Application for leave to appeal against acquittal in a PCPNDT violation case. Court denied leave due to failure to establish proper seizure procedure and lack of panch witnesses, rendering the charge of record maintenance not proved.
Application for leave to appeal refused; acquittal stands.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1 6) alp73-14.doc
SAS
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.73 OF 2014 (FOR LEAVE)
Dr. Ramesh D.Nikam, Appropriate Authority / Medical Ofcer of Navi Mumbai Municipal Corporation ..Applicant. V/s.
Dr.Sujeet Dange & Anr. ..Respondents.
Mr.Sandeep V.Marve for the applicant.
Mr.M.V.Thorat for respondent No.1.
Mr.R.M.Pethe, APP for the respondent-State.
CORAM : NITIN W.SAMBRE, J.
DATE : NOVEMBER 11, 2019
P.C. :-
This is an application for grant of leave to appeal by the complainant under the provisions of sections 23 and 25 of the Pre-conception and Pre-natal Dignostic Techniques (Prohibition of Sex Selection) Act, 2003 (‘the PCPNDT Act’ for short).
2 6) alp73-14.doc
registered under PCPNDT Act on June 21, 2011. During the inspection, he has noticed the following irregularities on the part of respondent No.1 in maintaining records pursuant to the PCPNDT Act and Rules framed thereunder:-
3 6) alp73-14.doc
below Exhibit-31.
4 6) alp73-14.doc
can been gathered that the documents which were taken from the custody from the respondent-accused particularly the forms maintained by it and the register were not sealed by the complainant. A categorical admission to that efect is given by the complainant in his evidence. In the aforesaid backdrop, the documents which were allegedly seized were not proved to have been properly sealed in accordance with law. Apart from above, the provisions of section 30 of the PCPNDT Act prescribes the procedure and powers of search and seizure as required, is also not adhered. The panch witnesses to the alleged seizure were also not examined by the complainant.
5 6) alp73-14.doc
against the accused and then only the provisions can be invoked. The language of section 30 of the PCPNDT Act contemplates that if there is reason to believe that an ofence is committed by the accused, the appropriate authority has every right to carry out search and seizure. That being so, the fnding recorded by the learned Magistrate of unauthorized search and seizure are without any basis.
( NITIN W.SAMBRE, J. )
3 issues framed by the court
Whether leave to appeal against acquittal under the PCPNDT Act is maintainable when seizure procedures were not strictly followed.
Whether presumption under section 24 of the PCPNDT Act applies when documents allegedly seized were not properly sealed.
Whether a finding of unauthorized inspection affects the validity of the proceedings initiated by the appropriate authority.
5 provisions across 2 enactments
Dr. Ramesh D.Nikam
Dr.Sujeet Dange
NITIN W.SAMBRE
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
