The facts as emerged from the record are that on 28.04.2002 the opposite party filed a complaint alleging that on 25.03.2002 the premises of the applicant was inspected and it was found that the applicant, who is a doctor had been using Ultrasound Machine without its registration. On the basis of the said complaint, the applicant was summoned, thereafter on 01.12.2003 the applicant filed a discharge application. On 24.10.2013, the trial Court rejected the discharge application. Against the order of rejection of discharge application the applicant filed criminal revision no.595 of 2013. The revisional Court came to the conclusion that in the complaint there is no allegation that Ultrasound Machine was being used for genetic counselling, laboratory or clinic and on the basis of this finding allowed the revision vide order dated 25.03.2015 and set aside the order date 24.10.2013 and remanded the matter back to the learned Magistrate to pass a fresh order in the light of the observations in accordance with law. On 21.02.2019 the learned Magistrate rejected the discharge application without adverting to the observations of the revisional Court and passed the impugned order by coming to the conclusion that the applicant has not obtained bail in the said case. Against the said order the applicant filed revision no.106 of 2019. The said revision was also dismissed vide order dated 02.12.2019, hence, the present application.
