State of Maharashtra Vs Dr. Arun Sonaji Satpute & others

­1­  R.C.C. No. 368/2005.
State V. Dr. Arun & Ors.,
Received on  :  12.09.2005.
Registered on:  12.09.2005.
Decided on   :  12.01.2012.
Duration     :  Ys. Ms. Ds.
06  04
Exh.No.
IN THE COURT OF CHIEF JUDICIAL
MAGISTRATE
AT BEED.
[Presided over by; S.S. Salvi]
Reg.Cri. Case No. 368/2005.
Advocates; State of Maharashtra through,
Shri.N.N. Dr. B.D. Pawar, Civil Surgeon,
Sable.  Civil Hospital, Beed,
A.G.P.
...Complainant.
VERSUS
Shri.B.K. 1. Dr. Arun Sonaji Satpute,
Jagtap Bhagwan Hospital, Barshi Road,Beed,
Shri.K.P. 2. Dr. Madhav Trimbak Sanap,
Thigle Bhagwan Hospital, Beed.
R/o.Beed.
3. Dr. Sayad TArekh Ahmed,
X­ray, cardiologist, Beed.
...Accused.
Charge:    Under   Sec.3[1],   3[2],   4[3],   5[1],5[2], 29, Rules 6[6], 9[1], 9[4], Rules 10[1], 10[1­
a], 13 punishable  U/S.23, of the Pre­Conception of Pre­Natal Diagnostic Technique [Prohibition]Act.
J U D G M E N T
[Delivered on­ 12 th  Jan, 2012]
1. The   brief   resume   of   facts   leading   to   the case   of   complainant   is   that   Appropriate   Authority
i.e. Civil Surgeon, Beed Dr. B.D. Pawar on 1.09.2005 filed the complaint on hand in the   capacity to be
competent   authority   under   the   Pre­conception   and Pre­Natal Diagnostic Techniques [Prohibition of Sex
Selection]   Act,   1994   [hereinafter   referred   to   be 'PNDT Act' for the sake of brevity] alleging that
under   the   Act   and   Amended   Pre­Conception   and   Pre­ Natal   Diagnostic   Technics   [Prohibition   of   Sex
Selection] Act, 2003 Government Resolutions and the contravention of its Sec. 23[1], 23[3] and 25.
2. The   complainant   further   alleged   that especially   in   Beed   District,   there   being   very   low
ratio of birth of female sex and therefore, under the   Prohibition   of   Sex   Selection   Act,   2003   Adv.
Varsha   Deshpande   and   her   team   alongwith   their  workers namely Kavita Nandakishor Lokhande who was
then carrying pregnancy of 4 months visited Bhagwan Hospital, Barshi Road, Beed belonging to accused 2
to be a decoy woman and the accused doctors 1 to 3 had   got   carried   out   test   of   sex   determination   of
foetus against the consideration of fees Rs. 1050/­.
3. That on 07.09.2005 at about 12.30 noon Smt. Kavita Nandakishor Lokhande, a pregnant woman i.e.
decoy   woman   was   accompanied   by   Adv.   Shaila   Jadhav and Smt. Maya Pawar and visited the hospital of Dr.
Sanap   named   and   styled   to   be   'Bhagwan   Hospital', Beed.
4. That Dr. Sanap i.e. accused 2 conducted the medical examination of the decoy woman namely Smt. Kavita Nandakishor Lokhande and accused 3 Dr. Sayyad T.A. was called from the Civil Hospital, Beed and
got sonography carried out and disclosed the sex of the foetus to Kavita Lokhande and Adv. Shaila Jadhav
whereby they had got the information that there is male   foetus   in   the   uterus.   The   accused   doctors
accepted   fees   Rs.   1050/­   against   the   test   of   sex determination but did not issue the receipt so also
did not obtain consent letter nor filled form 'F' and   thus,   not   complied   with   the   documents   as
prescribed under the Act.
5. That after the confirmation that in Bhagwan Hospital,   the   sex   determination   tests   are   being
carried   out   being   a   Competent   Authority   under   the Act decoy woman and the workers of the team informed
about   the   test   of   sex   determination   carried   out. Accordingly,   the   inspection   of   the   entire   Genetic
Centre   alongwith   its   record,   register,   all   the concerned record, sonography machine registers were
seized and sealed. That Dr. Sanap i.e. accused 2 Dr. Sayyad­ accused No.3 and Dr. Nirale­accused No.4 and
Dr. Satpute i.e. accused No.1 were not present and hence, they were acknowledged to appear before him
on 08.09.2005. Adjourned as Court time is over.
sd
BEED.    [S.S. SALVI]
Dt:29.12.2011. CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE,
BEED.
6. The   Appropriate   Authority   thus,   on  08.09.2005   recorded   the   statements   of   all   the
accused   and   submitted   all   the   seized   registers, sonography machine alongwith the statements of decoy
witnesses and seizure panchanama etc.,.
7. At   last   Appropriate   Authority   i.e.   then Civil   Surgeon   prayed   that   the   accused   No.2   had
disclosed the sex of foetus and for the purpose of determination of sex, Dr. Sayyad i.e. accused No.3
was   called   to   carry   out   the   sonography   test   and disclosed   the   sex   of   the   foetus   who   without   any
authority or proper authorization and ownership of the sonography machine co­operated to determine and
disclose the sex of the foetus. The accused No.1 Dr. Arun let out the sonography machine to accused 1 and
2 registered in his name under the Act and hence, all   the   accused   be   punished   for   the   offences
hereinabove under the P.C.P.N.D.T. Act. It is also to be noted that accused No.4 Dr. Prashant Nirale
who was authorized to run the sonography machine in the Genetic Centre in question but did not maintain
the record regarding pre­examination of the pregnant women   and   hence   he   also   be   punished   according   to
law. Hence, the complaint.
8. Here,   it   is   to   be   noted   that   though   the accused No.4 has been prosecuted by the complainant,
Appropriate Authority, the accused 4 being aggrieved by   the   Court   issuing   process   against   this   accused
made   revision   against   this   order   and   Hon'ble Sessions Court, Beed was pleased to allow the said
revision and set aside the order of this Court on 25.05.2006. As such, the name of accused 4 has been
deleted   and   the   present   trial   is   being   proceeded against the present accused 1 to 3. The certified
copy of the revision and its order had already been filed on record by the accused No.4.
9. During   the   further   course   of   trial,   then Ld. C.J.M. was pleased to frame the charge against
accused 1 to 3 on 01.07.2008 under the provisions of Sec. 23 [1], 23[3] and2[25] of the P.C.P.N.D.T. Act.
Of   course   particulars   of   charge   were   explained   to the   accused,   all   accused   denied   the   charges   and
prayed for trial. Their defence is never the machine was used fo sex determination and as such, no any
such an alleged offences are made out. Admittedly, they are falsely involved in this case on account of
jealousy and prosecuted. During the further course of trial The Ld. A.G.P.moved application for framing
addditional charges in view of the evidence received on   the   record   and   the   same   was   decided   by   this
Court. Therefore, again the fresh charge were read over   to   the   accused.   And   despite   opportunities   to
re­cross­examination,   the   accused   did   not   cross examined not adduced any evidence.
10. During the further course of the trial and after taking into consideration facts,   as well as
upon going through the documents,I have framed the following points for my determination and recorded
my findings thereon for the reasons stated and well discussed below;
POINTS; FINDINGS;
1.  Does complainant prove  that the accused No.2 on 07.09.2005,at about 12.30
P.M. without any registered licence helped and conducted Pre­natal Diagnostic
Techniques test and thereby committed an offence under  Sec. 3[1] punishable under   Acquitted,  Sec. 23[1] of this Act? ..In the Negative.
2. Does complainant further prove that  on the same day, time and place  accused No.2 employed and
availed the services of accused No. 3 though who had no authority
to serve so and thereby committed an offence under Sec.3[2]of
Pre­Conception and Pre­Natal  Diagnostic Technique Punishable
U/S.23 of the Act? ..In the Affirmative.
3. Does further complainant  prove that on the aforesaid day, time and place accused
No.2 being Gynaecologist  without registered Authority under this Act
conduct or cause to be conducted P.N.D.T.Test by himself and through
accused 3 conducted and thereby committed an offence under Sec. 4[3]
punishableU/S.23 of the Act?..In the Affirmative
4. Does complainant further prove that  on the aforesaid date, time
and place,accused 2 and 3 conducted P.C.P.N.D.T.
test without reasons satisfying  themselves any of the condition
provided under the Act and thereby committed an offence under
Sec. 4[3] of the Act which is  punishable under Sec. 25  of the Act? ..In the Affirmative.

5. Does further complainant  prove that accused 2 and 3
failed to obtain a written consent from  decoy Patient
i.e. Smt. Kavita Lokhande   and deliberately communicated her
sex of her foetus and thereby committed an offence under
Sec. 5[1] and 5[2] of the P.C.  P.C.P.N.D.T. Act which is
punishable under Sec. 23 of the Act? ..In the Affirmative.
6. Does further complainant  prove that accused 2 failed to maintain the record and
all other documents required to be maintained under
this Act and thereby committed an offence under Sec. 29 of
the P.N.D.T. Act which is  punishable under Sec. 23 of the Act?  ..In the Affirmative.
7. Does complainant prove that the accused No.1 changed the
management of the Genetic Laboratory without surren­
­dering the same to the  appropriate authority and  thereby committed offence of  Contravention of Rules 6[6]
and punishable under S. 23 of the P.N.D.T. Act? ..In the Affirmative.
8.  Does complainant further prove that accused 1 to 3
failed to maintain register showing names and addresses of men
or women subjected to Pre­ Natal Diagnostic Test and
also failed to maintain  record in respect of each
man and woman, subjected to Pre­Natal Diagnostic Test
as prescribed in 'Form F'  and thereby committed an
offence in contravention of  Rules 9[1] and 9[4] which is
punishable under Sec. 23
of the P.N.D.T. Act?  ..In the Affirmative.
9. Does complainant further
prove that accused 2 and 3
failed to obtain written consent
of Kavita Lokhande before
conducting pre­natal diagnostic
test and failed to give
declaration of not disclosing
sex of foetus of Kavita
Lokhande and failed to obtain
declaration from Kavita
Lokhande that she does not
want to know the sex of her
foetus and thereby contravened
the provision of Rules 10[1] and
10[1­a] punishable under Sec.
23 of the Act? ..In the Affirmative.

10. Does further complainant
prove that accused 1 to 3
failed to intimate change of
the employee and equipment
installed to the Appropriate
Authority and contravened
the provision of Sec. 13
punishable under Sec. 25
of the P.N.D.T. Act? ..In the Affirmative.
11.What order? ..As per final order.

R E A S O N S;
AS TO POINT NO.1 TO 10;
11. As the points 1 to 10 are interlinked with
each other, they are discussed simultaneously.
At   the   very   outset   and   before   proceeding
further for discussion, here it would be worth and
proper   to   quote   an   admitted   fact   in   the   case   on
hand, it is not in dispute that the complainant P.W.
1   Dr.   B.D.   Pawar   was   then   C.S.   i.e.   Appropriate
Authority under the Act working at Beed. Of course,
therefore, he is bound to work assigned to him by
the State Government of Maharashtra and especially
under the PCPNDT Act being appropriate authority.  So
far as the sting operation i.e. raid I think from
the statement of accused u/s. 313 of the Cr.P.C.it
is   also   admitted   that   the   sting   operation   was
carried   out.   But   according   to   defence,   no   sex
determination test was carried out or sex of foetus
was   disclosed   by   anybody   from   the   doctors   i.e.
accused   to   the   pregnant   woman.   Thus,   Bhagwan
Hospital and registered Genetic Centre or Laboratory
namely Varad at Beed owned by accused 2 is also not
in   dispute.   Similarly,   it   is   also   not   in   dispute
that   the   sonography   machine   is   registered   in   the
name   of   accused   No.1   and   Dr.   Nirale   was   the
recognized   operator   appointed   by   appropriate
authority i.e.C.S. Beed.
12. Except   the   aforesaid   an   admitted   facts,
there   is   dispute   and   controversy   amongst   the
complainant and accused so as to P.C.P.N.D.T. test
conducted and carried out by the accused No.2 and 3,
so   also   the   disclosure   of   sex   of   foetus   to   the
complainant   or   the   employment   of   accused   No.3   at
Bhagwan Hospital. In short, the defence has denied
the entire allegations of complainant that accused 1
to   3   without   any   registered   licence   helped   and
conducted   P.C.P.N.D.T.   test,   so   also   availed   an
employment,   the   service   of   accused   No.3   though   he
had no authority to serve so and accused No.2 being
Gynacologist without registered authority under this
Act   to   conduct   or   to   cause   to   conduct   or   to   be
conducted   by   himself   and   through   accused   No.3
conducted   P.C.P.N.D.T.   test   without   reasons
satisfying themselves any of the condition provided
under the Act and communicated her sex of foetus to
decoy   patient   and   did   not   maintain   the   record
required to be maintained under the Act. Similarly,
Changed   the   management   of   the   Genetic   Laboratory
without   surrendering   the   same   to   the   Appropriate
Authority   and   also   failed   to   maintain   register
showing   names   and   addresses   of   men   and   women
subjected to P.C.P.N.D.T test as prescribed in form
'A'  and   failed   to   take   declaration   or   did   not
disclose sex of foetus so also obtaining declaration
from Kavita that she does not want to know the sex
of   her   foetus   and   at   last   failed   to   intimate   the
change   of   employee   and   equipment   installed   to   the
Appropriate Authority.
13. Now,   in   view   of   the   aforesaid   controversy
and dispute, let us scrutinize and examine, scan the
testimony   adduced   by   the   complainant   to   bring   he
guilt   of   accused   to   home   and   to   find   out   as   to
whether   prosecution   has   established   the   charges,
allegations leveled against the accused. In the very
beginning, prosecution has examined material witness
P.W.1   i.e.   complainant   i.e.   appropriate   authority
under   the   Act   Mr.   Dr.   Bhaskar   Dnyandeo   Pawar   the
then   Ld.   C.S.   Beed.   The   P.W.1   Civil   Surgeon   has
categorically   stated   the   entire   episode   dated
07.09.2005   in   toto.   The   P.W.1   has   categorically
stated   that   accused   No.2   Dr.   M.T.   Sanap   disclosed
the   sex   of   foetus   and   he   called   accused   No.3
Sonologist in the hospital to examine decoy patient
Kavita   Lokhande   for   sex   determination.   The   P.W.1
also   further   added   that   accused   No.3   Dr.   Sayyyad
T.A.   used   sonography   machine   un­authorizedly   to
detect   the   sex   of   the   foetus.   P.W.1   also   deposed
that   Dr.   Satpute   i.e.   accused   No.1   has   given
registered machine to use other persons. Thus, P.W.1
complainant has corroborated the entire contents of
the complainant so also admitted his signature and
thereby the complaint has been duly proved in the
evidence   at   Exh.1.   The   P.W.1   also   identified   the
articles seized by him during the course of sting
operation and his investigation.
14. The P.W.1 in addition to his oral evidence
also filed and relied upon documents at Exh.1 to 11
and   copy   of   Government   Resolution   [Exh.51],
certificate   of   registration   [Exh.52],   Certificate
from   Varad   Diagnostic   Centre   [Exh.53],   affidavit­
cum­undertaking   prescribed   under   the   Act   [Exh.54].
The   P.W.1   also   further   identified   that   all   the
accused 1 to 3 before the Court and stated that all
the   accused   committed   violation   of   the   Act   i.e.
disclosure of sex of foetus, not giving receipt of
it,   not   keeping   particular   record   as   per   the
Act,etc.,.
15. As   against   the   aforesaid   testimony   of
material witness P.W.1, the Ld. defence counsel for
accused   No.1   cross­examined   the   P.W.1   appropriate
authority   at   a   length.   The   P.W.1   in   his   cross­
examination   admitted   that   accused   No.1   Dr.   Arun
Satpute has obtained permission/registration of the
centre as per Sec. 18 of the P.C.P.N.D.T.Act. The
permission was valid upto 15.03.2007.  The contents
of Exh.52 are correct and the certificate given by
Dr. Jadhav, previous C.S. Exh.52 shows the place of
centre   at   Bhagwan   Hospital,   Beed.   Affidavit­cum­
undertaking Exh.54 states that centre allotted may
not be misused or machine will not be misused as per
this   Act.   I   think   that   all   the   aforesaid   facts,
admissions are not in dispute and resultantly, there
is   nothing   helpful   to   defence   from   the   cross
examination   of   complainant   till   this   juncture.   In
the next para of cross examination, the P.W.1 has
admitted   that   Dr.   Prashant   Nirale   is   having
authority and qualified radiologist who works as a
radiologist in Bhagwan Hosptal, Beed and his consent
letter   was  given  to  him  as  well  as  to  the  centre
regarding call to be attended by Dr. Nirale which is
at   Exh.53.   In   this   para   two   of   cross­examination
too,   nothing   appears   to   be   helpful   to   defence.
Still,   in   the   next   para   when   the   suggestion   was
put,the same has been denied by the P.W.1 that Dr.
Arun Satpute misused sonography machine. In the next
breath, P.W.1 admitted that except Dr. Nirale, Dr.
Satpute   has   not   authorized   any   one   to   use   the
machine.   Though   the   aforesaid   admission   ostensibly
appears to be in favour of defence, it doesn't mean
that P.W.1 has denied its uses by accused No.3. The
P.W.1 also furher denied the suggestion that on the
complaint   of   some   social   workers,   he   has   falsely
implicated Dr. Arun Satpute in this case.
16. To   conclude,   so   far   as   the   cross
examination for accused No.1 Ld. counsel for defence
I think that nothing has been transpired to discard
the testimony of P.W.1 or disbelieve the prosecution
story in the instant case.
17. During   the   further   course   of   cross
examination by Sr. counsel for accused 2 and 3, the
P.W.1 has admitted that in 2005, Advisory Committee
was formed in district under the Act. The chairman
of above committee was Dr. Vaidya, Adv. Smt. Kute,
Mrs.   Kale,   Shri.   Wahed   Deshmukh­Social   Member,
D.G.P. Member secretary. It is also further admitted
by   P.W.1   that   there   is   no   any   complaint   about
hospital   of   Dr.   Sanap   about   illegal   use   of
sonography   towards   Advisory   Committee   before
07.09.2005. There is also no oral complaint in that
regard   towards   Advisory   Committee   or   to   himself.
There   were   regular   meetings   of   the   committee.
Despite   the   aforesaid   admissions   which   are   not
beneficial   to   defence,   the   P.W.1   denied   the
suggestion that before taking any action, a member
is   required   to   obtain   the   advice   of   Advisory
Committee.
Adjourned as Court time is over.
sd
BEED. [S.S. SALVI ]
Dt: 05.01.2012. CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE,  BEED.
18. There   is   also   further   huge   cross­
examination and I have gone through it but the same
is irrelevant, immaterial and unnecessary.
In the further cross examination, the P.W.1
has fairly conceded that prior to the present sting
operation, he was not knowing Adv. Varsha Deshpande,
Adv.   Shaila   Jadhav,   Maya   Pawar   and   decoy   patient
Kavita   Lokhande   who   are   from   Satara   district,
Maharashtra. The further suggestion by Ld. defence
counsel   is   as   to   whether   P.W.1   obtained   any
information   of   information   in   writing   how   above
referred 4 ladies obtained the information that the
alleged contravention of the Act is to be there in
the   hospital   of   Dr.   Sanap.   So   far   as   this
suggestion,   I   think   it   is   also   immaterial   or
irrelevant as P.W.1 is not concerned with the same
because   it   is   a   drive   launched   by   the   Health
Department,   State   of   Maharashtra   to   have   check   or
prohibition upon the sex determination since there
is considerable decrease in the birth ratio of girls
especially   in   Maharashtra.   The   team   of   the   sting
operation,   therefore,   working   in   the   interest   of
public   at   large   to   prohibit   and   prevent   such   sex
determination   and   giving   its   participation   in   the
drive launched by the Government. Even it has come
in   the   evidence   that   the   aforesaid   unit   of   sting
operation   has   already   effected   number   of   sting
operations all over State of Maharashtra and thereby
certainly there is check and control over all such
activities   by   the   concerned   in   sex   determination
test. There is further cross examination regarding
the actual sting operation carried out but it is the
usual   practice   that   to   avoid   the   information   to
concerned genetic centre always the sting operations
are   being   carried   out   earlier   and   then   it   is
intimated   to   the   Appropriate   Authority   i.e.   Civil
Surgeon   of   the   jurisdiction   wherein   the   sting
operation has been conducted or carried out. Again
the   further   suggestion   is   put   as   to   whether   pre­
permission of the Appropriate Authority is necessary
before sting operation and P.W.1 replied that he has
no   idea.   I  think   under   the  Act,  no  any   such  pre­
permission   is   required   to   conduct   the   sting
operation and therefore, there is nothing wrong on
the part of sting operation unit as initially the
sting operation was carried out and then intimation
have given and Appropriate Authority was called for
at the Bhagwan hospital. There is again huge cross
examination   which   is   immaterial,   irrelevant,
unnecessary and therefore, I think it need not be
discussed. In the cross examination page 7, by Ld.
Sr. counsel, question was put to the P.W.1 regarding
noting of members of currency notes prior to sting
operation   towards   fees   of   sex   determination   test.
The P.W.1 has replied that he did not enquire about
it and I think it is also not material suggestion as
it is not Anti­corruption raid. It is the contention
of   the   prosecution   here   that   an   amount   worth   Rs.
1050/­   was   charged   towards   the   fees   for   the   sex
determination   test   and   Rs.   30/­   towards   the
consultation fees. Admittedly, there is no any such
receipt received in the investigation from the unit
or decoitation but here it is to be noted that when
here is ban to sex determination test and the test
is being carried out against the provisions of law,
it is not expected that the officer of the genetic
centre   laboratory   will   give   any   writing   evidence
like receipt, still the OPD register which is seized
by   the   P.W.1   being   offence,   presumption   under   the
provisions   of   Act,   for   the   sting   operation   dated
07.09.2005 there is entry of acceptance of Rs.30/­
from Kavita Lokhande who has been shown to be decoy
woman. Of course, the decoy woman participating in
sting operation who already been disclosed the sex.
Again it is very pertinent to note that the author
of the register he will not remember who maintain it
today, they may proved in the course of evidence, on
the right hand of the upper side of the page, there
is   date   written   as   07.09.2005   and   in   the   date
column,   it   is   not   numbered   but   maintained   day   to
day. They may proved in the course of evidence, on
the   right   hand   of   the   upper   side   of   the   page   as
07.09.2005 and anybody also see the date but in the
date   column   in   the   same   page   by   making   again   to
clear to show. In conclusion  regarding the date by
one   deliberately   attempt   of   eraser   in   it.   The
registers were seized after sting operation. Anyway
from   the   entry   at   Sr.No.   15,   I   am   satisfied   that
date   is   there   regarding   the     sting   operation   as
07.09.2005 and acceptance of consultation fees Rs.
30/­. In my considered opinion, it is material piece
of   evidence   which   goes   to   prove     entire   sting
operation.   In   the   result,   the   aforesaid   cross­
examination regarding the numbers of currency notes
or issuance of receipt by the accused 1 to 3 does
not appear helpful to defence.
19. There is further cross­examination that in
the   register,   there   is   handwriting   of   Adv.   Jadhav
and the same is admitted by P.W.1. P.W.1 denied that
the   statements   filed   with   complaint   are   not   in
handwriting   were   recorded   after   a   trap.   I   think
there is nothing any wrong on the part of P.W.1 to
get   the   statements   recorded   or   are   in   the
handwriting of Mrs. Jadhav were not recorded in his
presence after the sting operation. Here it is to be
noted that all the provisions of Criminal Procedure
are   applicable   to   the   present   Act   and   especially
Sec.   30   of   the   Act     empowers   the   Appropriate
Authority   under   the   Act   and   Rules   1996.   Every
Appropriate Authority or any officer authorized in
this   behalf   may   subject   to   such   rules   as   may   be
prescribed, enter and search in all reasonable time,
which such assistance, if   any as such Authoity of
officer considers necessary, such genetic counseling
centre, genetic   laboratory, genetic clinic or any
other   place   and   examined   any   record,   register,
document, book pamphlet advertisement or any other
material object found therein and seize and seal the
same   if   such   authority   or   officer   has   reason   to
believe that it may furnish evidence of commission
of an offence punishable under this Act.   There is
further   sub   section   2   which   provides   that   the
provisions of Cr.P.C. 19763 [2 of 1974] relating to
search and seize shall so far as may be applied the
searches   and     seizure   made   under   this   Act.   Thus,
therefore, in view of the aforesaid provisions, the
searches,   investigation   by   P.W.1,   Appropriate
Authority in accordance with the provisions of law,
there   cannot   be   any   question   regarding   the
investigation   by   P.W.1.   In   the   further   cross
examination the P.W.1 has admitted that sonography
register   required   to   be   maintained   was   by   Dr.
Nirale. It is true that authorized authority of the
sonography machine was Dr. Nirale. It is true that
arrangement of sonography regarding patient was in
separate   room.   So   far   as   all   the   aforesaid
suggestions,   I   think   there   is   no   dispute   or
controversy and it is not at all material or helpful
to   accused.   Because   it   is   the   case   of
complainant/prosecution   that   th   P.N.D.T.   test   in
this sting operation  was carried out by accused No.
3 Dr. Sayyad T.A. and not by Dr. Nirale. Further so
far as the location of the sonography room etc.,. I
am of the opinion that it is also not material as it
is one of the premises of the Bhagwan Hospital. It
is also further admitted by P.W.1 that Dr. Sayyad
was attached to District Hospital which is not in
dispute. There is further admission by P.W.1 which
needs to be considered cautiously, carefully as P.W.
1 has admitted that there was no evidence before him
whether   the   4   ladies   were   part   of   the   sting
operation were knowing previously Dr. Sanap or not.
The P.W.1 here could not stated as to the previous
introduction of Dr. Sayyad Tarek still this is the
question not within the knowledge of P.W.1 as the
members   of   the   sting   operation   may   be   knowing   or
they might have enquired with the patients or the
persons   present   in   the   hospital   or   sonography
machine room as they all are highly educated persons
especially   Adv.Smt.   Jadhav   was   there   in   sting
operation and therefore, there is no any possibility
of   himself,   mis­identity   of   accused   No.3.   In   the
circumstances, I think this question or suggestion
also   does   not   affect   the   case   of   complainant
otherwise. There is further admission by P.W.1 that
at   the   time   of   sting   operation   working   hours   of
Civil Hospital, Beed were from 8.00 A.M. to 12.00
noon and 4.30 to 5.30 P.M. [Apart from emergency].
The defence herein has put the suggestion as it is
the   case   of   complainant   that   P.W.3   who   is   the
Government   employee   i.e.   Radiologist   from   Civil
Hospital,   Beed   carried   out   the   sex   determination
text at 12.30 noon. So far as the location of both
the hospitals, Bhagwan Hospital and Civil Hospital,
they are just adjoining, just walking distance of 5
minutes,   as   I   have   personally   inspected   both   the
sites. Thus, it is not much important or as to the
presence   of   accused   No.3   in   sonography   room   in
Bhagwan Hospital. What I have discussed earlier as
regards   the   identity   of   accused   3,   Ld.   defence
counsel put the question to P.W.1 as to whether he
did   not   feel   it   necessary   to   carry   identification
parade of Dr. Sayyad Tarek from the ladies members
of sting operation to which C.S. P.W.1 has replied
in the negative. I have already discussed that the
members   of   the   sting   operation   consist   highly
educated persons like advocate and therefore, it is
very  right  on  the  point  of  P.W.1  that  he  did   not
feel   necessary   to   have   identification   parade   from
the ladies of sting operation. It is also further
admitted   by   P.W.1   that   on   his   arrival   in   the
hospital, accused No.3 was not present there. So far
as this admission, all the while during the course
of hearing of this case, it has come on record that
after the sex determination test and sting operation
all   the   accused     1   to   3   all   went   away   from   the
hospital and it took about half to1 hours to P.W.1
to   reach   Bhagwan   Hospital   after   receipt   of
information   of   the   sting   operation   members.   Of
course, therefore, it is an admitted position that
accused 3 was not present on the arrival of P.W.1 in
the   Bhagwan   Hospital.   The   P.W.1   also   further
admitted that he cannot say whether on that day, Dr.
Sayyad   Tarek   went   towards   Dr.   Sanap     or   Bhagwan
Hospital. So far as this admission, P.W.1 has fairly
admitted as on his arrival Dr. Tarek i.e. accused 3
was   not   present   and   went   towards   Dr,   Sanap   or
Bhagwan   Hospital.   Therefore,   all   these   admissions
though appear ostensibly in favour of the defence;
after its careful consideration, I do not find that
they are helpful to defence and thereby the case of
complainant has been affected otherwise.
20. In the next para in the cross­ examination
it   is   suggestion   that   Dr.   Nirale   was   one   of   the
accused previously and it is fact about which I have
already stated in the very beginning of my Judgment.
It   is   also   admitted   by   P.W.1   that   authorized
operator   or   doctor   of   sonography   machine   is
responsible if he hand over the machine for illegal
purpose. I do agree with the suggestion hereinabove
but at the same time if the owner of the hospital
possessing     the   sonography   machine   room   and   allow
somebody else to conduct sex determination test, I
think   he   will   also   be   responsible   alongwith   the
authorized   operator.   Furthermore,   in   the   routine
course   whenever   an   employee   employed   for   some
particular purpose after his work, he may leave the
room with the permission of owner of the hospital
and thereby the responsibility cannot be denied by
the owner of the hospital. Therefore, rightly P.W.1,
Ld. C.S. has stated that he does not know or he has
no idea whether the room  wherein sonography machine
was kept; only Mr. Nirale whose without permission,
room   cannot   be   opened.   The   P.W.1   has   further
admitted that Dr. Sanap was not having knowledge of
radiology which is admitted fact. Still it is also
admitted fact that accused No.2 is Gynaecologist. It
is   also   admitted   that   Dr.   Sanap   never   operated
sonography machine and at the same time it is not
contention   or   allegation   of   prosecution   that   Dr.
Sanap has operated sonography machine to determine
sex   in   the   instant   case.   The   P.W.1   has   further
admitted that he had not enquired whether on that
day Kavita Lokhande was examined as a patient by Dr.
Sanap and about entry of examination in the patient
register. So far as this suggestion, I have already
discussed about the OPD register wherein the name of
decoy woman Kavita Lokhande has been shown at Sr.
No. 15. In view of this fact, I think the aforesaid
admission does not sustain and also does not affect
the case of complainant. There is further suggestion
regarding the possession of Rs. 1050/­ with Kavita
i.e.   decoy   woman   or   Varsha   Deshpande   was   produced
before   him.   It   is   admitted   fact   that   the   sting
operation in question was conducted earlier and then
its   information   was   supplied   to   Ld.   C.S.Beed.
Therefore,   question   does   not   arise   as   to   the
evidence   regarding   possession   of   Rs.   1050/­   with
Kavita or Varsha Deshpande or search of cash from
Dr. Sanap. I have already discussed about this that
pre­natal   diagnostic   sex   determination   itself   in
contravention of the provisions of the Act and Rules
therefore one cannot issue receipt as it is a crime.
It   is   very   simple   logic   that   a   person   committing
offence may not give any sort of evidence against
him. Even as before the test decoy woman when the
receipt of admission for sex determination test was
asked, the same was denied by accused. Therefore, it
cannot be said that for want of receipt, evidence of
prosecution is false or concocted.
21. In   the   next   para   of   page   9,   P.W.1   had
admitted   that   on   his   arrival,   accused   No.2   was
present   in   the   operation   theatre   in   the   Bhagwan
Hospital.   The   P.W.1   could   not   state   its   exact
timing.   Much   admitted   one   is   that   no   prior
permission was obtained by him before his operation
in view of this admission. It is be noted that under
the provision of Sec. 30 of the Act, the Appropriate
Authority   has   authority   to   enter,   search   or   seize
the articles or machine, documents, papers etc.,. Of
course, therefore, the question of prior permission
does not arise.
22. In this para at last, a material suggestion
was   put   by   Ld.   Defence   counsel   as   to   Dr.   Sayyad
Tarek,   accused   3   did   not   carry   sex   determination
test on that date either at Bhagwan Hospital towards
Dr.   Satpute's   Sonography   Centre   or   towards   Dr.
Satpute's   sonography   centre.   To   this   suggestion,
P.W.1 has straightway denied and thereby the defence
has   no   any   opportunity   to   claim   that   Dr.   Sayyad
Tarek did not carry out sex determination test on
07.09.2005   at   Bhagwan   Hospital   or   towards   Dr.
Satpute's Sonography Centre. The Ld. Sr. counsel for
defence   has   very   wisely   twisted   this   question   by
putting the question of Bhagwan Hospital is towards
the Satpute's Sonography Centre. In fact, it is part
and   parcel   i.e.   one   of   the   premises   of   Bhagwan
Hospital   wherein   there   was   sonography   machine     of
Dr.   Satpute   which   was   used   to   conduct   such   sex
determination test. As such as suggested these are
not two distinct premises but it is one and the same
, named and styled to be Bhagwan Hospital. At last,
the Ld. Defence counsel has put the suggestion that
accused   2   Dr.   Sanap   is   a   Gynaecologist   having
maternity home and it is admitted by P.W.1. From the
aforesaid suggestion, an inference may also be drawn
that being a maternity home, the sting unit might
have chosen the place i.e. Bhagwan Hospital for the
sting operation. At last, it is the suggestion that
to   extract   the   money   from   the   Government   Servant,
Varsha Deshpande and others carried the false sting
operation and the same is denied by P.W.1. The next
suggestion was also put that Dr. M.T. Sanap did not
disclose   the   sex   of   foetus   and   he   has   not   called
sonologist i.e. accused No.3 Tarek in his hospital
to   examine   Ms.   Kavita   Lokhande   for   sex
determination.   Both   the   aforesaid   suggestions   are
denied by P.W.1 and resultantly, they are not at all
useful   or   helpful   to   defence.   There   is   one   more
material   suggestion   to   this   witness   P.W.1   that   no
signature of either of the accused was obtained on
panchanama or no copy of panchanama was given to any
of the accused. I think it is at the most procedural
error by the Appropriate Authority as they are not
police officers investigating the crimes day to day.
Therefore, such infirmity or irregularity need not
to be considered by giving utmost importance   but
may be ignored and in future such irregularities are
not   expected   from   the   P.W.1.   The   last   suggestion
which is also admitted that the panchas were called
by   Varsha   Deshpande.   I   think   so   far   as   this
admission so far as panch witnesses, there is no any
such rule or procedure or provision under the Act
that a member of the sting operation is not entitled
to   call   the   panch   witnesses   during   the   course   of
investigation. Again so far as this fact, it is to
be noted that had the panchas would have been not
called by the leader of the sting operation, nobody
would   have   been   ready   or   prepared   to   work   to   be
panch witnesses from the local place as we noticed
that now­a­days public at large they do not want to
perform their liabilities or the obligations towards
public at large. Resultantly, I find that there is
nothing wrong that the leader and head of the squad
of sting operation called panchas.
23. Being an unique case on hand, I think it is
not   expected   like   the   police   cases.   In   this   case
from   the   present   I.O.   i.e.   P.W.1   he   has   been
assigned the work of investigation under the Act.
24. To sum up, the evidence of P.W.12 material
witness   in   view   of   my   aforesaid   detail   and   an
elaborate   discussion,   there   is   nothing   helpful   to
defence per contra, the entire testimony of P.W.1 is
up to the mark, reliable, trustworthy, considering
the status of the witness.
25. The prosecution further examined P.W.2 who
is also star witness and that is decoy woman who has
worked for the sting operation. The P.W.2 has also
stated   and   supported   entire   story   regarding   the
episode of sting operation dated 07.09.2005 in toto,
except minor and immaterial contradictions. The P.W.
2   further   stated   details   regarding   the   U.S.G.   and
specifically   mentioned   that   accused   3   after   the
U.S.G., disclosed her about the sex of her foetus
that she has son i.e. male issue in her womb. The
P.W.2 also further deposed that she paid Rs. 1050/­
i.e. two currency notes of 500 each and one currency
note of Rs. 50/­. This amount was paid, offered for
checking i.e.sex determination. Even two more women
were   present   and   they   were   also   examined   for   the
determination   of   sex   i.e.   USG.   Dr.   Sanap,   accused
No.2   gave   her   prescription   and   then   they   came
outside. The P.W.2 also added that she did not sign
after or before the USG examination as she was never
asked   to   sign   being   a   sex   determination   test   nor
accused obtained any form from her. In fact, under
the   provisions   of   the   Act   in   question,   affidavit­
cum­declaration so also, form 'F' and other record
which   is   necessary   to   be   obtained   by   the   doctor
concerned from the accused herein, before conducting
any such sex determination test. At last, according
to P.W.2 after the sting operation, its information,
intimation to C.S. was given and her statement was
recorded by the P.W.1, Appropriate Authority in this
connection   in   the   Civil   Hospital   i.e.   General
Hospital, Beed as per her narration.
26. Afterwards,   when   the   turn   of   cross­
examination for defence comes, the Ld. counsel for
accused   1   declined   to   cross­examine   the   P.W.2.
Thereon,   Ld.   Sr.   Counsel   Shri.   K.P.Thigle   for
accused No.2 and 3 cross examined this witness at a
length   in   order   to   bring   the   truth   on   record   and
falsify the case of complainant. I have gone through
the   entire   cross   examination   which   in   my   opinion
appears   to   be   unnecessary   or   irrelevant   in   its
majority.   Still,   on   page   5,   the   P.W.2   when   asked
about her delivery, she has stated that in the month
of December, 2005 she has delivered a child. Here,
it is to be noted that from the date of delivery, it
can   easily   gather   that   at   the   time   of   sting
operation, the P.W.2 must be carrying pregnancy for
a period of 4 to 5 months which is disputed by the
defence. The P.W.2 also further categorically stated
that she worked to be a decoy woman twice, once at
Beed and the another at Karad Dist., Satara. In the
further   cross­examination,   it   has   come   on   record
that no written consent was obtained by Adv. Varsha
Deshpande for USG from P.W.2. In fact there is no
any such provision under the Act and therefore, this
suggestion put to P.W.2 is unnecessary and burdening
the   record.   The   expenses   to   come   to   Beed   were
admittedly   borne   by   Adv.   Varsha   Deshpande   and   it
does not affect the complainant's story. The P.W.2
in   her   further   cross   examination   categorically
stated   that   Varsha   Deshpande   did   not   pay   anything
against   the   decoy   woman.   In   the   same   fashion   and
manner, there is also further huge cross examination
but to my judicious considered mind,e there does not
appear any substance or material helpful to defence
to falsify the case of complainant. Majority cross
examination   on   record   is   certainly   immaterial,
irrelevant, unnecessary, burdening the record.
27. In the further cross examination, the P.W.2
admitted that she knows the affidavit but did not
make any affidavit before going to this task i.e.
sex determination test. From the aforesaid admission
or evidence of the P.W.2, it can be easily gathered
that   the   accused   herein   did   not   follow   the
prescribed   procedure   before   the   sex   determination
test and thereby contravened the provisions of the
Act and Rules. The P.W.2 further stated that while
giving statement to Mr. Pawar, Shaila Jadhav paid to
Dr. Pawar but she cannot assign any reason why it is
not mentioned in her statement. So also, there is no
mention about registering her name to Dr. Pawar. The
P.W.2 might have been not understood the suggestion
nor it is there in her statement as such, her such
testimony   cannot   help   to   defence   to   discard   or
falsify   the   complainant's   story.   Because   the
question   of   payment   to   C.S.   i.e.   Appropriate
Authority   does   not   arise   nor   question   of
registration too with the C.S. arises. It has also
further   come   in   the   cross   examination   that   till
leaving the rest house, there was no any destination
i.e.   name   of   hospital   proposed   to   be   visited   was
fixed   and   as   such   there   cannot   be   any   grudge,
grievance against the accused herein or especially
Bhagwan Hospital to effect sting operation which is
the defence of the accused. On the contrary, when
they   enquired   about   the   name   of   hospital   for
checking   or   consultation   for   pregnant   women,   the
rikshaw­wala suggested the name of Bhagwan Hospital
in the routine course.  Thus, it is again clear that
there was no any pre­planned trap or deliberate trap
out of the professional jealousy or at the instance
of any other medical practitioner practicing in the
same field. The P.W.2 also further stated in cross
examination that they were in General Hospital, Beed
till 9.00 A.M. and then went to Bhagwan Hospital,
Beed at 12.30 P.M. which is also corroborating story
of   P.W.1   regarding   the   sex   determination   test   at
12.30 noon. Similarly, in the next breath the P.W.2
has also straightway denied the suggestion that from
9.00 A.M. to 12.30 P.M. they were busy in conspiracy
of trap. In my opinion, even there is no any moto on
the   part   of   this   team   and   unit   regarding   the
proposed sting operation as they are from Satara and
from not local place so also, the unit is working
all   over   Maharashtra   for   the   Prevention   of   Sex
Determination   Test,   in   the   interest   of   public   at
large.   Resultantly,   the   defence   put   up   by   the
witness too does not appear probable or acceptable
one.
28. On page 5, the P.W.2 even during her cross
examination stated that Dr. Sayyad examined her and
accepted   fees   for   examination   Rs.   1050/­.   In   the
next   breath,   the   P.W.2   admitted   that   she   has   not
stated   so   while   recording   her   statement   by   Dr.
Pawar.   Here,   so   far   as   this   improvement,   P.W.1
appropriate   authority   an   investigation   officer,   in
his examination­in­chief stated that accused No. 2
and 3 after the sex determination test disclosed the
sex   of   foetus   and   accepted   an   amount   worth   Rs.
1050/­ towards fees of examination. In view of the
aforesaid   evidence   of   the   P.W.1,   I   think   the
improvement   may   be   read   in   evidence   and   does   not
affect   the   prosecution   case.   Furthermore,   the   OPD
register also corroborates the version of P.W.2. So
far   as   the   rest   of   cross   examination,   except   the
denials, there is nothing in favour of defence to
discard the testimony of P.W.2 a material and star
witness. In the result, I find that the evidence of
P.W.2   is   also   up   to   the   mark   and   its   standard
required   under   the   rules   of   Evidence   Act.
Resultantly,   there   does   not   appear   any   scope   for
defence, i the cross examination of P.W.2
29. There   is   further   evidence   of   P.W.3,   a
member   of   the   sting   operation   unit   Smt.   Shaila
Jadhav,   advocate   by   profession.   The   P.W.3   too   has
stated that she works as an advocate and also for
Dalit Mahila Vikas Mandal, Satara whenever she gets
time. She has also further stated that she used to
work in respect of women. The aforesaid institution
works since 2003. In the society, there is decrease
in   the   quantity   of   girls.   So,   they   work   in   that
respect.
30. The P.W.3 also further categorically stated
about the sting operation dated 7th Sep, 2005. The
P.W.3 has further added that all the units had short
halt   at   rest   house,   Beed   and   then   at   about   12.30
P.M. after taking meal, they came out and informed
C.S. Pawar. They received appointment for checking
son or daughter, on that day at first they went to
Bhagwan   Hospital.   At   Bhagwan   Hospital,   there   was
compounder   and   the   name   of   decoy   woman   was
registered. The compounder told to deposit Rs. 30/­,
they were deposited. Thereon, they told compounder
that   they   wanted   to   check   the   gender   and   then
compounder told to wait and meet to doctor. After 10
minutes, doctor called them. Decoy woman Kavita i.e.
P.W.2 and 3 went inside, accused 2 examined Kavita.
P.W.3 told doctor that Kavita Lokhande is patient of
fits and she wants to keep only one foetus and so,
they wanted to get confirmed that whether  there is
son or daughter. The doctor asked them to wait for
10 minutes. Then he has sent a chit to deposit Rs.
1050/­.   Accordingly,   she   deposited   two   currency
notes of 500 each and one, Rs. 50/­. She demanded
the   receipt   against   the   payment   but   it   was   not
issued. Afterwards, after about one hour, Kavita was
called for USG. Accordingly Kavita, Maya Pawar, she
herself went inside. Inside Dr. Sanap and Dr. Sayyad
i.e. accused 2 and 3 were there. After going inside,
Dr.   Sayyad   made   USG   test   of   2/3   pregnant   ladies,
then they came outside. After 5 minutes, Dr. Sanap
came outside and told to Kavita that 'there is as
per   her   wish,   foetus   is   of   son'.   Then   they   were
called again inside. They three went again inside,
Dr. Sanap accused no.2 told that there is no need to
care,   there   is   son   in   the     uterus   of   Kavita   and
advised to take medicine. After coming outside, they
informed to Adv. Varsha Deshpande on phone. Within
5­10   minutes   Varsha   Deshpande   and   C.S.   Pawar
arrived.   Then   they   listened   to   them.   C.S.   do   the
work   of   seizure   and   recorded   their   statements.   At
last,   according   to   P.W.3   in   Bhagwan   Hospital,
consent of Kavita was not taken, nor signature was
obtained on form 'A', affidavit. Thus, the P.W.3 has
categorically   corroborated   the   version   of
complainant on all counts, except with some minor or
immaterial, contradiction or improvement.
Adjourned to tomorrow as Court time over.
sd
BEED. [ S.S. SALVI ]
Dt:06.01.2012. CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE,BEED.
31.  As against the aforesaid testimony of P.W.
3,   in   her   examination­in­chief   of   course   the   Ld.
defence   counsel   cross   examined   the   P.W.3   at   a
length. Now, therefore, it is necessary to examine
the cross examination very cautiously and carefully
considering the nature of offence. In the beginning,
P.W.3 admitted that Dalit Vikas Mahila Mandal came
to be registered in the year 1991. Varsha Deshpande
and other 10 are founder members of a trust. Since
the year 2003, the trust is working in respect of
checking   of   gender.   In   the   year   2005,   P.W.3   was
president   of   the   trust.   She   was   selected   to   be
president   in   the   year   2004.   Varsha   Deshpande   was
President.   It   is   true   that   there   was   complaint
against Varsha Deshpande and others about misusing
their designations. Complaint was also filed against
her.   On   23rd Feb,   2001   the   trust   has   passed   a
resolution is not correct, in the year 2001 Vandana
Kamble,   Shalan   Gadchire   were   executing   members   of
the   trust.   On   23rd  Feb,   2001   when   he   meeting   was
held,   Varsha   Deshpande   was   the   then   secretary.   In
respect   of   their   designation   as   secretary   and
president,   there   was   a   dispute   pending   before
sahayyak   Dharmaday   Ayukta   [Asstt.   Charity
Commissioner].     It   is   not   true   to   suggest   in   the
year 2001, they were sagged from the designation of
secretary and president. It is not true to suggest
that in Feb, 2005, Varsha Deshpande and she was on
the designation of secretary and president. Kavita
Lokhande was not member of the trust. So far as this
para 1 of the cross examination, thus having gone in
toto   and   line   to   line,   I   think   there   is   nothing
revealed helpful to defence. Further in para 8 of
the cross examination, P.W.3 has admitted that prior
to the sting operation at Beed, they have already
made two cases like the present case. There is no
any member of the trust in Beed. In the next breath,
according to P.W.3, she got information in the month
of   August,   2005   that   practice   of   trust   is   of
checking   gender   at   Beed.   They   have   not   verified
about information. In proper Beed, there were 6 to 7
addresses. They have not informed the Civil Surgeon
about the information they received. There is no any
written record or resolution of the trust about the
information.   They   had   not   decided   to   go   to   which
hospital   at   first   after   coming   at   Beed.   Here,   it
would be worth to note that it is the main defence
of accused that the sting operation in question was
conducted   out   of   the     professional   jealousy   or
grudge   and   they   have   been   falsely   pre­planned
trapped in the present case. Had it been the fact,
the P.W.3 would have stated that while starting from
Satara itself, it would have been decided that the
proposed   sting   operation   is   to   be   made   out   at
Bhagwan Hospital. But it is not so which has come in
the cross examination and resultantly the defence of
the accused appears to be baseless or  false one.
32. The P.W.3 further in her cross examination
stated that they had taken the appointment on phone
at   district   Beed   from   S.T.D.   Booth.   She   herself
phoned   about   the   appointments   of   the   doctors.   The
phone numbers were received from the unnamed letter.
She does not remember about those letters submitted
to the Civil Surgeon. The letters were addressed to
the   trust,   there   is   inward,   outward   book   in   the
trust. She did not keep any record of phoning with
her. She cannot tell of which doctor on which date ,
at   what   time,   the   appointment   was   received.   The
newspaper   publication   in   Beed   about   their   trust
working at Satara was not given. No one has given
authority   to   the   trust   about   control   of   gender
checking. Gender checking prohibition committee was
not informed about it. Here, in view of the series
of   aforesaid   suggestions   admitted   by   the   P.W.3,   I
would like to state that under the Act, there is no
any   necessity   or   mandate   about   the   authority   or
permission to be obtained from any authority. Even
gender checking prohibition committee Beed was also
not informed about the was also not informed about
the proposed sting operation admittedly because the
sting operation itself is confidential and if it is
informed   to   any   authority   or   committee,   of   course
the sting operation in question could not have been
succeeded.   In   every   sting   operation,   it   is   always
expected   and   necessary   that   the   information   about
the proposed sting operation should not be leaked,
otherwise no sting operation would be succeeded. In
the   result,   all   the   aforesaid   cross   examination
cannot be said to be material or helping to defence.
There is last suggestion that sting operation  unit
have no authority to make such raids and compliance
in the year 2005. No doubt the P.W.3 has denied the
aforesaid   suggestion   and   it   is   crystal   clear   that
the   sting   operation   unit   is   certainly   entitled   to
make sting operation and they have every right or
authority to make such raids or sting operations.
33. In   the   next   para   10   of   the   cross
examination,   again   this   witness   has   been   cross
examined by the Ld. counsel for accused in respect
of the episode of sting operation dated 07.09.2005.
I   have   gone   through   the   entire   cross   examination
from   para   10,   wherein   the   P.W.3   has   categorically
corroborated the story of complainant. At the cost
of   repetition   here,   I   would   like   to   state   that
majority cross examination is irrelevant, unwanted,
unnecessary and till this juncture, there is nothing
on record through the cross examination helpful or
useful to defence. A very basic and special feature
of this case is it is an unique case wherein there
is   no   any   moto   or   intention   on   the   part   of
complainant to falsely implicate the highly educated
persons   like   doctors.   Per   contra,   it   is   the   unit
working   in   the   interest   of   society   and   public   at
large to save the female issues which is the special
drive   set   up   and   launched   by   the   Government.   As
such, the mode and style of cross examination like
in   other   police   cases   is   not   expected   or   to   be
adopted nor it will help to accused to get rid from
the accusations alleged into. In the next para on
page 6, again there is a repetition regarding the
information   of   panch   witnesses.   I   have   already
discussed on this point in the earlier part of the
judgment and it is all unnecessary, irrelevant cross
examination.   There   is   also   reference   in   the   cross
examination regarding the cases filed against this
witness alleging extortion. But it has also come on
record   that   the   said   case   was   withdrawn   at   the
instance of Government as the witness is working to
run   the   drive   of   the   Government   itself   and
therefore,   there   is   always   possibility   by   the
accused to file the false cases to harass the social
workers as they may have man and muscle power and
huge money. Therefore, I do not find any substance
nor   the     defence   could   make   out   that   the   witness
herein is not honest or credible.
34. I have also gone further the entire cross
examination   very   cautiously,   carefully   but   to   my
judicious considered mind, I don't find anything in
favour   of   accused   to   discard   or   disbelieve   the
testimony of P.W.3.
Adjourned to 09.01.2012 as Court time over
and Court busy in other matters.
sd
BEED. [ S.S. SALVI ]
Dt: 07.01.2012. CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, BEED.
35. The prosecution further examined P.W.4 Sher
Jamkhan, panch witness of the seizure pachanama Exh.
82. The P.W.4 panch witness has also categorically
stated and supported the seizure panchanama at Exh.
82. According to P.W.4, the articles one sonography
machine and four registers of the Bhagwan Hospital.
All the aforesaid articles were attached and seized
by   Dr.   Pawar   in   his   presence   and   sealed   it   under
panchanama.   Accordingly   Dr.   Pawar   i.e.   P.W.1
prepared seizure panchanama of the articles 1 to 5
i.e. sonography machine and hospital registers. The
P.W.4 further stated that one another panch namely
Bablu Faras was also present to be other panch to
the seizure panchanama and P.W.4 claims that he was
present to the seizure panchanama and also signed in
his presence, which is duly proved by P.W.4 in the
evidence   at   Exh.82.   This   witness   P.W.4   has   also
supported   the   facts   that   aforesaid   articles   were
seized   in   connection   with   the   sex   determination
test.   The   Ld.   defence   counsel   objected   to   the
aforesaid   question   keeping   open   the   point   for   the
final argument, still it is not referred even during
the course of final argument and there is nothing
any wrong to put the question to the witness. Thus,
so   far   as   the   seizure   panchanama   Exh.82   and   the
another panchanama of seizure of sonography machine
Exh.83   are   duly   proved   by   the   complainant   through  the P.W.4.
36. As against the aforesaid evidence of P.W.4
panch   witness,   the   defence   in   order   to   bring   the
truth on record so far as the evidence of P.W.4, Ld.
counsel for accused No.1 cross­examined this witness
and   even   during   the   course   of   cross   examination,
P.W.4 has confirmed that the machine used for the
sonography was the same which is before the Court
and   denied   for   the   suggestion   that   the   seizure
panchanama   Exh.82,   83   were   not   prepared   in   his
presence   on   the   relevant   day,   time   and   place.   So
from the cross examination for accused No.1, nothing
has been oozed helpful to defence nor the P.W.4 has
shattered with examination­in­chief.
37. Afterwards,   Ld.   Sr.   counsel   for   accused   2
and 3 then cross examined the P.W.4 and therein also
nothing   has   been   revealed   except   the   minor
contradictions as regards the timing. The P.W.4 in
the   next   and   last   para   of   the   cross   examination
stated that it takes about half an hour for seizure
panchanama   and   panchanama.   The   P.W.4   also   further
admitted   that   prior   to   the   present   panchanama,   he
has not acted to be a panch witness in any police
action and other. To the further suggestion, P.W.4
has fairly conceded that he cannot assign any reason
as to why the spot panchanama has not been mentioned
in Exh.82 and 83. P.W.4 also could not assign any
reason as to why the timing of the panchanama is not
shown in Exh.82, 83. Here it is to be noted that all
the procedure of seizure, search are applicable to
the facts of the present case as per the provisions
of   Sec.   30   of   the   Act.   Therefore,   whatever
panchanama, seizure panchanama they are prepared by
the P.W.1 who is certainly not that much acquainted
with   the   procedure   in   respect   of   seizure,   search
panchanama and therefore, it cannot be said that for
want of timing or place of the panchanama, it is to
be thrown away or disbelieved. That is why I have
already discussed as regards such contradictions or
omissions which may be ignored and are to be ignored
considering   the   nature   and   authorities   who   have
worked to be I.O. in a case on hand.
38. Despite   the   aforesaid   cogent,   clear,
concrete evidence the P.W.4 on page 4 in his cross
examination admitted that contents of the panchanama
Exh.82, 83 were not written in his presence. I think
it is a glaring admission in favour of defence by
this witness P.W.4 which goes to create a doubt in
one's mind regarding the panchanamas Exh.82, 83 and
thus,   therefore,   it   appears   that   prosecution   has
examined   the   other   panch   Bablu   Faras   from   Satara.
Still,   again   this   witness   P.W.4   denied   the
suggestion   that   articles   mentioned   in   panchanama
Exh.82, 83 were not seized or sealed in his presence
and thereby still supported the complainant's story
regarding   preparation   of   panchanama   and   seizure
panchanama. In the next and last breath this witness
P.W.4 also denied suggestion that he had worked to
be panch witness prior to the present incident of
Varsha   Deshpande.   To   conclude,   so   far   as   the
testimony   of   this   witness   I   find   that   except   the
aforesaid   glaring   admission,   the   entire   remaining
testimony of P.W.4 is certainly helpful and clear,
cogent   on   the   point   of   panchanamas,   seizure
panchanama   [Exh.82,   83].   Resultantly,   except   the
aforesaid   admission,   remaining   testimony   of   this
witness cannot be thrown away.
39. As stated above and to make clear about the
seizure panchanama and panchanama despite the fact,
evidece of complainant was closed, the complainant
during   the   further   course   of   trial   examined   P.W.5
[Exh.94]   wherein   the   P.W.5   has   categorically
supported   the   complainant's   story   regarding   the
seizure   panchanama   and   panchanama.   Admittedly   the
P.W.5 is resident of Satara and may be accompanied
with   sting   operation   still,   he   has   supported   the
entire   complainant's   story   so   far   as   the   seizure
panchanama   and   panchanama   of   seizure   of   article
respectively at Exh.82, 93, in the same fashion and
manner   like   P.W.4.   The   P.W.4   also   identified   the
articles seized during the investigation. The P.W.5
also   admitted   that   both   the   panchanamas,   there   is
the signature of P.W.1, he himself and other panch
and   stated   that   Dr.   Pawar   prepared   the   sonography
machine   seizure   panchanama   and   their   signatures.
Thus,   the   P.W.5   has   also   categorically   stated   in
detail regarding the seizure panchanama and another
panchanama of sonography machine, both respectively
at Exh.82 and 83.
40. Now,   as   against   the   aforesaid   evidence   of
P.W.5, of course Ld. defence counsel for accused No.
1 cross­examined this witness at a length who has in
his cross examination stated the correct location of
Bhagwan   Hospital   at   Barshi   road,   the   P.W.5   also
admitted that prior to 07.09.2005 he never met to
C.S. Dr. Pawar. According to P.W.5, a mob of 25 to
30 persons was gathered on the spot. The P.W.5 also
admitted that prior to this sting operation he has
never   acted   to   be   panch   witness   for   such   sting
operation.   The   P.W.5   has   further   categorically
denied the suggestion that no any seizure or other
panchanama was prepared in his presence. The P.W.5
also denied the suggestion that no article was ever
seized   or   attached   in   his   presence.   It   is   also
denied that he is deposing false at the instance of
head of the sting operation Adv. Varsha Deshpande.
Thus,   upon   going   through   the   aforesaid   cross
examination   on   behalf   of   accused   No.1   by   Sr.   Ld.
counsel,   in   my   judicious   considered   mind,   nothing
has   been   revealed   to   discard   or   disbelieve   the
testimony   of   P.W.5,   in   the   cross   examination   for
accused No.1.
41. Now,   coming   to   the   cross   examination   for
accused 2 and 3 by the Ld. Sr. Counsel, P.W.5 has
admitted   that   at   present   he   is   dealing   in   the
profession of spares of the diesel engine but he has
no registered shop. The P.W.5 also admitted that he
is also dealing in building material business since
2003 and prior to that he was dealing in the diesel
machines spares till 2008  etc.,. I think, there is
also   further   cross   examination   of   P.W.5   on   this
point but all the said cross examination does not
appear relevant or material but the material cross
is to be considered in the view point of case of the
complainant. The P.W.5 claims that P.W.1 complainant
had   called   him   for   panchanama   and   therefore,   he
visited the Bhagwan Hospital. It was 2.00 to 2.15
P.M.   when   he   was   wandering   in   the   said   vicinity.
P.W.5   was   standing   in   the   mob   in   the   premises   of
Bhagwan   Hospital.   P.W.1   enquired   him   as   to   his
residence. All the panchanamas were written by Dr.
Pawar.   The   P.W.5   further   admitted   that   the
panchanama Exh. 82, 83,do not contain that they were
prepared at Bhagwan Hospital. I think though it does
not contain so, it doesn't mean that they were not
at   all   prepared   or   whatever   the   P.W.5   is   stating
regarding the preparation of panchanama or seizure
panchanama is false. The further suggestion is as to
how many doctors were there in Bhagwan Hospital, to
which P.W.5 stated that he cannot tell. Still, it
doesn't mean that P.W.5 may have the information of
the strength of the doctor in the hospital as he is
from Satara. The P.W.5 also further admitted that he
is   not   known   to   Dr.   Sanap   prior   to   the   present
incident. The P.W.5 also further admitted that all
the articles were brought in his front by Dr. Pawar.
In   the   next   breath,   this   witness   P.W.5   has
categorically denied a material suggestion that Exh.
82,   83   were   prepared   at   Civil   Hospital,   Beed   and
nothing   was   seized   in   his   presence   by   P.W.1   an
Appropriate Authority. The P.W.5 has admitted that
he   knows   to.   Varsha   Deshpance,   Maya   Pawar,one   and
half   year   prior   to   the   incident.   P.W.5   further
admitted that he could not remember as to how many
sting operations he had worked to be panch witness.
I think that such type of admissions does not make
any difference or affects the complainant otherwise.
The   P.W.5   has   fairly   conceded,   admitted   that   the
office of Adv. Varsha Deshpande is in side of his
house. The P.W.5 further categorically admitted that
there   is   racket   of   Adv.   Varsha   Deshpande
etc.,.including   the   P.W.5   and   they   are   collecting
the   amount   through   such   sting   operations.   This   is
the   state   of   evidence   of   P.W.5   which   I   have   been
discussed   line   to   line   and   I   find   that   both   the
witnesses   P.W.4   and   5   have   duly   proved   the
panchanama   and   seizure   panchanama   of   the   sting
operation in question and resultantly, nothing has
been revealed from their cross examination helpful
to   defence   to   discard,   disbelieve   or   falsify   the
case of complainant.
42. During   the   further   course   of   trial   and
final   argument,   Ld.counsel   for prosecution/complainant   in   addition   to   his   oral
argument, also filed his written argument at Exh.100
Wherein it is submitted that the offence in question
took place on 07.09.2005 and the complaint came to
be filed alleging the offences have been committed
against accused persons and alongwith the complaint,
the   statements   of   the   witnesses   have   been   also
placed   on   record   with   certificate   of   registration
and other documents were also placed on record. This
Court was pleased to take cognizance and charge was
framed on 01.07.2010 by this Court. However, later­
on application was movd by the present complainant
Exh.85 and the same has been allowed by this Court
on 27.01.2011. Accordingly, fresh charge was framed
and during the pendency of the aforesaid complaint,
accused   No.4   was   discharged   and   the   case   attained finality.
43. In order to book the accused and to prove
the guilt of accused, complainant has examined P.W.1
to 5. All the accused claimed to be tried and denied
the   charges.   The   statement   of   accused   U/S.313   are
also   recorded   independently,   wherein   accused   No.1
has stated that he does not want to examine himself
on   oath   and   examine   any   defence   witness.   Whereas,
the   accused   No.2   stated   that   he   did   not   want   to
examine himself on oath but wants to examine defence
witness. Accused No.3 also stated that he does not
want to examine himself as a witness but   want to
examine defence witness. Despite the fact, none of
the accused examined any defence witness.
44. In the written argument of complainant, it
is further added that P.W.1 C.S.Beed is who has been
granted authorization by the Government. The P.W.1
below   Exh.50   has   deposed   and   stated   that   he   was
serving   as   District   Civil   Surgeon   and   he   was   the
Appropriate   Authority   having   duty   to   implement
provisions of the Act. The Authorization Letter of
P.W.1 Dr. Pawar has been produced and exhibited at
Exh.51. Hence, P.W.1 is having necessary authority
in the eyes of law, he filed the complaint within
the meaning of Sec. 23 of the P.C.P.N.D.T. Act.
45. So   far   as   the   accused   persons   are   the
persons who were using the diagnostic techniques and
therefore,   they   were   supposed   to   follow   the
provisions of the Act and the Rules. The certificate
of registration issued under Rule 6[2] 6[5] 8[2] in
Form B has been produced before the Court at Exh.
52, stating that the registration was in the name of
accused No.2. However, it has been found that he has
not   conducted   diagnostic   techic   but   some   other
person namely accused No.3 conducted the examination
by using the diagnostic technique. Similarly, Exh.53
is appointment of Dr. Nirale, original accused No.4
showing his willingness to work as a sonologist at
the   registered   centre   which   was   in   the   name   of
accused No.1. It has also come on record that the
accused No.1 has given the affidavit­cum­undertaking
at   the   time   of   registration   sworn   on   09.11.2004.
Similarly,   in   the   evidence   of   P.W.1   who   conducted
panchanama in the presence of panchas and also the
statements   were   recorded     by   the   appropriate
authority who is having the authority in the eyes of
law to investigate the violation of the provisions
of the Act. Accordingly, the same was gathered by
appropriate   authority   P.W.1.   It   has   been
specifically deposed by P.W.1 in his deposition that
the   sex   of   the   foetus   was   disclosed   by   Dr.   Sanap
accused No.2 to Kavita. Similarly, P.W.1 Dr. Pawar
deposed in his examination in chief that accused No.
2 used the sonography machine without any authority
to determine the sex and committed offence under the
provisions   of   the   aforesaid   Act.   The   witness   has
been   examined   at   length   on   behalf   of   accused   1
through his advocate and 2 & 3 by their advocates.
So also other witnesses 2 to 5 are also examined.
46. It is further submitted that so far as the
use to diagnostic technique is concerned, the centre
is   required   to   be   registered.   The   accused   persons
were   providing   service   and   therefore,   they   were
having their duty to register themselves. However,
after   registration,   the   appropriate   information
ought to have been furnished and the recognized and
registered   person   ought   to   have   utilize   the   said
technique   in   accordance   with   law.   Despite   this,
accused 3 was not the person who was named by the
accused   No.1   while   obtaining   the   registration.
Similarly,   as   per   rule   13   i.e.   the   Pre­conception
and Pre­natal Diagnostic Techniques [Prohibition of
sex Selection] Rules, 1996, hereinafter for the sake
of brevity mentioned to be 'Rule 1996'. There is a
change in the qualified staff, the same is required
to   be   intimated   to   the   appropriate   authority.
However, the change in the qualified staff was not
intimated   and   consequently   in   the   breach   of   the
provisions   of   the   Rules   which   is   punishable   under
Sec.25 of the Act.
47. It   is   further   submitted   that   accused   No.2
was not at all having any lawful authority to use
the   same   technique   nor   he   was   registered   and
recognized person for performing the test of using
the   diagnostic   technique   and   therefore,   committed
the   offence   punishable   under   the   provisions   of
P.C.P.N.D.T   Act,   1994.   In   view   of   S.   4[3]   of   the
proviso to Sec. 4[3], the burden gets shifted on the
accused persons and the said has not been discharged
by   them   by   leading   any   evidence.   There   is   non­
maintenance   as   well   as   deficiency   in   the   record.
Consequently the accused persons committed breach of
S.5   and   6   of   the   Act.   The   accused   persons   have
neither   stepped   into   the   witness   box   nor   examined
any defence witness. Not only that there is no any
sufficient explanation which has been given by the
accused   persons   at   the   time   of   answering   the
question   asked   under   Sec.   313   of   the   Cr.P.C.
Therefore, this Hon'ble Court may draw a conclusion
that   the   accused   persons   failed,   avoided   and
neglected to discharge the burden casted on them. In
the result and in view of proviso of Sec. 4[3] of
the   P.C.P.N.D.T   Act   as   the   burden   has   not   been
discharged by the accused, there is presumption and
therefore, the accused persons have committed breach
of Sec. 5 and 6 of the said Act. In addition to that
it   is   submitted   that   a   witness­   P.W.2   has
categorically   stated   in   her   evidence   that   the
mandatory   provision   as   contemplated   under   Sec.   5
have not been complied with. Thus, the consent was
not   obtained   nor   the   known   side   effects   were
informed   to   the   P.W.2   nor   her   signature   was
obtained, not a copy of consent was given to her and
thus,   accused   persons   committed   the   breach   of
provisions of Sec. 5 of the said Act. In addition to
that sex of the foetus was disclosed by accused and
hence, the accused No.2 contravened and violated the
provisions of Sec. 5[2] of the P.C.P.N.D.T Act.
48. Again,   so   far   as   the   accused   No.2   gave
prescription at that point of time and thus, he was
having conspiracy and sharing of common intention so
far   as   accused   No.3   and   thus   accused   committed
offence under Sec. 23 of the P.C.P.N.D.T. Act.
49. The   Ld.   counsel   for   complainant   also
further invited attention to the cross examination
of   P.W.2   decoy   woman   and   stated   that   nothing
specific has been found with reference to violation
of   the   provisions   of   Sec.   5   and   hence   it   is
committed offence under Sec. 5 of the Act, 1994.
50. So   far   as   the   P.W.3,   she   has   stated   that
she is the eye witness of the company, decoy woman
waiting   outside   and   Dr.   Sanap   only   accused   2
disclosed the sex of the foetus and she was again
called inside the room. P.W.3 had stated that it is
accused No.2 who disclosed the sex of foetus after
doing the test and thus, both accused 2 and 3 also
committed breach of the provisions of Sec. 5.
51. So far as panch witnesses according to Ld.
counsel   for   complainant   the   two   panchas   have   been
examined P.W.4 and 5. Both were cross examined at
length and the panchanama which has been proved by
examining   these   two   witnesses   is   relevant   with
reference   to   proof   of   violation   of   provisions   of
said Act. The registers were also seized under the
panchanama below Exh.82 and the same has been proved
by the prosecution. A joint reading of Exh.82 and 83
clearly goes to show that the record is seized by
the complainant was incomplete as well as there was
inaccuracy   and   deficiency.   Consequently,   offences
are committed by accused No.1, 2 and 3. The register
produced before them by conducting panchanama goes
to show that name of P.W.2 has been registered in
OPD register only which shows that at the time of
commission   of   the   offence   the   complainant   was
present in the premises of the centre. So far as the
other registers, there is no mention about the name
of present P.W.2 namely Kavita. Also there is no any
record with reference to form 'F' which is required
to be maintained in view of the mandatory provisions
of the above referred Act and Rules.
52. Thus,   record   is   not   maintained   properly,
there was no authorization in favour of accused No.3
who   too,   disclosed   the   sex   of   the   foetus   P.W.2.
Accused No.2 and 3 conducted the sonography without
any authority and disclosed the sex of the foetus to
P.W.2.   Not   only   that   accused   No.1   allowed   other
accused to use the premises of the centre and thus,
accused   No.1   is   also   equally   guilty   alongwith
accused 2 and 3. The accused No.1 was having guilty
casted under the Rules to inform the change of place
and employed authorized person. Accused No.1 failed
to discharge the burden of committing offence under
the   provisions   of   P.C.P.N.D.T.   Act.   At   last,   the
form 'F' was not maintained and hence, there is a
clear breach of Rule 9[1] and 9[4] alongwith Sec. 29
of   the   P.C.P.N.D.T.   Act.   A   declaration   was   not
obtained   from   P.W.2   and   therefore,   again   there   is
breach   of   Rule   10[1]   as   well   as   10[1­A]   of   the
Rules.
53. As   against   the   aforesaid   written   argument
of   complainant,   the   defence   i.e.   accused   2   and   3
also filed written argument vide Exh.104. So far as
para   1,   the   entire   complainant's   story   has   been
enumerated therein. So far as para 2, it has been
highlighted   that   none   of   the   accused   was   present
during the process on the hospital. I think, there
is ample material evidence in the point that accused
were   present   in   the   hospital   while   the   sting
operation   was   conducted.   In   para   6,   according   to
defence in view of the facts and evidence on record
and   the   charges   being   faced   by   the   accused,   the
foundation   facts   required   to   be   proved   by
complainant to sustain with charges can be stated as
follows;
i. Whether accused 1 to 3 were running ultra
sonography centre on 07.09.2005,
ii. Whether accused No.2 employed accused 3 for
the said purpose,
iii. Whether   the   USG   test   was   conducted   for
P.N.D.T.for sex selection of Kavita,
iv. Whether   accused   1   changed/transferred
management   of   USG   centre   without   information   to
appropriate authority;
v. Whether   accused   1   to   3   failed   to   maintain
prescribed   record   as   per   Sec.   29   of   the   Act   and
Rules 9 and 10 of the Rules,
54. In view of the aforesaid points raised it
is further submitted that in view of the provisions
of the Act, following points requires consideration
by the Court which go to the root of the case in as
much   as,   but   they   are   not   followed   and   whole
proceeding is vitiated.
I. The   person   authorized   to   investigate   the
complaint   about   breach   of   provisions   and
contravention of the sections of the Act and take
action for such breaches as 4[4][c] and 4[4][e] r.w. S. 17­[A].
55. I have gone through the provision referred
hereinabove   under   the   Act   and   there   is   no   such
provision and hence, it needs no consideration.
II. From   the   written   argument   at   page   3,   the
appropriate   authority   has   power   to   enter   search
record, register and documents which were required
to   be   maintained   in   the   register   of   USG   and   is
empowered to seized alongwith material objects like
machinery etc., used for the test.
The search and seizure is to be made   and
conducted under the provision namely S. 165.
56. I have gone through the provisions of Sec.
30   [1]   alongwith   the   provisions   of   Sec.   165   of
Cr.P.C.   1973   and   I   do   agree   as   to   the   provisions
aforesaid in respect of search and seizure which in
my opinion are followed by the appropriate authority
while   taking   search   and   seizure   in   the   sting
operation in question.
III. The   offence   under   this   Act   is   cognizable
and as per S. 27 and for cognizance by the Court,
the   complaint   must   be   lodged   by   the   appropriate
authority as per Sec. 28[A].
57. I   have   gone   through   the   aforesaid
provisions and admittedly the offence under this Act
is cognizable,non­bailable and non­compoundable. So
far as Sec. 28 of the Act which is wrongly mentioned
in   the   notes   of   argument   to   be   S.   28­A­a     under
which   the   appropriate   authority   concerned,   or   any
officer   authorized   in   this   behalf   by   the   Central
Government or State Government, as the case may be
or the appropriate authority i.e. Civil Surgeon, or
under sub sec. [b], a person who has given notice
not less than 15 days in the manner prescribed to
the appropriate authority of the alleged offence and
of his intention to make a complaint to the Court.
Explanation; For the purpose of this section 'person
includes   a   social   organization'.   Here,   the
appropriate   authority   under   Sec.   28   [a]   filed   the
instant   complaint   and   therefore,   there   is   no   any
irregularity or illegality to refer the provisions
of Sec. 27 or 28[a].
IV. According   to   defence,   no   other   person   or
social organization has been authorized by the Act
to   conduct   investigation.   The   alleged   sting
operation is part of investigation as such.
58. As   per   the   instructions   given   by   the
Maharashtra   Government   for   performing   the   function
in implementation of the Act by the authority the
guidelines   have   been   laid   down   for   the   manner   in
which   the   authority   has   to   conduct   the
investigation, inspection, search and/or seizure.
Note: The Court time being over, Judgment adjourned
to day of tomorrow on 11.01.2012.
BEED. [ S.S. SALVI ]
Dt: 09.01.2012. CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE,BEED.
59. So far as the aforesaid circular dated 19th
Oct,   2005   of   the   Government   of   Maharashtra,   there
appears   certain   terms   and   conditions   whereby   the
voluntary   organization   are   empowered   to   make   such
decoy   cases   on   the   condition   that   such   voluntary
organization   must   be   registered   with   the   Charity
Commissioner   and   they   must   be   acquainted   with   the
Pre­conception   and   Pre­natal   Diagnostic   Techniques
Rules, 2003. Similarly, such voluntary organizations
they should not say they decoy cases with prejudiced
method or mind to P.N.D.T. Centre and at last, the
voluntary   organizations   must   send   the   decoy   case
after making it or conducting successful through the
appropriate authority for filing the case in Court.
Upon considering all these conditions, so far as the
evidence   on   record,   I   find   that   the   voluntary
organization   after   conducting   sting   operation
informed to the concerned appropriate authority and
thereby there is a fulfillment and abidement by the
organization   of   all   those   conditions   discussed
above.   Resultantly,   therefore,   the   aforesaid
submission in the written argument to my judicious
considered   mind   and   opinion   does   not   sustain   nor
there is substance therein.
60. In   para   8   of   the   written   argument   of
defence, it appears that accused have summarized the
admitted facts on page 4. Still, upon going through
those facts, it cannot be said that all those facts
are undisputed and it is mixture of disputed as well
as   undisputed   facts.   On   page   6,   para   9   of   the
written argument, in para 1, it is tried to point
out   that   none   of   the   provisions   constituting   such
offence   provide   exemption   of   such   contravention
having   been   done   by   the   accused.   According   to
defence,   the   only   exception   to   this   is   as   per
provisions   to   Sec.   4   relating   to   deficiency   in
keeping record prescribed by the Act. So far as the
aforesaid   submissions,   there   is   a   huge   evidence
adduced   by   the   complainant   during   the   course   of
trial. So the testimony of P.W.1 to 5 which I have
already discussed and the question of presumption of
such contravention does not arise.   It is further
disputed by the defence that prosecution has not at
all uttered a single word alleging deficiency in the
record seized by them and produced in the Court in
respect   of   period   prior   to   07.09.2005,   may   be
relating to alleged ultra sonography test, alleged
to   have   been   conducted   of   P.W.2   Kavita   on   dated
07.09.2005. But the fact of alleged test is itself
being   disputed,   no   charges   about   the   same   can   be
traced   on   the   assumption   that   such   test   had   been
conducted. Here, I would like to state that during
the course of trial, as the application was moved by
the   prosecution   to   add   the   charges   and   the   said
application was decided on merit by calling the say
of defence so also, after hearing both sides at a
length and again the opportunity was offered to the
defence to recall the witnesses as the altered or
added   charge   was   framed   in   view   of   the   evidence
adduced by the prosecution on record and therefore,
charges   about   the   same   are   not   based   on   the
assumption   but   on   the   basis   of   the   evidence   on
record which is proved in the opinion of this Court.
61. As stated in para 2 admittedly the offences
under the Act are cognizable, non­bailable and non­
compoundable.   Of   course,   therefore,   the   procedure
under   Sec.   244   to   247   is   prescribed   and   followed
during the course of trial of this case. Hence, I
don't find any procedural error as such, nor it can
be   said   that   procedure   is   vitiated   neither   any
prejudice is caused to the accused in my judicious
considered mind. Per contra, they were always given
opportunities   during   the   course   of   trial   of   this
case. Resultantly, accused are not entitled to raise
any such plea at this juncture.
62. The   defence   in   the   next   para   disputed
regarding   the   provisions   as   to   appropriate
authorities, their functions and it is specifically
disputed   that   investigation,   searches   and   seizure,
the   appropriate   authority   has   not   followed   or
complied   with   the   procedure.   I   find   all   the
procedure has duly followed and complied with by the
appropriate   authority   during   the   course   of
investigation   in     confirmity     with   the   mandatory
provisions   of   the   Act.   Resultantly,   as   alleged   by
the defence the sting operation in question cannot
be   treated   as   illegal   or   unauthorized   or   blatant
contravention of the provisions of the Act. I have
already scrutinized the entire evidence on record as
to the factual aspect, the entire evidence on record
has been considered and appreciated.
63. During the further written argument on page
8,   para   11   to   18,   the   defence   has   discussed   the
evidence submitting that the evidence of P.W.2 and 3
is not consistent and both are falsifying to each
other   etc.,.   I   have   already   discussed   in   detail
regarding   the   evidence   of   P.W.2,   3   but   in   my
judicious   considered   mind,   except   the   minor
contradiction,   there   is   nothing   to   discard   the
testimony of both P.W.2 and 3. Further on page 13,
para   19,   the   defence   has   submitted   that   from   the
documents   and   evidence   of   Smt.   Shaila   Jadhav   on
record that they have been abusing the process of
law in order to gain monetary advance fees from the
Government.   So   far   as   this   submission,   whatever
monetary   rates   are   being   paid   or   allowed   to   such
sting operation, it is not a huge amount but it is
meagre amount and therefore, I don't find substance
in   the   aforesaid   submission.   There   is   also
submission that criminal cases are pending against
them about extortion and intimidation on the threat
of launching such cases against the doctors. Filing
such cases by the persons like doctor by profession
to   deter   to   such   member   of   institution   cannot   be
said   improbable   or   unpredictable   and   it   is   always
expected   that   when   such   organizations   or
institutions are making sting operations, there is
every possibility of false implication in the cases
at the instance of doctors, dealing in such inhuman
or   henious   act.   Furthermore,   there   is   no   any
conviction   against   the   members   of   the   sting
operation,   per   contra   all   those   such   false   cases
have   been   withdrawn   at   the   instance   of   the
Government   as   the   members   of   the   team   of   sting
operation are working in the interest in public at
large or launching drive by Government authorities
which   is   utmost   necessary   in   this   State   and
especially in Beed as the ratio of female issue is
very low in this district.
64. In the last para of the written argument it
is tried to point out that the criticism against the
accused   that   no   litigation   is   on   them,   they   have
rebutted the case if not at all justified in as much
as no burden lies on the accused. In this respect, I
would   like   to   state   that   while   recording   the
statements of accused, so far as the accused No.3
when the question was put as to whether he want to
say   anything   about   the   case,   he   has   not   stated
anything   despite   the   opportunity   nor   made   out   his
defence to the accusation. In the same fashion and
manner, though the accused No.2 has stated in his
statement   that   the   incident   in   question   has   been
occurred out of professional jealousy. He ought to
have stated in detail about his such evidence and
when the question was put as to whether he wanted to
state   anything   about   defence,   accused   No.2   also
flatly denied in the same fashion and manner like
accused 1 and 3. Resultantly, it is obvious that the
defence   could   not   make   out   the   case   of   their
defence,   nor   rebutted   the   same   by   keeping   mum
against   the   huge   evidence   of   prosecution,   oral   as
well as documentary.
65. In the light of above discussion and upon
careful consideration of evidence of prosecution on
record,   I   find   that   prosecution   has   proved   the
offences that accused No. 2 on 07.09.2005, at about
12.30 P.M.at Bhagwan Hospital, Beed availed services
of accused No.3 though he had no authority to serve
so and on the aforesaid day, time and place accused
No.2   being   gynaecologist   without   registered
authority under this Act to conduct or caused to be
conducted   by   himself   and   through   the   accused   No.3
conducted   Pre­Natal   Diagnostic   Test   so   also,   both
the accused 2 and 3 conducted Pre­natal Diagnostic
Test   without   reasons   satisfying   themselves   any   of
the conditions provided under the Act, so also both
accused 2 and 3 failed to obtain a written consent
from   Sham/decoy   patient   Smt.   Kavita   Nandkumar
Lokhande   and   deliberately   communicated   her   sex   of
the foetus so also, accused No.2 failed to maintain
the record and all other documents required to be
maintained   under     this   Act,   similarly,   accused   1
changed   the   management   of   the   genetic   laboratory
without   surrendering   the   same   to   the   appropriate
authority   and   all   the   accused   failed   to   maintain
registers   showing   names   and   addresses   of   men   or
women   subjected   to   Pre­natal   Diagnostic   Test   and
also failed to maintain record in respect of each
man and woman subjected to Pre­natal Diagnostic Test
as prescribed in form 'F' and accused 2 and 3 failed
to   obtain   written   consent   of   Kavita     Nandakumar
Lokhande before conducting Pre­natal Diagnostic Test
and failed to give declaration of not disclosing sex
of   foetus   of   Kavita   Lokhande   and   also   failed   to
obtain   declaration   from   Kavita   Lokhande   that   she
does not want to know the sex of foetus and accused
1 to 3 failed to intimate change of the employee and
equipment installed to appropriate authority. In the
result, I record my findings in the affirmative on
points 2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9and 10.
66. At the same time, the prosecution could not
make out the case that accused 1 to 3 on 07.09.2005
at about 12.30 P.M. without any registered licence
held   and   conducted   Pre­natal   Diagnostic   Test   and
therefore, I record my finding in the negative on
point No.1, accordingly.
67. Thus, I find that accused No.2 namely Dr.
Madhav   Trimbakrao   Sanap   on   07.09.2005   availed
services of accused No.3 Mr. Dr. Sayyad Tarek who
had no authority to serve so and thereby committed
an   offence   punishable   under   Sec.   3   sub­section   2,
punishable   under   Sec.   23   of   the   P.C.P.N.D.T.   Act,
1994.   At   the   same   time,   I   am   satisfied   that
prosecution   has   proved   that   accused   No.2   Dr.   M.T.
Sanap,   on   07.09.2005   at   Bhagwan   Hospital,   Beed   at
about   12.30   P.M.   being   gynaecologist   without
registered   authority   under   this   Act   to   conduct   or
caused   to   be   conducted   by   himself   and   through
accused   No.3,   conducted   Pre­natal   Diagnostic   Test
and   thereby   committed   an   offence   under   Sec.   4[3]
punishable under Sec. 23 of the P.C.P.N.D.T. Act. At
the same time, I am satisfied that complainant i.e.
prosecution   has   proved   that   accused   No.2   Dr.   M.T.
Sanap and accused 3 Dr. Sayyad Tarek conducted Pre­
natal   Diagnostic   Test   without   reason   satisfying
themselves any of the conditions provided under the
Act and thereby committed an offence under Sec. 4[3]
punishable under Sec. 23 of the P.C.P.N.D.T.Act. The
complainant   has   also   proved   that   accused   No.2   Dr.
M.T. Sanap and accused No. 3 Dr. Tarek Sayyad both
failed   to   obtain   written   consent   from   the   decoy
patient   Smt.   Kavita   Nandakumar   Lokhande   and
deliberately communicated to her sex of her foretus
and thereby committed  offences under Sec. 5[1] and
5[2], punishable under Sec. 23 of the P.C.P.N.D.T.
Act. At the same time, I also find that accused No.2
Dr. M.T.Sanap failed to maintain the record and all
other documents required to be maintained under this
Act and thereby committed an offence under Sec. 29
punishable under Sec. 29 of the P.C.P.N.D.T. Act. At
the same time, I am satisfied that prosecution has
established that accused No.1 changed the management
of the Genetic Laboratory without surrendering the
same   to   the   appropriate   authority   and   thereby
committed an offence of contravention of Rules 6[6],
1996,   punishable   under   Sec.   3   of   the   P.C.P.N.D.T.
Act.   At   the   same   time,   I   am   also   satisfied   that
accused   1   to   3   failed   to   maintain   register   the
names and addresses of men and women subjected to
Pre­natal   Diagnostic   Test   and   also   failed   to
maintain   record   in   respect   of   each   man   and   woman
subjected to Pre­Natal Diagnostic Test as prescribed
in   form   'F'   and   thereby   committed   an   offence   of
contravention   of   Rule   9[1]   and   9[4]   of   the   Rules
1996   punishable   under   Sec.   23   of   the   P.C.P.N.D.T. Act.
68. Here,I take a pause to hear the accused on
the   point   of   sentence,   in   accordance   with  Sec.
248[2] of the Cr.P.C. 1973 as above, all the accused
are found guilty for contravention of the different
prvisions of P.C.P.N.D.T. Act.
sd
BEED. [S.S. SALVI]
Dt: 11.01.2012. CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, BEED.
69. I   heard   Ld.   A.G.P.   Mr.   N.N.   Sable   on   the
point of quantum of sentence for the State wherein
Ld.   A.G.P.   has   invited   my   attention   to   the
statement   and   object   of   reasons   laid­down   by   the
legislature   while   enacting   the   act   on   hand.
According   to   him   ,   a   legislation   is   required   to
regulate the use of such techniques and to provide
deterent punishment to stop such inhuman act. So far
as this expectation, the  legislation, the practice
of   sex   determination   i.e.   P.N.D.T.   Test   in
contravention   of   this   Act   and   Rule,   it   is   always
said   that   the   Beed   District   is   highest   all   over
State   of   Maharashtra   and   therefore,   our   central
committee from Delhi is always visiting Beed to have
check and control over such inhuman and henious act
by the persons like medical pracititioners in order
to earn money. I think it is not expected from such
responsible and well educated as well as civilized
persons from the society to contravene or commit the
offences   under   this   Act.   In   the   result   whatever
submissions are made on behalf of State by the Ld.
A.G.P.   for   State   are   certainly   considerable   and
welcomed.
70. On   the   other   hand,   I   have   also   heard   Ld.
Sr. counsel Mr. B.K. Jagtap for accused No.1 who has
carried me through the charge and specific sections,
rules   and   submitted   that   for   contravention   of
Rules, 1996 the punishment provided is 3 months and
considering the nature of offences so also, as there
is   no   direct   involvement   of   his   accused   in   the
commission   of   crime   as   the   accused   No.1   is
concerned. It is also further added that the age of
accused No.1 who is also above 65 or about 70 years
may also be taken into consideration while awarding
the punishment. Even the accused No.1 is practicing
to   be  doctor  at  Beed  since  1972.  There  is  no   any
previous allegation in any criminal act or offence
against   him.   Therefore,   his   antecedents   are   clean
and   that   may   be   considered   while   awarding
punishment. Since he is the head of the family and
his   detention   would   cause   much   hardship   to   his
family.   He   is   not   hardened   criminal   to   award
deterrent punishment , on the contrary he prays for
chance to correct himself. So a chance may be given
to retribute and deterrent punishment may kindly not
be awarded.
71. At last according to Sr. counsel Mr. B.K.
Jagtap he tried to focus that the ignorance of law
is no excuse, still many persons don't know about
the   Act,   since   it   is   recently   enacted   and   in   the
circumstances, this being the first offence of the
accused No.1 minimum punishment may be awarded. So
far as this submission of Ld. Counsel Mr. Jagtap, I
would like to state that all the accused are doctors
by profession who are well educated, civilized and
responsible   persons   from   society.   The   argument
therefore, I don't think that it may lie in their
mouth.   Even   the   age   of   accused   who   is   before   me
since last 1 and half year, no doubt, he might be
around   65   but   the   offences     which   are   committed,
they are not expected from such senior citizen from
country, a doctor by the profession.
72. Ld. counsel Mr. K.P. Thigle for accused 2
and   3   in   his   turn,   also   carried   me   through   the
charges leveled against accused 2 and 3 and invited
my attention to Sec. 25, 23 of the Act submitting
that they left it to the Court as to the punishing
section 23 and 25. In his next phase of argument,
it is strenuously submitted that the trial has been
delayed and since last 5 to 6 years the accused are
facing the trial very punctually day to dat before
the   Court   which   is   delayed   at   the   instance   of
prosecution   and   therefore,   considering   their   age,
antecedents,   financial   loss,   their   status   in   the
society,   a   lenient   view   may   be   taken   and   minimum
punishment   may   be   awarded.   The   word   'deterrent'
under the statement and object clause of the Act,
according   to   him   does   not   mean   the     longer   or
maximum period of detention but it is just that he
must be corrected or a lesson must be gone to the
society   and   especially   such   criminals   in   the
society. At last, Ld. Sr. Counsel Mr. K.P. Thigle
put up before me that so far as the accused No.2,
his   practice   has   been   stopped   by   the   appropriate
authority and  so far as the accused 3, who is the
Government servant  who is under suspension from the
last 5 to 7 years, therefore, a sympathetic lenient
view may kindly be taken for punishment.
73. I do agree with the submissions of both the
defence   counsels   still,   now­a­days   especially   in
Beed District, State of Maharashtra there is total
imbalance as regards the male and female sex, if the
situation continues, in future, the entire society
would   be   in   problem   and   there   is   likelihood   of
increase of the offences for the imbalance of sex.
In   the   circumstances,   considering   all   the
submissions,   aspect   and   situation   in   the   case   on
hand, after taking into consideration the submission
of State as well as defence, I think the following
order would meet the ends of justice.   Hence, the
order follows;
O R D E R
1. All the accused 1 to 3 are hereby acquitted
for   the   offence   under   Sec.   3[1]   punishable   under
Sec. 23[1] , under Sec. 248[1] of the Cr.P.C.1973.
2. The   accused   No.2   Dr.   Madhav   Trimbakrao
Sanap   and   accused   No.3   Dr.   Sayyad   Tarek   are
convicted   for   the   offence     under   Sec.3[2]   of   the
P.C.P.N.D.T.   Act,   1994   punishable   under   Sec.   23
under Sec. 248[2] of the Cr.P.C. 1973.
3. Both the accused 2 and 3 are sentenced to
suffer R.I. for a period of one year and to pay fine
Rs. 5,000/­ each, in default to suffer R.I. for one
month   in   respect   of   the   offence   punishable   under
Sec. 3[2] of the P.C.P.N.D.T. Act under Sec. 248[2]
of the Cr.P.C. punishable under Sec. 23 of the Act.
4. The   accused   No.2   is   hereby   convicted   for
the offence  under Sec. 4[3] of the P.C.P.N.D.T. Act
punishable   under   Sec.   23   of   the   Act   under   Sec.
248[2] of the Cr.P.C. 1973.
5. The   accused   No.2   is   sentenced   to   suffer
R.I. for a period of one year and to pay a fine of
Rs.2,000/­, in default to suffer R.I. for a period
of one month in respect of the offence under Sec.
4[3] of the P.C.P.N.D.T. Act under Sec. 23 of the
Act alongwith 248[2] of the Cr.P.C. 1973.
6. The accused No. 2 and 3 are convicted for
the offences under Sec. 4[3] of the P.C.P.N.D.T. Act
punishable under Sec. 23 of the Act alongwith Sec.
248[2] of the Cr.P.C. 1973.
7. Both the accused 2 and 3 are sentenced to
suffer R.I. for a period of one year and to pay a
fine Rs. 2,000/­each, in default to suffer Rigorous
Imprisonment for one month in respect of the offence
under Sec. 4[3] of the Act under Sec. 23 alongwith
Sec. 248[2] of the Cr.P.C. 1973.
8. The   accused   No.2   and   3   are   convicted   for
the   offences     under   Sec.   5[1],   5[2]   of   the
P.C.P.N.D.T. Act under Sec. 23 r.w. Sec. 248[2] of
the Cr.P.C. 1973.
9. Both the accused 2 and 3 are sentenced to
suffer R.I. for a period of one year and to pay a
fine Rs. 2000/­ each, in default to suffer R.I. for
a   period   of   one   month   in   respect   of   the   offence
under Sec. 5[1] and 5[2] of the P.C.P.N.D.T. Act .
10. The   accused   No.2   is   hereby   convicted   for
the   offence   under   Sec.29   of   the   P.C.P.N.D.T.   Act
punishable under Sec. 23 of the Act alongwith Sec.
248[2] of the Cr.P.C. 1973.
11. The   accused   No.2   is   sentenced   to   suffer
R.I. for a period of one year and to pay a fine of
Rs. 2,000/­ in default, to suffer R.I. for a period
of one month in respect of the offence punishable
under Sec. 29 of the P.C.P.N.D.T. Act.
12. The   accused   No.1   Dr.   Arun     Sonajirao
Satpute   is   convicted   for   the   offence,   Rule   6   sub
rule   6   of     the   P.C.P.N.D.T.   [Prohibition   of   Sex
Selection]   Rules,   1996   under   Sec.   23   of   the   Act
alongwith Sec. 248[2] of the Cr.P.C. 1973.
13. The   accused   No.1   is   sentenced   to   suffer
R.I. for a period of one year and to pay a fine Rs.
2,000/­ in default to suffer R.I. for a period of
one   month   in   respect   of   the   offence   under   Rule   6
sub­rule 6 of the Rules, 1996.
14. All   the   accused   1   to   3   are   convicted   for
the offence under   Rules 9[1] and 9[4] punishable
under Sec. 23 of the P.C.P.N.D.T. Act alongwith Sec.
248[2] of the Cr.P.C. 1973.
15. All   the   accused   are   sentenced   to   suffer
R.I. for a period of one year and to pay a fine Rs.
2000/­ each, in default to suffer R.I. for a period
of one month in respect of the offence Rules 9[1]
and 9[4], Rules 1996.
16. The   accused   No.2   and   3   are   convicted   for
the   offence     Rules   10[1]   and   10[1­a]   punishable
under Sec. 23 of the Act alongwith Sec. 248[2] of
the Cr.P.C. 1973.
17. The   accused   No.2   and   3   are   sentenced   to
suffer R.I. for a period of one year and to pay a
fine Rs. 2000/­ each in default, to suffer R.I. for
a   period   of   one   month   in   respect   of   the   offence
Rules 10[1] and 10[1­a] Rules, 1996.
18. The   accused   No.   1   to   3   are   convicted   for
the offence under Rule 13, punishable under Sec. 23
of the P.C.P.N.D.T. Act alongwith Sec. 248[2] of the
Cr.P.C. 1973.
19. The accused No. 1 to 3 are hereby sentenced
to suffer R.I. for a period of one year and to pay
fine Rs. 2,000/­each in default to suffer R.I. for a
period of one month in respect of the offence Rule
13 of the Rules, 1996.
20. The   substantive   sentences   shall   run
concurrently.
21. The   muddemal   property   sonography   machine
and record be returned to appropriate authority for
its disposal according to law after an appeal period
is over.
22.  The accused to surrender their bail bonds.
The   Judgment   rendered,   dictated   and
pronounced in the open Court.
sd
BEED. [ S.S. SALVI ]
Dt: 12.01.2012. CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE,
BEED.

State of Maharashtra Vs Dr Sanap & others