Dismissed

Vitthal S/O Digambar Dake v. the State of Maharashra and Others

Bombay HC22 Mar 2019WP/270/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner challenged a discharge order in quashing proceedings against medical practitioners for alleged violations of the PNDT Act. The High Court dismissed the petition, holding that the complainant was not the 'appropriate authority' to file the complaint as per the PNDT Act, making the discharge order legally sound and warranting no interference.

What did the court decide?

Rule discharged. Writ petition dismissed.

Vitthal S/O Digambar Dake Vs the State of Maharashra and… — Narcotics (NDPS) | Bombay HC (2019)

¶1

cwp270.17

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶4

BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶5

CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.270 OF 2017

¶6

Vitthal s/o Digambar Dake,
Through Legal Advisor,
Aparna Krishnakumar Thete,
Age-39 years,
Occu:Service as Legal Advisor,
Aurangabad Municipal Corporation,
Aurangabad, Dist-Aurangabad

¶7

...PETITIONER

¶8

 VERSUS

¶9

1) The State of Maharashtra,
 Through Secretary,
 Department of Health Service,
 Mantralaya, Mumbai-32,

¶10

2) Dr. Prasanna Mishrikotkar,
 Age-41 years, Occu:Medical Practice,
 R/o-Shanti Imaging Centre,
 Laxman Chawadi, Prabha Chamber,
 Aurangabad,

¶11

3) Dr. Jyoti Jagamohan Roy,
 Age-36 years, Occu:Medical Practice,
 R/o-Shanti Imaging Centre,
 Laxman Chawadi, Prabha Chamber,
 Aurangabad.

¶12

...RESPONDENTS

¶13

cwp270.17

¶14

¶15

...

¶16

 Mr.V.P. Latange Advocate for Petitioner.
 Mr.A.A. Jagatkar, A.P.P. for Respondent No.1.
 Mr.P.F. Patni Advocate for Respondent No.2.
 Respondent No.3 served.

¶17

...

¶18

CORAM: V.M. DESHPANDE, J.

¶19

 DATE : 22TH MARCH, 2019

¶20

ORAL JUDGMENT :

¶21

1.By the present Petition, the Petitioner

¶22

is challenging the Judgment and order passed by
the learned revisional Court in Criminal Revision
Petition No.89 of 2016 dated 3rd October, 2016,
dismissing the Revision and thereby confirming the
order passed below Exhibit-1 in R.C.C. No.1750 of
2014, by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate,
Aurangabad, discharging Respondent Nos.2 and 3
from the proceedings.

¶23

2.I heard Shri V.P. Latange, the learned

¶24

counsel for the Petitioner, Shri A.A. Jagatkar,

¶25

cwp270.17

¶26

¶27

the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for
Respondent No.1 – State and Shri P.F. Patni, the
learned counsel for Respondent No.2.

¶28

3.Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith

¶29

by consent of the parties and the Petition is
taken up for final hearing.

¶30

4.The Petitioner Vitthal Digambar Dake

¶31

filed a complaint against Respondent Nos.2 and 3,
who are the medical practitioners, for breach of
Section 5, 6, 9(1), 29 of the Pre-conception and
Pre-natal Diagnostic Techniques (Prohibition of
Sex Selection) Act, punishable under Section 23 of
the said Act.

¶32

5.The complaint was registered as R.C.C.

¶33

No.1750 of 2014. Evidence before charge was
recorded. Complainant Vitthal Digambarrao Dake

¶34

entered into witness box and he claims to be

¶35

cwp270.17

¶36

¶37

appropriate authority for filing the complaint.
Panch witness, Kisan Pawar was also examined.
Thereafter a purshis Exhibit-33 was filed.

¶38

6.The learned Magistrate, thereafter

¶39

evaluated the complaint case and found that the
complainant is not appropriate authority to launch
and file the complaint. Consequently, on 7th April,

¶40

2016, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate
discharged the accused i.e. Respondent Nos.2 and 3
under Section 246(2) of the Code of Criminal
Procedure. The complainant did not prefer any
revision challenging the discharge. However, the
police inspector of Kranti Chowk Police Station,
Aurangabad, filed a revision and it was styled as

¶41

“The State of Maharashtra,
 Through Police Inspector,
 Police Station, Kranti Chowk,
 Tq. & Dist-Aurangabad.

¶42

 Versus

¶43

 1) Dr. Prasanna Mishrikotkar
 2) Dr. Jyoti Jagmohan Roy”

¶44

cwp270.17

¶45

¶46

7.The said revision was registered as
Criminal Revision Petition No.89 of 2016 and
learned Additional Sessions Judge-5, Aurangabad
rejected the revision on 3rd October, 2016.

¶47

8.It would be useful to refer the
observations in the case of Dr. Sandhya Arun
Kulkarni vs. the State of Maharashtra1, wherein it
is held that:

¶48

“The combined reading of Sections 17 and
28 of PNDT Act together with definition
oftheexpression“Appropriate
Authority” would make it clear that the
complaint must be filed by the
Appropriate Authority or the officer
authorized by the Appropriate Authority
in terms of the powers given under
Section 28 of the Act. If the complaint
has not been filed by such an authority
or the officer, the Court would be

¶49

12016 ALL MR (Cri( 963

¶50

cwp270.17

¶51

¶52

precluded from taking cognizance of the
complaint.Appropriateauthority
contemplated under Section 17 read with
Section 28 is some officer or person
occupying a certain post in the
government or certain status in
society.”

¶53

9.It is admitted position on record that

¶54

when complainant Vitthal Dake was cross-examined
at the stage of evidence before charge, he made a
categorical statement that, at the relevant time
he was ward officer of Ward E. He also admitted
that there are six wards in Aurangabad Municipal
Corporation area. They are identified as Ward
No.A to Ward No.F. He also admitted that in every
ward, separate ward officer is appointed. It is
also his admission that “Shanti Imaging Center” of
the accused persons is situated in Ward No.D, and
in the month of October, 2014, one Mr. Sampat
Jarare was working as Ward Officer and was looking
after the affairs of Ward No.D. In the aforesaid

¶55

cwp270.17

¶56

¶57

admission, it would be useful to have a glance to
the Government Notification dated 16th October,
2007, which is reproduced herein below:

¶58

“In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-
section (2) of section 17 of Pre-Conception
andPre-NatalDiagnosticTechniques
(Registration and Prevention of Misuse) Act,
1994 (57 of 1994) and of all other powers
enabling it in that behalf, the Government
of Maharashtra hereby appoints the
AdditionalCollector,Sub-Divisional
Officers, Tahsildars, Nayab Tahsildars,
Commissioners, Deputy Commissioners and Ward
Officers of Municipal Corporation and Chief
Officers of Municipal Councils, to be the
Appropriate Authorities for the purposes of
the said Act, the areas within their
jurisdiction.”

¶59

10.From the aforesaid, and in the light of
admission given by the complainant Shri Vitthal
Dake, it is clear that he was not competent
authority, and the said aspect was rightly
considered by both the Courts below warranting no

¶60

cwp270.17

¶61

¶62

interference in the limited writ jurisdiction of
this Court. Hence the Writ Petition is required to
be dismissed and accordingly it is dismissed. Rule
is discharged.

¶63

 [V.M. DESHPANDE, J.]

¶64

asb/MAR19

Vitthal S/O Digambar Dake v. the State of Maharashra and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vitthal S/O Digambar Dake v. the State of Maharashra and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Yogesh S/O. Vinayakrao Patil Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Namdev S/O. Vishnu Shelke Vs the State of Maharashtra

Arjun S/O. Vikram Badhe Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

The State of Maharashtra Vs Vithal S/O. Pandurang Dhage

Tulshiram S/O. Fakirrao Sonwane Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Shubham Vijay Gaikwad Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others