Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

( 23/04/2019) The applicant has invoked extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (in short the Cr.P.C) for seeking quashment of order dated 07.02.2019 passed by Special Judge, Badwani in Cr. R. No.9/2019 whereby the learned judge upheld the order dated 03.12.2018 and 28.12.2018 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Badwani in criminal case No.211/2014 wherein the charge under Section 23 of Pre- Conception and Pre-Natal Diagnostic Techniques (Prohibition of Sex Selection) Act (hereinafter referred to as P.C. & P.N.D.T. Act) is directed to frame against the applicant. (2). The brief facts of the case are that the applicant Dr. Dinesh Agrawal is a qualified medical practitioner he also obtained diploma in Gynecology and obstertrics. He is working in sonography center at Sharma Multiple clinic, Motibag square, Sendhwa. On 12.01.2012 a surprise inspection was conducted by Tehsildar / Executive Magistrate Sendhwa and found that the applicant was operating sonography machine without obtaining any license. The said machine was seized and a Panchanama was prepared by the Tehsildar. The copy of the inspection report and information was sent to the Chief Medical Officer, Badwani and District Collector Badwani. Thereafter on the direction given by the District Collector, the chief Medical Officer, Badwani filed a complaint against the applicant for the offence under Section 23 and 25 of the PC and PNDT Act, before the court of J.M.F.C. Sendhwa, who has taken the cognizance against the applicant for the offence punishable under Section 18, 23, and 25. After appearance of the applicant/accused, the Judicial Magistrate First Class has recorded the evidence before charge. Then applicant moved an application for discharging him from the aforesaid offence, however the said application was dismissed by order dated 03.12.2018 and on the basis of material available on record the trial court vide order dated 28.12.2018 has framed charges against the applicant for the offence under Section 23 of PC and PNDT Act. The said order was challenged before the Sessions Court in revision bearing No.09/2019 but the same has also been rejected vide order dated 07.02.2019. This order is subject matter of challenge before this Court. (3). Learned counsel for the applicant referring the provision of Section 28 of PC and PNDT Act put forth that the cognizance of the offence can be taken by the Court on a complaint made by the appropriate authority concerned or any officer authorized in this behalf by the Central or State Governments as the case may be and if the complaint has not been filed by the appropriate authority then it will not be maintainable. In the present case, the complaint has been filed by A.K.Mehta Chief Medical Officer, who has not been appointed as appropriate authority for purpose of filing complaint in District Badwani under Section 28 of the Act. It is further submitted that there is no averments made in the complaint that what irregularities were found during the inspection. The courts below have not considered the aforesaid legal position and committed error in framing the charge against the applicant. (4). Learned counsel for the respondent/State has opposed the prayer made by the applicant by contending that officer nominated by collector for the purpose of monitoring can file private complaint and in the present case, District Collector Badwani authorized Mr. A.K. Mehta, Chief Medical Officer, Badwani and this complaint filed by Mr. A.K. Mehta, Chief Medical Officer is maintainable, therefore the trial court has rightly took the cognizance and framed the charges against the applicant.