Upon going through the "japti panchanama" prepared by the Committee, Aurangabad/ Latur, it is specifically mentioned that the Committee found that the records were not properly maintained and there were several short-comings in the said record. Documents which were not maintained, as is required by Law, have been set out in Clause No. 1 to 8 of the report. It is also observed that the original record available has been seized and taken into the custody of the Committee.
It is quite conspicuous that the sonography machine has been seized under a single sentence, which is stated to be the conclusion of the Committee in the report. It is merely observed that Dr.D.M. Patil has violated the said Act and therefore the sonography machine is sealed. There is no observation appearing from the said report that the Committee had arrived at a conclusion that the machine was used for committing an offence or that the Committee had a "reason to believe" or had formed a "reasonable belief" about any offence committed with the use of the machine or that there was a high possibility of the said machine being used for committing offences in future. The ingredients of Rule 12 as are required, are obviously missing in the Report.
The observations of this Court in the case of Dr.Sukhada (supra), in paragraph Nos. 16, 17 and 18 are relevant and which read as under :-
"16. Even Sec. 30 of the said Act lays down that, if the Appropriate Authority has reason to believe that an offence under this Act has been or is been committed, then he may personally or authorize any officer in that behalf to examine the record, register, documents and seize and seal the same. Rule 12 of the Rules of 1996 also authorizes an Appropriate Authority or the Officer authorized in this behalf to enter and search at all reasonable time the said genetic counselling centre, ultra sound clinic, etc. and may seal and seize the record, register and evidence or any other material therein, if there is "reasonable belief" that it may furnish evidence of commission of offence punishable under the Act.17. "Reason to believe" or "reasonable belief" means coming to factual conclusion on the basis of information that a thing, condition, statement or a fact exists. Reason to believe contemplates an objective determination based on intelligent care and deliberation as distinguished from purely subjective consideration. The said expression is not synonymous to subjective satisfaction of the authority. It postulates belief and existence of reason for that belief. The belief has to be held in good faith. It cannot be a mere pretense. The reason for the belief must have a rational connection or a relevant bearing to the formation of the belief and are not extraneous or irrelevant for the purpose of the section.18. In the present case, no such reasons are given. It does not transpire that sonography machines have been sealed upon the Appropriate Authority satisfying itself or having reason to believe that the said object i. e. sonography machines would furnish evidence of commission of offence punishable under the Act."
I had specifically called upon the learned AGP to point out from the report of the Committee dated 13/08/2014, which is the "japti panchanama" to indicate as regards its conclusions that there was a reasonable belief that the said machine was used for committing offences or was likely to be used for committing such offences. Despite his efforts, he was unable to point out any such observation from the "japti panchanama", which would establish the case of the Committee.
In fact, I find from the "japti panchanama" that it is not the case of the respondent/Committee that they had a reason to believe that the sonography machine was used for committing any offence or was likely to be used for committing any offence or that the machine was an important piece of evidence.
WRIT PETITION NO. 1 OF 2015
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
Janaki Ultra Sound Center,
Vs
The Appropriate Authority
CORAM : RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J.
Pronounced on : March 12, 2015
Citation;2015(3) ALLMR381
On 02/02/2015, after hearing the petitioner and the learned
AGP, I had passed the following order :-
The petitioner whose Sonography Machine has been
and obtain
sealed on the ground of failure to maintain proper records
the consent of the patient seeking to under go
Sonography, is the only cause for the sealing of the
Sonography machine.
2.
The petitioner further submits that if at all documents
are not properly maintained, they would evidence irregularity
on the part of the petitioner. However, in the light of the
judgment of this Court (Coram :- S.V.Gangapurwala, J.) dated
11-09-2012 delivered in Writ Petition No. 6557 of 2012 in the
matter of Dr. Mrs. Sukhada W/o Dilip Mulay Vs State of
Maharashtra & others, it clearly lays down the law in
paragraph Nos. 16, 17 and 18 that the Sonography machines
can be sealed by the appropriate authority only if it is
satisfied that the said machine would furnish evidence of
commission of offence punishable under the Act.
3.
Shri Warma, therefore, submits that the impugned
order passed by the District Appropriate Authority, Jalna
under the Preconception and Pre-natal Diagnostic Techniques
(Prohibition of Sex Selection) Act, 1994 ('PCPNDT Act, 1994')
has set out reasons only in paragraph 5 and there is no
observation at all that the said machine has been misused or
is likely to be further misused or it reveals such evidence
which would prove the commission of offences punishable
under the Act.
4.
Learned A.G.P. appearing on behalf of the respondents
prays for a short accommodation to file an affidavit in reply.
He further submits that there is one more legal remedy
available to the petitioner under Rule 19 (2) of 1996 Rules
framed under the PCPNDT Act, 1994. Shri Warma refutes the
19 (2) is "MAY" and not "SHALL".
5.
said contention on the ground that the phraseology of Rule
Respondent to file reply on or before the 13th Day of
February, 2015. The respondent shall not seek extension of
time. Stand over to 18-02-2015 for further consideration. The
Rule.
Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally by
2.
matter to appear on supplementary board."
3.
the consent of the parties.
The petitioner is an establishment. It is operated by Dr.
Deelip Madhukarrao Patil, who is a registered medical practitioner
and possesses a certificate of registration issued by the appropriate
authority under the provisions of the Pre-conception and Pre-natal
Diagnostic Techniques (Prohibition of Sex Selection) Act, 1994
(hereinafter referred as the said Act).
4.
By the said certificate, the petitioner operates the Janki
Hospital.
The Janki Ultra Sound Centre is set up by the petitioner
for carrying out Genetic Counselling / Genetic Laboratory / Genetic
Clinic, per-natal Diagnostic Test, Ultra Sound Sonography as is
prescribed under the said certificate of registration. The certificate
of registration is for the period 07/03/2012 to 06/03/2017.
On 13/08/2014, respondent No.1 authority under the said Act
5.
4
and the Naib Tahsildar, Bhokardan, visited the petitioner's Centre
and carried out an inspection.
Several registers and the record,
said to be relevant, were seized. The Sonography Machine of the
A panchanama was drawn by respondent No.1 during the
6.
petitioner was sealed at Bhokardan.
visit. After sealing the machine, the same was handed over to the
before this
The petitioner, therefore, preferred WP No.8739/2014
petitioner.
Court, which was disposed of by order dated
31/10/2014, thereby permitting the petitioner to avail of the
remedy prescribed under the said Act.
7.
The petitioner, therefore, preferred an appeal under Rule 19
of the 1996 Rules.
passed
in
Appeal
By the impugned order dated 19/12/2014,
No.01/2014,
the
petitioner's
appeal
was
dismissed.
8.
Grievance of the petitioner is that the Appellate Authority did
not consider the scope and ambit of Rule 12 of the 1996 Rules,
which pertain to the procedure to be followed with regard to
search and seizure.
The petitioner further submits that though the respondents
9.
claimed that the petitioner did not maintain proper record and
registers, the sonography machine was sealed in violation of the
procedure prescribed. Respondent No.1 was accompanied by Mr.
Daulatrao More, a retired person, Mr. Madhav Munde, a retired
Civil Surgeon and one Advocate. None of the members of the
10.
visiting team were authorized under the said Act.
The Rules prescribe that for seizure and sealing of the
sonography machine, the authorized person has to intimate the
action of seizure to the concerned Magistrate immediately after
The seizure and sealing of the sonography machine is
sealling.
therefore stated to be an illegal and unsustainable act.
11.
The petitioner submits that there are no allegations levelled
against the petitioner that the said sonography machine or the
petitioner's centre was indulging in sex determination.
It is also
not the contention of the respondent that the said machine was
required to be produced in the Court as a piece of evidence.
12.
It
is
submitted
that
this
Court
in
the
matter
of
Dr.Mrs.Sukhada w/o Dilip Mulay Vs. The State of Maharashtra and
others, in WP No.6557/2012, has delivered an oral judgment on
11/09/2012 wherein the provisions to Section 30 of the Act have
“Reason to believe” or “Reasonable belief” has
been considered.
been interpreted with by this Court (Coram : S.V. Gangapurwala,
J.) in paragraph Nos. 16, 17 and 18 of the said judgment.
13.
The petitioner has therefore restricted his prayers only to the
issue of action of sealing and seizure of the sonography machine
without the respondents coming to a conclusion that they have any
reason to believe that the said machine was being used for
14.
committing an offence under the said Act.
The petitioner, draws my attention to the conclusions found
below paragraph No.8 on page No.12 of the petition paper book
which is a part of the “japti Panchnama” dated 13/08/2014. It is
thus pointed out that the “japti panchanama” simply mentions that
the original record has been seized by the respondent in its visit.
Two copies of the registration certificate under the said Act have
been taken.
15.
The Committee, which is the Vibhagiya Dakshata Pathak i.e.
the Divisional Vigilance Committee (Hereinafter referred to as the
Committee), has merely noted that the petitioner has violated the
provisions of the said Act and therefore the sonography machine
SHIMIDZU SDU 350 XL was sealed in a cloth after the probes were
removed. The probes were kept in a small box and the same were
also sealed. The original records and the sealed probes were taken
16.
in the custody of the Committee.
The petitioner therefore submits that there was no reason for
the Committee to seize the sonography machine since there is no
whisper in the report dated 13/08/2014, much less even a prima
facie observation that the said machine has been used for
The petitioner
ig
committing any offence under the said Act.
therefore points out that this Court, in the case of Dr.Mrs.Sukhada
judgment (supra), had quashed and set aside the order of seizing
and sealing the machine.
17.
The petitioner further points out that the Division Bench of
this Court (Coram : R.M.Borde and P.R.Bora, JJ.) in the case of
Dr.Prasanna S.Mishrikotkar Vs. State of Maharashtra and others,
WP No.9252/2014, has delivered a judgment on 08/01/2015. The
scope of Section 30(1) of the said Act was considered in paragraph
Nos.4, 5, 6, 7 and 8.
The petition was therefore allowed by
directing the respondent to de-seal the sonography machine and
hand over the probes to the petitioner within 15 days.
18.
The petitioner has then relied upon the judgment of the
Division Bench of this Court (Coram :- R.M.Borde and P.R.Bora, JJ.)
in the matter of Dr. Deepesh s/o Bhagwanrao Chemate Vs. The
of
Maharashtra,
WP
No.10578/2014,
has
delivered
a
State
The factual matrix and the scope of
judgment on 10/02/2015.
Section 30(1) of the said Act was considered in paragraph Nos. 3 to
8. The Division Bench therefore allowed the appeal and directed
the respondent to de-seal the machine and return the probes with
The petitioner, therefore, prays that this petition deserves to
19.
the registration certificate.
20.
be allowed.
The learned AGP has vehemently opposed the petition on
behalf of the respondents.
respondent
No.1
and
2
An affidavit in reply on behalf of
has
been
filed
through
Digambar
Bhagwanrao Korde, Naib Tahsildar, Tal.Bhokardan, Dist. Jalna. He
submits that the appeal filed by the petitioner before the Appellate
Authority
has
rightly
been
dismissed.
The
authorized
representative of the petitioner Dr.Deelip S/o Madhukarrao Patil, is
operating the petitioner's centre and is also the registered medical
practitioner
presently
working
as
Medical
Superintendent,
Government Hospital, Bhokardan.
21.
The learned AGP has pointed out that respondent No.1,
acting under Rule 12 of the Rules has sealed the sonography
machine. Rule 12 empowers the authority to seal the machine if
there is a reason to believe that the said machine is likely to be
used for committing a crime or offence in a repetitive manner
and/or it may furnish evidence of the commission of the offence.
22.
The learned AGP has pointed out the contents in paragraph
"
No.12 of the affidavit in reply which read as under :-
That the other contention of petitioner that as per the
ig
contents of Rule 12 the Machine can be sealed when there is
reason to believe that it may furnish evidence of commission
of offence.
That the Respondent No.1 has sealed the machine,
after the reasonable belief, which he arrived there.
That the offence under PCPNDT act is essentially
committed with the use of Sonography machine and so it is
most important ingredient of crime and the offence is
repetitive in nature and so the prevention of crime is best
achieved by sealing the Machine and so sealing of machine is
an important act in investigating this crime and if the seal is
opened the accused is facilitate to repeat the crime. Once a
case is made out repetition is to be prevented and it cannot
be allowed to proliferate and so the machine cannot be
desealed until the trial is over and so it cannot be released
like any other property of crime and so, the Machine once
sealed under the PCPNDT Act......."
23.
The learned AGP has therefore vehemently submitted that the
impugned order is legally sustainable and cannot be termed as
perverse or erroneous.
::: Downloaded on - 19/05/2015 18:22:11 :::
WP/1/2015
have
I have considered the submissions of the litigating sides and
gone
through
the
petition
24.
10
paper
book.
The
“japti
panchanama” is the vital document and decisive in the adjudication
of this petition.
Rule 12 of the Rules of 1996 reads thus:-
25.
The Appropriate Authority or any officer authorized in
1.
ig
"12. Procedure for search and seizure.-
this behalf may enter and search at all reasonable times any
Genetic Counselling Centre, Genetic Laboratory, Genetic
Clinic, Imaging Centre or Ultrasound Clinic in the presence
of two or more independent witnesses for the purposes of
search and examination of any record, register, document,
book, pamphlet, advertisement, or any other material object
found therein and seal and seize the same if there is reason
to believe that it may furnish evidence of commission of an
offence punishable under the Act.
Explanation:- In these Rules-
1.
‘Genetic
Laboratory/Genetic
Clinic/Genetic
Counselling Centre’ would include an ultra- sound
centre/ imaging centre / nursing home / hospital /
institute or any other place, by whatever name called,
where any of the machines or equipments capable of
selection
of
sex
before
or
after
conception
or
performing any procedure, technique or test for pre-
::: Downloaded on - 19/05/2015 18:22:11 :::
WP/1/2015
11
natal detection of sex of foetus is used;
2. ‘material object’ would include records, machines
and equipments; and
3. ‘seize’ and ‘seizure’ would include ‘seal’ and ‘sealing’
respectively.
A
list
of
any
document,
record,
register,
book,
2.
pamphlet, advertisement or any other material object found
ig
in the Genetic Counselling Centre, Genetic Laboratory,
Genetic Clinic, Ultrasound Clinic or Imaging Centre and
seized shall be prepared in duplicate at the place of effecting
the seizure. Both copies of such list shall be signed on every
page by the Appropriate Authority or the officer authorized in
this behalf and by the witnesses to the seizure:
Provided that the list may be prepared, in the presence
of the witnesses, at a place other than the place of seizure if,
for reasons to be recorded in writing, it is not practicable to
make the list at the place of effecting the seizure.
3.
One copy of the list referred to in sub-rule (2) shall be
handed over, under acknowledgement, to the person from
whose
custody
the
document,
record,
register,
book,
pamphlet, advertisement or any other material object have
been seized:
Provided that a copy of the list of such document,
record, register, book, pamphlet, advertisement or other
material
object
seized
may
be
delivered
under
acknowledgement, or sent by registered post to the owner or
manager of the Genetic
Counselling Centre, Genetic
Laboratory, Genetic Clinic, Ultrasound Clinic or Imaging
::: Downloaded on - 19/05/2015 18:22:11 :::
WP/1/2015
12
Centre, if no person acknowledging custody of the document,
record, register, book, pamphlet, advertisement or other
material object seized is available at the place of effecting the
seizure.
4.
If any material object seized is perishable in nature, the
Appropriate Authority, or the officer authorized in this behalf
shall make arrangements promptly for sealing, identification
and preservation of the material object and also convey it to a
facility for analysis or test, if analysis or test be required:
ig
Provided that the refrigerator or other equipment used
by the Genetic Counselling Centre, Genetic Laboratory,
Genetic Clinic, Ultrasound Clinic and Imaging Centre for
preserving such perishable material object may be sealed
until such time as arrangements can be made for safe
removal of such perishable material object and in such
eventuality, mention of keeping the material object seized, on
the premises of the Genetic Counselling Centre, Genetic
Laboratory, Genetic Clinic, Ultrasound Clinic or Imaging
Centre shall be made in the list of seizure.
5.
In the case of non-completion of search and seizure
operation, the Appropriate Authority or the officer authorized
in this behalf may make arrangement, by way of mounting a
guard or sealing of the premises of the Genetic Counselling
Centre, Genetic Laboratory, Genetic Clinic Ultra- sound
Clinic or Imaging Centre, for safe keeping, listing and
removal of documents, records, book or any other material
object to be seized, and to prevent any tampering with such
documents, records, books or any other material object. "
26.
Upon going through the “japti panchanama” prepared by the
::: Downloaded on - 19/05/2015 18:22:11 :::
WP/1/2015
13
Committee, Aurangabad/ Latur, it is specifically mentioned that the
and
there
were
several
Committee found that the records were not properly maintained
short-comings
in
the
said
record.
Documents which were not maintained, as is required by Law, have
been set out in Clause No.1 to 8 of the report. It is also observed
that the original record available has been seized and taken into
27.
ig
the custody of the Committee.
It is quite conspicuous that the sonography machine has been
seized under a single sentence, which is stated to be the conclusion
of the Committee in the report.
It is merely observed that
Dr.D.M.Patil has violated the said Act and therefore the sonography
machine is sealed. There is no observation appearing from the said
report that the Committee had arrived at a conclusion that the
machine was used for committing an offence or that the Committee
had a "reason to believe" or had formed a "reasonable belief" about
any offence committed with the use of the machine or that there
was a high possibility of the said machine being used for
committing offences in future. The ingredients of Rule 12 as are
required, are obviously missing in the Report.
28.
The observations of this Court in the case of Dr.Sukhada
(supra), in paragraph Nos.16, 17 and 18 are relevant and which
read as under :-
::: Downloaded on - 19/05/2015 18:22:11 :::
WP/1/2015
14
"16. Even Sec. 30 of the said Act lays down that, if the
Appropriate Authority has reason to believe that an offence
under this Act has been or is been committed, then he may
personally or authorize any officer in that behalf to examine
the record, register, documents and seize and seal the same.
Rule 12 of the Rules of 1996 also authorizes an Appropriate
Authority or the Officer authorized in this behalf to enter and
search at all reasonable time the said genetic counselling
centre, ultra sound clinic, etc. and may seal and seize the
record, register and evidence or any other material therein, if
ig
there is "reasonable belief" that it may furnish evidence of
17.
commission of offence punishable under the Act.
"Reason to believe" or "reasonable belief" means
coming to factual conclusion on the basis of information that
a thing, condition, statement or a fact exists. Reason to
believe contemplates an objective determination based on
intelligent care and deliberation as distinguished from purely
subjective
consideration.
The
said
expression
is
not
synonymous to subjective satisfaction of the authority. It
postulates belief and existence of reason for that belief. The
belief has to be held in good faith. It cannot be a mere
pretense. The reason for the belief must have a rational
connection or a relevant bearing to the formation of the belief
and are not extraneous or irrelevant for the purpose of the
section.
18.
In the present case, no such reasons are given. It does
not transpire that sonography machines have been sealed
upon the Appropriate Authority satisfying itself or having
reason to believe that the said object i. e. sonography
machines would furnish evidence of commission of offence
29.
punishable under the Act."
I had specifically called upon the learned AGP to point out
from the report of the Committee dated 13/08/2014, which is the
“japti panchanama” to indicate as regards its conclusions that
there was a reasonable belief that the said machine was used for
committing offences or was likely to be used for committing such
ig
offences. Despite his efforts, he was unable to point out any such
observation from the “japti panchanama”, which would establish
the case of the Committee.
In fact, I find from the “japti panchanama” that it is not the
30.
case of the respondent/Committee that they had a reason to believe
that the sonography machine was used for committing any offence
or was likely to be used for committing any offence or that the
machine was an important piece of evidence.
31.
The respondents have relied upon the judgment of this Court
(Coram : Mrs.Roshan Dalvi, J.) dated 23/01/2013 in the case of
Dr.Vandana Ramchandra Patil Vs. The State of Maharashtra and
others in Cri.Writ Petition No.4399/2012. The said judgment is of
no assistance to the respondents since it is not their case at all that
the most important ingredient of a crime of a repetitive nature was
the sonography machine.
::: Downloaded on - 19/05/2015 18:22:11 :::
WP/1/2015
The Division Bench of this Court, in the case of Dr.Prasanna
32.
16
Mishrikotkar (supra) has held in paragraph Nos. 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8 as
under :-
"4)
The petitioner contends that on 1st October, 2014, the
squad, constituted by Respondent No.2, along with panchas,
visited the diagnostic centre of the petitioner and drawn a
panchanama and put seal on the sonography machines
ig
installed in the diagnostic centre of the petitioner. The
petitioner further contends that such action of sealing the
sonography machines is not preceded by any order passed by
Respondent No.2 – appropriate authority. It is contended that
in fact after conducting the inspection on 24th June, 2014, a
notice dated 27th August, 2014 was issued calling upon the
petitioner to show cause in respect of certain irregularities
and deficiencies as set out in the show cause notice. The
petitioner tendered his reply to the said show cause notice on
30th August, 2014. The petitioner was directed to remain
present himself for personal hearing on 24th September,
2014 at 3.30 p.m. The petitioner did submit relevant record
on 1st October, 2014 in response to the communication
issued to him earlier. However, on the same day, at the
instance of Respondent No.2, action of sealing of the
sonography machines was taken under the panchanama The
petitioner
contends
that
such
action
of
sealing
the
sonography machines of the petitioner taken on behalf of
Respondent No.2 is bad in law since the action is not
preceded by any order passed by the Competent Authority.
The impugned action is not referable to any of the provisions
of the Rules of 1996 or the Act of 1994.
::: Downloaded on - 19/05/2015 18:22:11 :::
WP/1/2015
5)
17
Our attention is invited to Section 30(1) of the Act of
1994, which reads thus,
“ 30. Power to search and seize records, etc – (1) If the
Appropriate Authority has reason to believe that an
offence under this Act has been or is being committed
at any Genetic Counselling centre, Genetic Laboratory,
Genetic clinic or any other place, such Authority or any
office authorized in this behalf may, subject to such
ig
rules as may be prescribed, enter and search at all
reasonable times with such assistance, if any, as such
Authority or officer considers necessary, such Genetic
counselling Centre, Genetic Laboratory, Genetic clinic
or any other place and examine any record, register,
document, book, pamphlet, advertisement or any other
material object found therein and seize and seal the
same if such Authority or office has reason to believe
that it may furnish evidence of the commission of an
offence punishable under this Act.”
6)
It is contended that the Authority or the officer has not
recorded reasons, in writing, for its/his satisfaction to take
action as regards sealing of the sonography machines and
that he has no reason to believe that the said machines may
furnished
evidence
of
the
commission
of
the
offence
punishable under the Act.
7)
In the instant matter, since the impugned action is not
preceded
by
any
order,
there
arises
no
question
of
satisfaction or recording the reasons by the Authority
empowered to take action. Thus, the impugned action is in
::: Downloaded on - 19/05/2015 18:22:11 :::
WP/1/2015
18
breach of Section 30(1) of the Act of 1994. It was open for
the Respondent No.2 to pass appropriate order, on recording
his satisfaction, as contemplated under Section 30(1) of the
Act and then to proceed to take action.
8)
It is also noticed that in fact, a notice was issued to the
petitioner in pursuance to the inspection carried on 24th
June, 2014, which has been appropriately replied by the
petitioner and the case/matter was, in fact, posted for
hearing. In such circumstances, it was incumbent upon the
ig
Respondent No.2 to pass an order and thereafter, if
warranted, upon compliance of the provisions contained in
Section 30(1) of the Act of 1994, to proceed to take
appropriate action against the petitioner. Since the impugned
action taken on behalf of respondent No.2 is not within the
provisions of the Act of 1994 and the Rules framed
thereunder, the said action deserves to be quashed and set
aside."
33.
Similar are the observations of the Division Bench of this
Court in paragraph Nos. 6, 7 and 8 of Dr.Deepesh Bhagwanrao
Chemate judgment (supra), which read as under :-
"6)
It is contended that the Authority or the officer has not
recorded reasons, in writing, for its/his satisfaction to take
action as regards sealing of the sonography machines and
that he has no reason to believe that the said machines may
furnished
evidence
of
the
commission
of
the
offence
punishable under the Act.
In the instant matter, since the impugned action is not
preceded
by
any
order,
there
arises
no
7)
question
of
satisfaction or recording the reasons by the Authority
empowered to take action. Thus, the impugned action is in
breach of Section 30(1) of the Act of 1994. It was open for
the Respondent No.2 to pass appropriate order, on recording
his satisfaction, as contemplated under Section 30(1) of the
taken
In view of the above, writ petition is allowed. The action
on
behalf
of
Respondent
8)
Act and then to proceed to take action.
no.2
of
sealing
the
Sonography machines and the probes and taking away the
registration documents, is quashed and set aside. Respondent
No.2 is directed to deseal the said Sonography machines as
well as probes and return back the registration documents to
the petitioner within a period of fifteen days from the date of
the order. It is needless to point out that it would be open for
authorities to take appropriate steps in accordance with the
provisions of Act of 1994 and the Rules framed there under. "
34.
In the cases of Dr.Prasanna and Dr.Deepesh (supra), a
criminal case was registered. The next date of hearing in the said
matters before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Aurangabad and the
J.M.F.C.Paithan, respectively are scheduled on 17/03/2015 and
23/03/2015. The Division Bench, in both these above stated cases,
has directed the respondent to de-seal the sonography machines,
return the probes and the registration documents to the petitioners
within a period of 15 days. However, in both these cases, it was
left open to the respondents to take appropriate steps in
accordance with the provisions of the said Act and the rules framed
35.
thereunder.
In the light of the above, I therefore do not find that the
impugned order dated 19/12/2014, passed by the Appellate
Authority on the appeal filed by the petitioner under Rule 19(1) of
36.
1996 Rules, can be said to be sustainable in the eyes of Law.
As such, in the light of the above, the impugned order dated
19/12/2014 is quashed and set aside.
the petitioner is therefore allowed.
Appeal No.1/2015 filed by
The sonography machine
sealed by the respondents shall be de-sealed and the said machine
shall be returned to the petitioner within a period of 3 (three)
weeks from today.
The probes sealed and seized by the
respondents along with the registration documents shall be
returned to the petitioner within 3 (three) weeks from today.
37.
The respondents authorities are however at liberty to resort
to appropriate steps in accordance with the provisions of the said
Act and the Rules framed thereunder. So also, the criminal case
registered against the petitioner shall proceed in accordance with
Law and shall be decided by the appropriate authorities on its own
merits. This judgment shall not come in way of the concerned
authorities in exercising their powers under Section 30 of the said
38.
Act and Rule 12 of the said Rules, vis-a-vis the petitioner in future.
This petition is, therefore, allowed. Rule is made absolute
accordingly.
(RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J.)
No comments:
Post a Comment