Dismissed

The State of Maharashtra and Anr. v. Manashi Mangesh Shaha

Bombay HC25 Nov 2014REVN/389/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this criminal revision application, the State challenged an order setting aside the process issued against a sonography operator. The High Court held that there was no prima facie case based on the available material and dismissed the application, leaving the original order intact.

What did the court decide?

The Criminal Revision Application stands dismissed; the order of the learned Sessions Judge setting aside the process remains in force.

The State of Maharashtra and Anr. Vs… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Bombay HC (2014)

Deshmane Deshmane

46.revn.389-12.doc

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶5

CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO.389 OF 2012

¶6

The State of Maharashtra and another ..Applicants

¶7

Versus

¶8

Dr. Manashi Mangesh Shaha ..Respondent

¶9

Mr. V.B. Konde Deshmukh, APP, for the Applicants – State. Mr. Ujwal R. Agandsurve, Advocate for the Respondent.

¶10

CORAM : M. L. TAHALIYANI, J.

¶11

DATE : 25^th NOVEMBER, 2014

¶12

P.C.

¶13

Heard learned APP Mr. V.B. Konde Deshmukh for the applicants – State and learned Counsel Mr. Ujwal Agandsurve for the respondent.

¶14

The respondent was prosecuted by the Competent Authority under the PreConception and PreNatal Diagnostic Techniques (Prohibition of Sex Selection) Act, 1994 for violation of various provisions of the Act and Rules. The respondent was having one sonography machine and she was engaged in

1 / 3

Deshmane

46.revn.389-12.doc

ultrasound sonography. The department of the applicants had some information that the respondent was indulging in sex determination which is in contravention of the provisions of the Act and Rules. Therefore, her premises were visited on 18.4.2007. The record of office of the respondent was seized. The sonography machine was also seized. It is stated in the complaint that the record showed that most of the women who visited the respondent for sonography had only female child or children. The applicants therefore suspected that the respondent was indulging in sex determination.

¶20

There is no other material on record except what has been stated by me hereinabove. Additionally, it is stated in the last paragraph of the complaint that there was a board which might indicate that the sex determination was possible at the clinic of the respondent. However, the contents of the said board are not mentioned by the applicants in the complaint nor the board had been seized.

¶21

From the material collected by the complainant it can

¶22

safely be said that it was not possible for the

Deshmane

46.revn.389-12.doc

applicants/complainants to convince the trial Court even at the stage of framing of the charge that prima facie case existed against the respondent. In view thereof, the learned Sessions Judge has rightly set aside the order of the learned J.M.F.C. issuing process against the respondent to appear before the Magistrate to answer the charges for the offences punishable under the Act. I do not find any merit in the Revision Application. In the result, Criminal Revision Application stands dismissed.

¶27

JUDGE

¶28

3 / 3

The State of Maharashtra and Anr. v. Manashi Mangesh Shaha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The State of Maharashtra and Anr. v. Manashi Mangesh Shaha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ganesh Herbas Vs Sujit R. Halarankar and Anr.

M/S. Plus Travels Pvt. Ltd. Vs G. v. Ravu Kumar and Anr.

Mani Jagdish Pilley Vs Ishwarchand Lalchand Jain and Anr.

Nutan Ajit Lokhande Vs Sanjit Chandrasen Lokhande and Ors.

Gajanan Laxman Fonde Vs Dilip Raghunath Patil and Anr.

Manik Shridhar Gabale Vs Babaso Narasgonda Omanna and Anr.