From the cross examination, it was pointed out
on behalf of the petitioner that the Appropriate Authority in
clear terms has admitted that the person, who performed the
sonography i.e. Radiologist and the owner of the hospital can
be the different persons. The Appropriate Authority Dr.
Sakhahari Mahadu Sonawane has further admitted in his
cross examination that it is incumbent on the part of the
Radiologist to give the declaration. Similarly, it is also
necessary on the part of the owner of the sonography centre
to give the declaration.
The charge against the present petitioner is that
though Dr. Wable has performed the sonography, Form ' F ' is
not signed by him. It is not the case of the prosecution nor
there are tinch of any allegation in the complaint that the
present petitioner has not signed Form ' F '.
Dr. Sonawane, who is Appropriate Authority has
specifically admitted in his cross examination that though it
was incumbent for Dr. Wable to sign Form ' F ', the
Appropriate Authority has failed to issue any notice and/or
failed to call any explanation from him nor Dr. Wable has
joined as an accused in the present proceeding or no further
proceedings are initiated against Dr. Wable.
It is thus clear that when it is the case of the
prosecution that Dr. Wable has performed sonography and it
was incumbent on him to sign Form ' F ' and when it is not
the case of the prosecution or nothing is spelt out from the
Complaint that the present petitioner has not signed Form
' F ', hence continuance of the criminal proceeding, in my
opinion, will be an abuse of process of law. In that view of
the matter, the order passed by the learned 2 nd J.M.F.C.,
Rahata dated 04/03/2014 in Regular Criminal Case No.
151/2007 can not stand to the scrutiny of law.
Consequently, the said order together with the Judgment and
order passed by the learned revisional Court dated
03/09/2014 in Criminal Revision Application No. 11/2014
are hereby quashed and set aside.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 1072 OF 2014
Dr. Prabodh S/o Uddhav Joshi
Occ. : Medical Practitioner,
V E R S U S
Superintendent of Medical
Rural Hospital, Rahata
Tq. Rahata, Dist. :
Ahmednagar.
CORAM : V.M.DESHPANDE, J.
DATE OF JUDGMENT : 7th JANUARY, 2015
Citation; 2015ALLMR(cri)727
By the present Writ Petition, the petitioner is
2.
questioning the correctness of the order dated 04/03/2014
passed by the learned 2nd J.M.F.C., Rahata in R.C.C. No.
151/2007, by which a charge is framed against the petitioner
under the relevant provisions of the PreNatal Diagnostic
Techniques (Regulation and Prevention of Misuse) Act, 1994
(for short, ' PCPNDT Act ') together with the Judgment and
order dated 03/09/2014 passed by the learned Additional
Sessions Judge, Kopargaon in Criminal Revision Application
No. 11/2014, by which the learned revisional Court
dismissed the Revision filed on behalf of the petitioner to
question the correctness of framing of the charge against him.
3.
Heard Mr. V.J.Dixit, the learned Senior Counsel
instructed by Mr. L.V.Sangeet, the learned counsel for the
petitioner and Mr. D.R.Kale, the learned A.P.P. for
respondent State.
The learned Senior Counsel took me through
4.
copy of the Complaint filed on behalf of the Appropriate
Authority against the present petitioner, which is registered
as Regular Criminal Case No. 151/2007, more precisely, he
has pointed out the nature of allegations made against the
present petitioner in the said Complaint. He has also pointed
out to this Court the cross examination of the Appropriate
Authority, when the Appropriate Authority was in witness
box in respect of the evidence before framing of Charge. He
has also pointed out to me the Circular issued by the State
Appropriate Authority and Additional Director of Health
Civil Surgeons, all Medical Officers of Health, Municipal
Corporation and the Assistant Director of Health Services
(Medical), Pune Circle, Pune.
Services, Family Welfare, MCH & SH, Pune1 addressed to all
5.
From the cross examination, it was pointed out
on behalf of the petitioner that the Appropriate Authority in
clear terms has admitted that the person, who performed the
sonography i.e. Radiologist and the owner of the hospital can
be the different persons. The Appropriate Authority Dr.
Sakhahari Mahadu Sonawane has further admitted in his
cross examination that it is incumbent on the part of the
Radiologist to give the declaration. Similarly, it is also
necessary on the part of the owner of the sonography centre
to give the declaration.
The charge against the present petitioner is that
though Dr. Wable has performed the sonography, Form ' F ' is
not signed by him. It is not the case of the prosecution nor
there are tinch of any allegation in the complaint that the
present petitioner has not signed Form ' F '.
6.
Dr. Sonawane, who is Appropriate Authority has
specifically admitted in his cross examination that though it
was incumbent for Dr. Wable to sign Form ' F ', the
Appropriate Authority has failed to issue any notice and/or
failed to call any explanation from him nor Dr. Wable has
joined as an accused in the present proceeding or no further
proceedings are initiated against Dr. Wable.
7.
It is thus clear that when it is the case of the
prosecution that Dr. Wable has performed sonography and it
was incumbent on him to sign Form ' F ' and when it is not
the case of the prosecution or nothing is spelt out from the
Complaint that the present petitioner has not signed Form
' F ', hence continuance of the criminal proceeding, in my
opinion, will be an abuse of process of law. In that view of
the matter, the order passed by the learned 2 nd J.M.F.C.,
Rahata dated 04/03/2014 in Regular Criminal Case No.
151/2007 can not stand to the scrutiny of law.
Consequently, the said order together with the Judgment and
order passed by the learned revisional Court dated
03/09/2014 in Criminal Revision Application No. 11/2014
are hereby quashed and set aside. The Regular Criminal
Case No. 151/2007 pending on the file of the J.M.F.C.,
Rahata against the present petitioner is hereby quashed.
8.
Rule is made absolute.
[V.M.DESHPANDE, J.]
No comments:
Post a Comment