Allahabad High Court
Vinod Singh Chahuhan vs State Of U.P. And Another on 13 September, 2019
Equivalent citations: AIRONLINE 2019 ALL 1536, 2019 (6) ALJ 562
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD Judgement Reserved on 19.08.2019 Judgement Delivered on 13.09.2019 Court No. - 65 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 33811 of 2015 Applicant :- Vinod Singh Chauhan Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Satya Dheer Singh Jadaun Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Dinesh Kumar Singh-I,J.
1. Heard Sri Satya Dheer Singh Jadaun, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri G.P. Singh, learned A.G.A. for the State.
2. This Application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed with a prayer to quash the Criminal proceeding as well as summoning order dated 21.05.2015 passed by C.J.M. Kanpur Dehat in Criminal Complaint Case No. 1690 of 2015 "Dr. Arun Kumar Vs. Dr. Vinod Singh Chauhan", under Section 23/25/28 of the Pre Conception and Pre Natal Diagnostic (Prohibition of Sex Selection) Act 1994, P.S. Ghatampur, Kanpur Dehat, pending before C.J.M., Kanpur Dehat.
3. The main thrust of the argument is that the Criminal proceeding is barred by Section 468 of Cr.P.C. and further it is argued that the applicant is not a doctor, he simply deals in the business of sale and purchase of ultrasound machines, therefore, he has been wrongly implicated in this case by the administrative officers of the State because their palms were not greased.
4. On the other hand, learned A.G.A. has vehemently argued that the applicant is a doctor. He was found in the clinic when the inspection was made and the ultrasound machine which was found in the said clinic regarding that, no registration was found nor any documents were found which was necessary to be shown at the time of inspection as per Rule 18 of the Pre-Conception and Pre-Natal Diagnostic Techniques (Prohibition of Sex Selection) Rules, 1996 (to be referred herein after in short as P.C.P.N.D.T. Rules) which is punishable under Sections 23/24/25 of The Pre-Natal Diagnostic Techniques (Prohibition of Sex Selection) Act, 1994 (to be referred herein after in short as P.C.P.N.D.T. Act).
5. In order to appreciate the arguments, the facts of the present case in short are that an inspection was made by O.P. No.2, Dr. Arun Kumar Singh/complainant who is Nodal Officer of P.C.P.N.D.T., C.M.O., Kanpur Nagar at Anand Ultrasound X-ray and Pathology Centre, Ghatampur, Kanpur Nagar being run by Dr. Vinod Singh Chauhan (applicant) on 23.06.2010 at 1.07 p.m. At that time the accused applicant was found present and his centre was not registered. At the said centre, Sri Vinod Kumar who was an employee there, reasons were asked from him as to why the ultrasound machine was not got registered but no satisfactory answer was given by him thus it was found that the said centre was being run illegally which was clearly in violation of rule 7, 8 and 9 of the P.C.P.N.D.T Rules as well as Section 18 and 19 of P.C.P.N.D.T. Act which was punishable under Section 23 and 25 of the said Act. No copy of the P.C.P.N.D.T. Act was found available; sonologist was found absent there which too was a violation of Rule 17 (2) of the P.C.P.N.D.T. Rules. Further the Ultrasound Machine UM-I seri (Model) 4358 (Serial No.) gnDCHEM ATL LTD. Made was sealed under Section 30 of P.C.P.N.D.T. Rules in presence of two witnesses viz. Sri Vimal Pandey S/o Late J.K. Pandey and Sri Kuldeep Sharma S/o Mata Prasad Sharma whose signatures were obtained and the said sealed ultrasound machine was given in supurdagi of Sri Vinod Kumar who was an employee of the said centre. Further in violation of Rule 9 and 9(1) of the P.C.P.N.D.T. Rules, no papers were found at the centre pertaining to the patients. Further in violation of Rule 17(1) and Rule 17(2) of the said rules, no copy of the said Rules was found affixed on the notice board. After the enquiry it was found that the accused applicant had not got the said ultrasound machine registered which was a violation of Rule 18 of P.C.P.N.D.T. Rules. Therefore, after obtaining sanction from the District Magistrate on 18.05.2015 for prosecuting the accused, a Complaint Case was filed whereon the trial court has issued summons against the applicant to appear before it on 20.06.2015 to face trial. The photo-copy of the inspection report is annexed at page nos. 29 and 30 of the paper book and the prosecution sanction sought from the District Magistrate is annexed at page no. 32 of the paper book.
6. In affidavit filed in support of the present application, it is mentioned by the learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant is a businessman dealing in sale and purchase of the ultrasound machine who had purchased the machine in question from Ray India Office situated at Faridabad on 26.10.1999 after having taken loan under Pradhanmantri Rojgar Yojna on 23.10.1999 to the tune of Rs. 90,000/-. Subsequently the said amount was finally paid and No Dues Certificate was obtained from the bank on 19.04.2004. He has annexed copy of sanction of amount at Annexure no. 1. In pursuance to the said loan having been granted, the applicant started a business and a machine bearing Serial No. UMI4358 was purchased by him second hand for selling it to the business entrepreneurs. He has annexed copy of the receipt of Rs. 55,000/- which was paid by one Praveen Kumar to the accused applicant in lieu of purchase of the said Ultrasound machine which is annexed as Annexure 2. Further it is mentioned that he had sold a number of machines to various doctors and name of some of them have been mentioned in para 7 of the Affidavit. Further it is mentioned that after the purchase of the machine second hand, some technical snag had been developed in the said machine because of which the same could not be sold despite best efforts and hence, it remained with the applicant but was never used for preparing Ultrasound report. He never used his name as Dr. Vinod Singh and simply used to write his name as Vinod Kumar Chauhan which was evident from the Aadhar Card and pass-book entry of the bank which are annexed at Annexure 3 of the affidavit. Further it is mentioned that the Ultrasound machine was introduced in India in the year 1985-86 and, thereafter just to avoid misuse of those machines, P.C.P.N.D.T. Act was passed in the year 1994 which was made operational in the year 2002 which necessitated the registration process of said machines with the condition that the person must have a M.B.B.S. Degree with specialization in Sonology. In the alternative, it was also provided that doctors holding degree of M.B.B.S. after having undergone training of six months could also get the said machine registered as per G.O. of 2009. The Government vide G.O. of the year 2014 issued a direction that for the sale and purchase of such machines, permission would be required from the District Magistrate but earlier to that there was no such bar. Applicant purchased the machine on 26.08.2000 much prior to the said Government Order and never used the same. He never applied for registration nor did he care for the non-working of the machine, although the same was kept in his office. The O.P. No.2 conducted an inspection on 18.06.2010 at 1.07 p.m. under the authority of District Magistrate and found the Ultrasound machine in his office and report was prepared and the machine was placed in sealed cover. Copy of the inspection report dated 10.06.2010 is annexed as Annexure 4. Further it is mentioned that parties kept silent for five years and, thereafter an ex-parte permission to prosecute the applicant was granted by the District Magistrate to the A.C.M.O. to initiate proceeding against the applicant, copy of which is annexed as Annexure 5. The complaint was filed by the O.P. No.2 before the learned Magistrate on 21.05.2015, copy of which is annexed at Annexure 6 whereon learned Magistrate took cognizance on the same day and issued summons against the applicant, copy of the order-sheet of the said date is annexed at Annexure no.7. It is further mentioned that applicant was not aware of the initiation of the said proceeding and when the process server visited the office of the applicant on 29.09.2015, the applicant came to know about the present criminal proceeding against him. Not a single allegation is made against the applicant by any private person regarding illegal ultrasound being done by him. The applicant is the victim of the administration as he failed to satisfy its greed during the period of 2010-2015. During that period no proceeding could be initiated and, thereafter when the illegal demand could not be satisfied, the present prosecution has been launched which is barred under Section 468 of Cr.P.C. Further it is mentioned that no offence under Section 23/25/28 are made out against the applicant as he has not contravened any provision of the said Act (P.C.P.N.D.T.). The machine was in non-working condition yet O.P. No.2 without verifying the fact regarding the same, has initiated illegal prosecution after considerable delay of five years. The machine was purchased on 25.08.2000 and at that time, there was no requirement of getting it registered as per rule.
7. In rebuttal, Counter-Affidavit has been filed from the side of O.P. No.2 stating therein that the inspection was conducted by him on 23.06.2010 and no documents regarding sale and purchase was produced. As per the amended rule 3 A (2) dated 14.02.2003, it is mentioned that the provider of such machine/equipment to any person/ body registered under the Act shall send to the concerned State/UT Appropriate Authority and to the Central Government, once in three months a list of those to whom the machine/equipment has been provided. The Ultrasound machine in question was purchased on 26.08.2000 and inspection was conducted on 23.06.2010 as such 10 years had elapsed but no proof was provided that during these ten years' period, the said machine was not in a condition to work nor there was any proof as to how many machines had been sold. At the time of inspection, the accused applicant who is a B.A.M.S. Doctor was found present along with two persons viz. Vimal Pandey and Kuldeep Sharma whose signatures were also obtained in the inspection report. No registration was got done nor any information was given to the competent authority during last ten years by the accused applicant in respect of the said Ultrasound machine, accordingly, a complaint case was filed before the learned magistrate who has taken cognizance thereupon in accordance with law. Earlier Case No. 202 of 2013 was filed in court of learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Kanpur Nagar and thereafter, its jurisdiction was transferred. After that the present complaint case was filed in the court of C.J.M., Kanpur Dehat as such there were no latches in filing the complaint case. Accordingly, it was mentioned that the present Application deserves to be dismissed, the same having no force.
8. It has emerged from the perusal of the respective pleadings as well as details given in the complaint and other documentary evidences on record that the accused applicant is not claiming himself to be a doctor rather a person dealing in sale and purchase of the Ultrasound machine. According to him, the Ultrasound machine which has been seized from the premises of Anand Ultrasound X-ray and Pathology Centre, Ghatampur, Kanpur Nagar was purchased by him second hand for an amount of Rs. 55,000/- out of the loan amount which was sanctioned to him under the Pradhanmantri Rojgar Yojna, therefore, he has tried to establish a case that he does not run the said Ultrasound and Pathology Centre and that he simply deals in sale and purchase of the ultrasound machine and had sold a number of machines to various doctors, names of whom have also been mentioned in the affidavit. While on the other hand, O.P. No.2 has established a case against him stating that on 23.06.2010 at 1.07 p.m., an inspection was made by him under the authority of District Magistrate whereupon the Ultrasound machine in question was found in the premises of the said Ultrasound centre where the accused applicant was present along with two other persons named above whose signatures were obtained in the inspection memo and in their presence, the said machine was sealed and given in supurdagi of one of the employees of the centre. It is a disputed question of fact as to whether accused applicant was simply a person dealing in purchase and sale of such kind of machines or whether he is a doctor who runs the said Ultrasound and Pathology Centre where the said machine was found installed and the said centre was not found registered in accordance with the provisions of the P.C.P.N.D.T. Act and the documents which were also required to be necessarily shown at the time of inspection are also stated to have not been shown which also constitutes violation of the Rules 17 and 18 of the P.C.P.N.D.T. Act.
9. During arguments, it was further mentioned from the side of applicant that at the most the evidence which the prosecution has gathered against the applicant could only be that there was violation with regard to non-maintenance of documents which was required to be maintained in accordance with Rules 17 and 18 of P.C.P.N.D.T. Act which is not a very serious offence and that because of the delay of five years since inspection, the proceedings would be barred by Section 468 Cr.P.C.
10. This Court takes up initially the point as to whether proceedings in the present case are barred under Section 468 Cr.P.C.
11. Section 468 Cr.P.C. is as follows:
"468. Bar to taking cognizance after lapse of the period of limitation.
(1) Except as otherwise provided elsewhere in this Code, no Court shall take cognizance of an offence of the category specified in sub- section (2), after the expiry of the period of limitation. (2) The period of limitation shall be-
(a) six months, if the offence is punishable with fine only;
(b) one year, if the offence is punishable with imprisonment for a term not exceeding one year;
(c) three years, if the offence is punishable with imprisonment for term exceeding one year but not exceeding three years.
[(3) For the purposes of this section, the period of limitation, in relation to offences which may be tried together, shall be determined with reference to the offence which is punishable with the more severe punishment or, as the case may be, the most severe punishment.]"
12. In the present case, the relevant provisions of P.C.P.N.D.T. Act are as follows:-
"3B. Prohibition on sale of ultrasound machine, etc., to persons, laboratories, clinics, etc., not registered under the Act.--No person shall sell any ultrasound machine or imaging machine or scanner or any other equipment capable of detecting sex of foetus to any Genetic Counselling Centre, Genetic Laboratory, Genetic Clinic or any other person not registered under the Act."
"23. Offences and penalties.--(1) Any medical geneticist, gynaecologist, registered medical practitioner or any person who owns a Genetic Counselling Centre, a Genetic Laboratory or a Genetic Clinic or is employed in such a Centre, Laboratory or Clinic and renders his professional or technical services to or at such a Centre, Laboratory or Clinic, whether on an honorary basis or otherwise, and who contravenes any of the provisions of this Act or rules made thereunder shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years and with fine which may extend to ten thousand rupees and on any subsequent conviction, with imprisonment which may extend to five years and with fine which may extend to fifty thousand rupees.
[(2) The name of the registered medical practitioner shall be reported by the Appropriate Authority to the State Medical Council concerned for taking necessary action including suspension of the registration if the charges are framed by the court and till the case is disposed of and on conviction for removal of his name from the register of the Council for a period of five years for the first offence and permanently for the subsequent offence.
(3) Any person who seeks the aid of any Genetic Counselling Centre, Genetic Laboratory, Genetic Clinic or ultrasound clinic or imaging clinic or of a medical geneticist, gynaecologist, sonologist or imaging specialist or registered medical practitioner or any other person for sex selection or for conducting pre-natal diagnostic techniques on any pregnant woman for the purposes other than those specified in sub-section (2) of section 4, he shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years and with fine which may extend to fifty thousand rupees for the first offence and for any subsequent offence with imprisonment which may extend to five years and with fine which may extend to one lakh rupees.
(4) For the removal of doubts, it is hereby provided, that the provisions of sub-section (3) shall not apply to the woman who was compelled to undergo such diagnostic techniques or such selection.]"
"[24. Presumption in the case of conduct of pre-natal diagnostic techniques.--Notwithstanding anything contained in the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (1 of 1872), the court shall presume unless the contrary is proved that the pregnant woman was compelled by her husband or any other relative, as the case may be, to undergo pre-natal diagnostic technique for the purposes other than those specified in sub-section (2) of section 4 and such person shall be liable for abetment of offence under sub-section (3) of section 23 and shall be punishable for the offence specified under that section.]"
"25. Penalty for contravention of the provisions of the Act or rules for which no specific punishment is provided.--Whoever contravenes any of the provisions of this Act or any rules made thereunder, for which no penalty has been elsewhere provided in this Act, shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three months or with fine, which may extend to one thousand rupees or with both and in the case of continuing contravention with an additional fine which may extend to five hundred rupees for every day during which such contravention continues after conviction for the first such contravention."
13. For the sake of convenience, the relevant provisions of P.C.P.N.D.T. Rules are as follows:-
"9.Maintenance and preservation of records.- [(1) Every Genetic Counselling Centre, Genetic Laboratory, Genetic Clinic, Ultrasound Clinic and Imaging Centre shall maintain a register showing, in serial order, the names and addresses of the men or women given genetic counselling, subjected to pre-natal diagnostic procedures or pre-natal diagnostic tests, the names of their spouse or father and the date on which they first reported for such counselling, procedure or test.] (2) The record to be maintained by every Genetic Counselling Centre, in respect of each woman counselled shall be as specified in Form D. [(3) The record to be maintained by every Genetic Laboratory, in respect of each man or woman subjected to any pre-natal diagnostic procedure/technique/ test, shall be as specified in Form E. ] [(4) The record to be maintained by every Genetic Clinic, in respect of each man or woman subjected to any pre-natal diagnostic procedure/technique/ test, shall be as specified in Form F.] (5) The Appropriate Authority shall maintain a permanent record of applications for grant or renewal of certificate of registration as specified in Form H. Letters of intimation of every change of employee, place, address and equipment installed shall also be preserved as permanent records.
(6) All case related-records, forms of consent, laboratory results, microscopic pictures, sonographic plates or slides, recommendations and letters shall be preserved by the [Genetic Counselling Centre, Genetic Laboratory, Genetic Clinic, Ultrasound Clinic or Imaging Centre for a period of two years from the date of completion of counselling, pre-natal diagnostic procedure or pre-natal diagnostic test, as the case may be. In the event of any legal proceedings, the records shall be preserved till the final disposal of legal proceedings, or till the expiry of the said period of two years, whichever is later.
(7) In case the [Genetic Counselling Centre or Genetic Laboratory or Genetic Clinic or Ultrasound Clinic or Imaging Centre maintains records on computer or other electronic equipment, a printed copy of the record shall be taken and preserved after authentication by a person responsible for such record.
[(8) Every Genetic Counselling Centre, Genetic Laboratory, Genetic Clinic, Ultrasound Clinic and Imaging Centre shall send a complete report in respect of all pre-conception or pregnancy related procedures/ techniques/tests conducted by them in respect of each month by 5th day of the following month to the concerned Appropriate Authority.] "17.Public Information.- (1) Every [Genetic Counselling Centre, Genetic Laboratory, Genetic Clinic, Ultrasound Clinic and Imaging Centre] shall prominently display on its premises a notice in English and in the local language or languages for the information of the public, to effect that disclosure of the sex of the foetus is prohibited under law.
(2) At least one copy each of the Act and these rules shall be available on the premises of every [Genetic Counselling Centre, Genetic Laboratory, Genetic Clinic, Ultrasound Clinic and Imaging Centre], and shall be made available to the clientele on demand for perusal.
(3) The Appropriate Authority, the Central Government, the State Government, and the Government/Administration of the Union Territory may publish periodically lists of registered [Genetic Counselling Centres, Genetic Laboratories and Genetic Clinics, Ultrasound Clinics and Imaging Centres] and findings from the reports and other information in their possession, for the information of the public and for use by the experts in the field."
"[18. Code of Conduct to be observed by persons working at Genetic Counselling Centres, Genetic Laboratories, Genetic Clinics, Ultrasound Clinics, Imaging Centres etc.- All persons including the owners, employee or any other persons associated with Genetic Counselling Centres, Genetic Laboratories, Genetic Clinics, Ultrasound Clinics, Imaging Centres registered under the Act/these Rules shall -
(i) not conduct or associate with, or help in carrying out detection or disclosure of sex of foetus in any manner;
(ii) not employ or cause to be employed any person not possessing qualifications necessary for carrying out pre-natal diagnostic techniques/ procedures, techniques and tests including ultrasonography;
(iii) not conduct or cause to be conducted or aid in conducting by himself or through any other person any techniques or procedure for selection of sex before or after conception or for detection of sex of foetus except for the purposes specified in sub-section (2) of section 4 of the Act;
(iv) not conduct or cause to be conducted or aid in conducting by himself or through any other person any techniques or test or procedure under the Act at a place other than a place registered under the Act/these Rules;
(v) ensure that no provision of the Act and these Rules are violated in any manner;
(vi) ensure that the person, conducting any techniques, test or procedure leading to detection of sex of foetus for purposes not covered under section 4(2) of the Act or selection of sex before or after conception, is informed that such procedures lead to violation of the Act and these Rules which are punishable offences;
(vii) help the law enforcing agencies in bring to book the violators of the provisions of the Act and these Rules;
(viii) display his/her name and designation prominently on the dress worn by him/her;
(ix) write his/her name and designation in full under his/her signature;
(x) on no account conduct or allow/cause to be conducted female foeticide;
(xi) not commit any other act of professional misconduct.]"
14. After perusal of the above-mentioned sections and rules which are relevant in the present case, reliance is being placed upon Suo Motu Vs. State of Gujarat (2009) Cri.L.J. 721 (Guj). In this case following questions came up for consideration:
"(i) Whether under the provisions of Section 28 of the Pre-Conception and Pre-natal Diagnostic Techniques (Prohibition of Sex Selection) Act, 1994, a Court can take cognizance of an offence under the Act on a complaint made by any officer authorised in this behalf by the Appropriate Authority?
(ii) Whether the provisions of the proviso to sub-section (3) of Section 4 of the PNDT Act require that the complaint should contain specific allegations regarding the contravention of the provisions of Section 5 and 6 of the Act?
(iii) Whether the burden lies on the authority to prove that there was contravention of the provisions of Section 5 or 6 of the PNDT Act?
(iv) Whether any deficiency of inaccuracy in filing Form-F as required under the statutory provisions is merely a procedural lapse?"
15. Upon above analysis and appreciation of the scheme and provisions of the Act and Rules made thereunder, opinion on issues referred to the larger bench is as under:
"(i) Under the provisions of Section 28 of the Pre-Conception and Pre-natal Diagnostic Techniques (Prohibition of Sex Selection) Act, 1994 ("the PNDT Act"), a Court can take cognizance of an offence under the Act on a complaint made by any officer authorised in that behalf by the Appropriate Authority.
(ii) The proviso to sub-section (3) of Section 4 of the PNDT Act does not require that the complaint alleging inaccuracy or deficiency in maintaining record in the prescribed manner should also contain allegation of contravention of the provisions of Section 5 or 6 of the PNDT Act.
(iii) In a case based upon allegation of deficiency or inaccuracy in maintenance of record in the prescribed manner as required under sub-section (3) of Section 4 of the PNDT Act, the burden to prove that there was contravention of the provisions of Section 5 or 6 does not lie upon the prosecution.
(iv) Deficiency or inaccuracy in filling Form F prescribed under Rule 9 of the Rules made under the PNDT Act, being a deficiency or inaccuracy in keeping record in the prescribed manner, it is not a procedural lapse but an independent offence amounting to contravention of the provisions of Section 5 or 6 of the PNDT Act and has to be treated and tried accordingly. It does not, however, mean that each inaccuracy or deficiency in maintaining the requisite record may be as serious as violation of the provisions of Section 5 or 6 of the Act and the Court would be justified, while imposing punishment upon conviction, in taking a lenient view in cases of only technical, formal or insignificant lapses in filling up the forms. For example, not maintaining the records of conducting ultrasonography on a pregnant woman at all or filling up incorrect particulars may be taken in all seriousness as if the provisions of Section 5 or 6 were violated, but incomplete details of the full name and address of the pregnant woman may be treated leniently if her identity and address were otherwise mentioned in a manner sufficient to identify and trace her.
(v) The judgment in Dr. Manish C. Dave v. State of Gujarat, reported in 2008 (1) GLH 475, stands overruled to the extent it is inconsistent with the above opinion. The references stand disposed accordingly."
15. This is a recent legislation in order to check the illegal termination of pregnancy of female child and for the said purposes, detailed provisions have been made with respect to keeping record at the Ultrasound Centres being run by its doctors in order to keep a check whether any illegality has been committed in terms of the violation of rules which has been made punishable under the above-mentioned Sections 23 and 25.
16. Burden is also placed upon the accused to show that no such violation of rules has been made by not maintaining the record as provided under the above-mentioned rules. In the present case at the time of inspection, it was found that the documents were not being maintained as per the rules cited above and, hence, it was found that prima-facie case is made out against the applicant. Whether the accused applicant was actually involved in conducting the Ultrasound of the patients or not is also a question of fact which could only be determined after evidence has been adduced from the side of prosecution before the trial court and after assessment of the said evidence. The contention of the learned counsel for the applicant is that the applicant was only dealing in sale and purchase of the Ultrasound machines and had nothing to do with conducting of the Ultrasound of the patients, is also a factual aspect which cannot be looked into in proceedings under Section 482 Cr.P.C. It is true in the present case that the offence is made out under Section 23 of P.C.P.N.D.T. Act prima-facie which makes the offence punishable with imprisonment for term up to three years and with fine and on subsequent conviction, the imprisonment may extend up to five years with fine which may extend to fifty thousand rupees. While Section 25 of the P.C.P.N.D.T. Act provides that where there is no penalty provided for contravention of any provision of this Act, the same shall be punishable with the term which may extend to three months or fine which may go to the extent of Rs. 1,000/- or both.
17. In the present case, it is quite likely that after full trial, offence may be found to fall under Section 23 of P.C.P.N.D.T. Act, therefore, if the said stipulation of punishment be scrutinized in the light of Section 468 I.P.C. which provides that for an offence punishable for a term exceeding one year but not exceeding three years, the period of detention would be three years but for an offence punishable for more than three years, there is no time limit prescribed. In case in the present matter, after trial the accused is held guilty under Section 23 of the P.C.P.N.D.T. Act, he could be punished with three years' imprisonment. In the present case, in Counter-Affidavit, it has been clearly stated from the side of O.P. No.2 that initially criminal proceeding had been instituted against the applicant before the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Kanpur Nagar being Case No. 202 of 2013 while the inspection was made in the year 2010, but due to change of jurisdiction, the present case had to be filed before the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Kanpur Dehat, hence, it cannot be said that the prosecution was not launched against the accused applicant within time period of three years as the same was initially filed before the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate as prescribed, hence, the proceedings cannot be quashed simply on that count in this case.
19. In view of the above, I find prima-facie that the prosecution has gathered sufficient evidence to proceed against the accused applicant, therefore, in the initial stage, the proceedings could not be closed by interfering in the impugned order under the inherent jurisdiction of this Court, hence this Application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. deserves to be dismissed and is, accordingly, dismissed.
Order Date:-13.09.2019 A. Mandhani