Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 6 of 6 (1.19 seconds)
Documents citing Anuradhabai Hanumantrao Gharge (Died) ... vs The State Of Maharashtra And Others on 28 January, 2019

Dr. Tukaram Ramkrishana Karde vs The State Of Maharashtra And Another on 25 September, 2023

29. A Similar question arose for consideration before the Bombay High Court in the case of Ranjeet Ghatge and Ors Vs. The State of Maharashtra and Ors, in Cri. Writ Petition Nos. 4194 and ::: Uploaded on - 25/09/2023 ::: Downloaded on - 27/09/2023 05:10:17 ::: 14 4195 of 2014 decided on 17.08.2015. In that case, the Court held that, in my opinion, this proviso is to be read along with Rule 9(4) of the Rules. A minute details mentioned in Form-F are, in my opinion, to be filled in by the staff members of the Genetic Clinic. The person/Doctor conducting Ultrasonography on a pregnant woman will keep a complete record of the Ultrasonography done by him and not the details of the Form-F. Harmonious reading of proviso to Sub-section 3 of Section 4 of the Act read with Rule 9(4) of the Rules leads one to the conclusion that the clerical work is to be done by the staff members of the Genetic Centre and only the Doctor will maintain the record of the Ultrasonography done by him.
Bombay High Court Cites 24 - Cited by 0 - S G Mehare - Full Document

Dr. Tukaram Ramkrishana Karde vs The State Of Maharashtra And Another on 25 September, 2023

29. A Similar question arose for consideration before the Bombay High Court in the case of Ranjeet Ghatge and Ors Vs. The State of Maharashtra and Ors, in Cri. Writ Petition Nos. 4194 and ::: Uploaded on - 25/09/2023 ::: Downloaded on - 27/09/2023 05:10:11 ::: 14 4195 of 2014 decided on 17.08.2015. In that case, the Court held that, in my opinion, this proviso is to be read along with Rule 9(4) of the Rules. A minute details mentioned in Form-F are, in my opinion, to be filled in by the staff members of the Genetic Clinic. The person/Doctor conducting Ultrasonography on a pregnant woman will keep a complete record of the Ultrasonography done by him and not the details of the Form-F. Harmonious reading of proviso to Sub-section 3 of Section 4 of the Act read with Rule 9(4) of the Rules leads one to the conclusion that the clerical work is to be done by the staff members of the Genetic Centre and only the Doctor will maintain the record of the Ultrasonography done by him.
Bombay High Court Cites 24 - Cited by 0 - S G Mehare - Full Document

Dr. Nirmala Ramprasad Bajaj vs The State Of Maharashtra on 14 February, 2024

5. Perused the complaint bearing GMP No.79 of 2015 lodged by the respondent and the impugned order passed by the learned 765.2023WP+ -5- Magistrate. The order is that the offence is prima facie made out. Issue summons to all the accused for the offences under sections 3(2), 493), 29(1), 5(1), 3(3), 4(2), 4(3) B of PCPNDT Act. The learned advocate for the petitioners rightly pointed out that the learned Magistrate did not conclude as to whether the complainant has power to file such complaint. While delivering the judgment, the Additional Sessions Judge in revisions also did not come to the conclusion regarding the power of the complainant to file such complaint. The learned Additional Sessions Sessions Judge though considered the authority of Dr.Ranjeet Ghatge Vs. State of Maharashtra in Criminal Writ Petition No.4194 of 2014 dated 17.08.2015, failed to consider that the complainant has no such power and authority as designated complainant to file the complaint.
Bombay High Court Cites 1 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Dr. Anand Bansilal Karnawat vs The State Of Maharashtra Through Dr. ... on 14 February, 2024

5. Perused the complaint bearing GMP No.79 of 2015 lodged by the respondent and the impugned order passed by the learned 765.2023WP+ -5- Magistrate. The order is that the offence is prima facie made out. Issue summons to all the accused for the offences under sections 3(2), 493), 29(1), 5(1), 3(3), 4(2), 4(3) B of PCPNDT Act. The learned advocate for the petitioners rightly pointed out that the learned Magistrate did not conclude as to whether the complainant has power to file such complaint. While delivering the judgment, the Additional Sessions Judge in revisions also did not come to the conclusion regarding the power of the complainant to file such complaint. The learned Additional Sessions Sessions Judge though considered the authority of Dr.Ranjeet Ghatge Vs. State of Maharashtra in Criminal Writ Petition No.4194 of 2014 dated 17.08.2015, failed to consider that the complainant has no such power and authority as designated complainant to file the complaint.
Bombay High Court Cites 1 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1