So, he submits to set aside the impugned order against the present petitioner.