lawweb.in http://www.lawweb.in/2015/05/essential-condition-to-be-followed-by.html?pfstyle=wp

Essential condition to be followed byappropriate authority for seizure of sonographymachine under PCPNDT Act

Upon going through the "japti panchanama"prepared by the Committee, Aurangabad/Latur, it is specifically mentioned that theCommittee found that the records were notproperly maintained and there were severalshort-comings in the said record.Documents which were not maintained, asis required by Law, have been set out inClause No. 1 to 8 of the report. It is alsoobserved that the original record availablehas been seized and taken into the custodyof the Committee. It is quite conspicuous that the sonographymachine has been seized under a single sentence, which is stated to be the conclusionof the Committee in the report. It is merely observed that Dr.D.M. Patil has violated thesaid Act and therefore the sonography machine is sealed. There is no observationappearing from the said report that the Committee had arrived at a conclusion that themachine was used for committing an offence or that the Committee had a "reason tobelieve" or had formed a "reasonable belief" about any offence committed with the useof the machine or that there was a high possibility of the said machine being used forcommitting offences in future. The ingredients of Rule 12 as are required, are obviouslymissing in the Report.The observations of this Court in the case of Dr.Sukhada (supra), in paragraph Nos. 16,17 and 18 are relevant and which read as under :-

"16. Even Sec. 30 of the said Act lays down that, if the AppropriateAuthority has reason to believe that an offence under this Act has beenor is been committed, then he may personally or authorize any officer inthat behalf to examine the record, register, documents and seize andseal the same. Rule 12 of the Rules of 1996 also authorizes anAppropriate Authority or the Officer authorized in this behalf to enter andsearch at all reasonable time the said genetic counselling centre, ultrasound clinic, etc. and may seal and seize the record, register and

evidence or any other material therein, if there is "reasonable belief" thatit may furnish evidence of commission of offence punishable under theAct.17. "Reason to believe" or "reasonable belief" means coming to factualconclusion on the basis of information that a thing, condition, statementor a fact exists. Reason to believe contemplates an objectivedetermination based on intelligent care and deliberation as distinguishedfrom purely subjective consideration. The said expression is notsynonymous to subjective satisfaction of the authority. It postulates beliefand existence of reason for that belief. The belief has to be held in goodfaith. It cannot be a mere pretense. The reason for the belief must have arational connection or a relevant bearing to the formation of the beliefand are not extraneous or irrelevant for the purpose of the section.18. In the present case, no such reasons are given. It does not transpirethat sonography machines have been sealed upon the AppropriateAuthority satisfying itself or having reason to believe that the said objecti. e. sonography machines would furnish evidence of commission ofoffence punishable under the Act."

I had specifically called upon the learned AGP to point out from the report of theCommittee dated 13/08/2014, which is the "japti panchanama" to indicate as regards itsconclusions that there was a reasonable belief that the said machine was used forcommitting offences or was likely to be used for committing such offences. Despite hisefforts, he was unable to point out any such observation from the "japti panchanama",which would establish the case of the Committee. In fact, I find from the "japti panchanama" that it is not the case of therespondent/Committee that they had a reason to believe that the sonography machinewas used for committing any offence or was likely to be used for committing any offenceor that the machine was an important piece of evidence.

WRIT PETITION NO. 1 OF 2015

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAYBENCH AT AURANGABADJanaki Ultra Sound Center,Vs The Appropriate Authority

CORAM : RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J.

Pronounced on : March 12, 2015Citation;2015(3) ALLMR381

On 02/02/2015, after hearing the petitioner and the learnedAGP, I had passed the following order :-

The petitioner whose Sonography Machine has beenand obtainsealed on the ground of failure to maintain proper recordsthe consent of the patient seeking to under goSonography, is the only cause for the sealing of theSonography machine.2.The petitioner further submits that if at all documentsare not properly maintained, they would evidence irregularityon the part of the petitioner. However, in the light of the

judgment of this Court (Coram :- S.V.Gangapurwala, J.) dated11-09-2012 delivered in Writ Petition No. 6557 of 2012 in thematter of Dr. Mrs. Sukhada W/o Dilip Mulay Vs State ofMaharashtra & others, it clearly lays down the law inparagraph Nos. 16, 17 and 18 that the Sonography machinescan be sealed by the appropriate authority only if it issatisfied that the said machine would furnish evidence ofcommission of offence punishable under the Act.3.Shri Warma, therefore, submits that the impugnedorder passed by the District Appropriate Authority, Jalnaunder the Preconception and Pre-natal Diagnostic Techniques(Prohibition of Sex Selection) Act, 1994 ('PCPNDT Act, 1994')has set out reasons only in paragraph 5 and there is noobservation at all that the said machine has been misused oris likely to be further misused or it reveals such evidencewhich would prove the commission of offences punishableunder the Act.4.Learned A.G.P. appearing on behalf of the respondentsprays for a short accommodation to file an affidavit in reply.He further submits that there is one more legal remedy

available to the petitioner under Rule 19 (2) of 1996 Rulesframed under the PCPNDT Act, 1994. Shri Warma refutes the

19 (2) is "MAY" and not "SHALL".5.said contention on the ground that the phraseology of RuleRespondent to file reply on or before the 13th Day ofFebruary, 2015. The respondent shall not seek extension oftime. Stand over to 18-02-2015 for further consideration. TheRule.Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally by

2.matter to appear on supplementary board."3.the consent of the parties.The petitioner is an establishment. It is operated by Dr.Deelip Madhukarrao Patil, who is a registered medical practitionerand possesses a certificate of registration issued by the appropriateauthority under the provisions of the Pre-conception and Pre-natalDiagnostic Techniques (Prohibition of Sex Selection) Act, 1994(hereinafter referred as the said Act).4.By the said certificate, the petitioner operates the JankiHospital.The Janki Ultra Sound Centre is set up by the petitionerfor carrying out Genetic Counselling / Genetic Laboratory / GeneticClinic, per-natal Diagnostic Test, Ultra Sound Sonography as isprescribed under the said certificate of registration. The certificateof registration is for the period 07/03/2012 to 06/03/2017.

On 13/08/2014, respondent No.1 authority under the said Act5.4and the Naib Tahsildar, Bhokardan, visited the petitioner's Centreand carried out an inspection.Several registers and the record,said to be relevant, were seized. The Sonography Machine of theA panchanama was drawn by respondent No.1 during the

6.petitioner was sealed at Bhokardan.visit. After sealing the machine, the same was handed over to thebefore thisThe petitioner, therefore, preferred WP No.8739/2014

petitioner.Court, which was disposed of by order dated31/10/2014, thereby permitting the petitioner to avail of theremedy prescribed under the said Act.7.The petitioner, therefore, preferred an appeal under Rule 19of the 1996 Rules.passedinAppealBy the impugned order dated 19/12/2014,No.01/2014,thepetitioner'sappealwasdismissed.8.Grievance of the petitioner is that the Appellate Authority didnot consider the scope and ambit of Rule 12 of the 1996 Rules,which pertain to the procedure to be followed with regard tosearch and seizure.

The petitioner further submits that though the respondents9.claimed that the petitioner did not maintain proper record andregisters, the sonography machine was sealed in violation of theprocedure prescribed. Respondent No.1 was accompanied by Mr.Daulatrao More, a retired person, Mr. Madhav Munde, a retiredCivil Surgeon and one Advocate. None of the members of the10.visiting team were authorized under the said Act.The Rules prescribe that for seizure and sealing of thesonography machine, the authorized person has to intimate theaction of seizure to the concerned Magistrate immediately afterThe seizure and sealing of the sonography machine issealling.therefore stated to be an illegal and unsustainable act.11.The petitioner submits that there are no allegations levelledagainst the petitioner that the said sonography machine or thepetitioner's centre was indulging in sex determination.

It is alsonot the contention of the respondent that the said machine wasrequired to be produced in the Court as a piece of evidence.12.ItissubmittedthatthisCourtinthematterofDr.Mrs.Sukhada w/o Dilip Mulay Vs. The State of Maharashtra andothers, in WP No.6557/2012, has delivered an oral judgment on11/09/2012 wherein the provisions to Section 30 of the Act have

“Reason to believe” or “Reasonable belief” hasbeen considered.been interpreted with by this Court (Coram : S.V. Gangapurwala,J.) in paragraph Nos. 16, 17 and 18 of the said judgment.13.The petitioner has therefore restricted his prayers only to theissue of action of sealing and seizure of the sonography machinewithout the respondents coming to a conclusion that they have anyreason to believe that the said machine was being used for14.committing an offence under the said Act.The petitioner, draws my attention to the conclusions foundbelow paragraph No.8 on page No.12 of the petition paper bookwhich is a part of the “japti Panchnama” dated 13/08/2014. It isthus pointed out that the “japti panchanama” simply mentions thatthe original record has been seized by the respondent in its visit.Two copies of the registration certificate under the said Act havebeen taken.15.The Committee, which is the Vibhagiya Dakshata Pathak i.e.the Divisional Vigilance Committee (Hereinafter referred to as theCommittee), has merely noted that the petitioner has violated theprovisions of the said Act and therefore the sonography machineSHIMIDZU SDU 350 XL was sealed in a cloth after the probes were

removed. The probes were kept in a small box and the same were

also sealed. The original records and the sealed probes were taken16.in the custody of the Committee.The petitioner therefore submits that there was no reason forthe Committee to seize the sonography machine since there is nowhisper in the report dated 13/08/2014, much less even a primafacie observation that the said machine has been used forThe petitionerigcommitting any offence under the said Act.therefore points out that this Court, in the case of Dr.Mrs.Sukhadajudgment (supra), had quashed and set aside the order of seizingand sealing the machine.17.The petitioner further points out that the Division Bench ofthis Court (Coram : R.M.Borde and P.R.Bora, JJ.) in the case ofDr.Prasanna S.Mishrikotkar Vs. State of Maharashtra and others,WP No.9252/2014, has delivered a judgment on 08/01/2015. Thescope of Section 30(1) of the said Act was considered in paragraphNos.4, 5, 6, 7 and 8.The petition was therefore allowed bydirecting the respondent to de-seal the sonography machine andhand over the probes to the petitioner within 15 days.18.The petitioner has then relied upon the judgment of theDivision Bench of this Court (Coram :- R.M.Borde and P.R.Bora, JJ.)in the matter of Dr. Deepesh s/o Bhagwanrao Chemate Vs. The

ofMaharashtra,WPNo.10578/2014,hasdeliveredaStateThe factual matrix and the scope ofjudgment on 10/02/2015.Section 30(1) of the said Act was considered in paragraph Nos. 3 to8. The Division Bench therefore allowed the appeal and directed

the respondent to de-seal the machine and return the probes withThe petitioner, therefore, prays that this petition deserves to

19.the registration certificate.20.be allowed.The learned AGP has vehemently opposed the petition onbehalf of the respondents.respondentNo.1and2An affidavit in reply on behalf ofhasbeenfiledthroughDigambarBhagwanrao Korde, Naib Tahsildar, Tal.Bhokardan, Dist. Jalna. Hesubmits that the appeal filed by the petitioner before the AppellateAuthorityhasrightlybeendismissed.Theauthorizedrepresentative of the petitioner Dr.Deelip S/o Madhukarrao Patil, isoperating the petitioner's centre and is also the registered medicalpractitionerpresentlyworkingasMedicalSuperintendent,Government Hospital, Bhokardan.21.The learned AGP has pointed out that respondent No.1,acting under Rule 12 of the Rules has sealed the sonographymachine. Rule 12 empowers the authority to seal the machine if

there is a reason to believe that the said machine is likely to be

used for committing a crime or offence in a repetitive mannerand/or it may furnish evidence of the commission of the offence.22.The learned AGP has pointed out the contents in paragraph"No.12 of the affidavit in reply which read as under :-That the other contention of petitioner that as per theigcontents of Rule 12 the Machine can be sealed when there isreason to believe that it may furnish evidence of commissionof offence.That the Respondent No.1 has sealed the machine,after the reasonable belief, which he arrived there.That the offence under PCPNDT act is essentiallycommitted with the use of Sonography machine and so it ismost important ingredient of crime and the offence isrepetitive in nature and so the prevention of crime is bestachieved by sealing the Machine and so sealing of machine isan important act in investigating this crime and if the seal isopened the accused is facilitate to repeat the crime. Once acase is made out repetition is to be prevented and it cannotbe allowed to proliferate and so the machine cannot bedesealed until the trial is over and so it cannot be releasedlike any other property of crime and so, the Machine oncesealed under the PCPNDT Act......."23.The learned AGP has therefore vehemently submitted that theimpugned order is legally sustainable and cannot be termed asperverse or erroneous.::: Downloaded on - 19/05/2015 18:22:11 :::WP/1/2015haveI have considered the submissions of the litigating sides andgonethroughthepetition24.10paperbook.The

“japtipanchanama” is the vital document and decisive in the adjudicationof this petition.Rule 12 of the Rules of 1996 reads thus:-25.The Appropriate Authority or any officer authorized in1.ig"12. Procedure for search and seizure.-this behalf may enter and search at all reasonable times anyGenetic Counselling Centre, Genetic Laboratory, GeneticClinic, Imaging Centre or Ultrasound Clinic in the presenceof two or more independent witnesses for the purposes ofsearch and examination of any record, register, document,book, pamphlet, advertisement, or any other material objectfound therein and seal and seize the same if there is reasonto believe that it may furnish evidence of commission of anoffence punishable under the Act.Explanation:- In these Rules-1.‘GeneticLaboratory/GeneticClinic/GeneticCounselling Centre’ would include an ultra- soundcentre/ imaging centre / nursing home / hospital /institute or any other place, by whatever name called,where any of the machines or equipments capable ofselectionofsexbeforeorafterconceptionorperforming any procedure, technique or test for pre-::: Downloaded on - 19/05/2015 18:22:11 :::WP/1/201511natal detection of sex of foetus is used;2. ‘material object’ would include records, machinesand equipments; and

3. ‘seize’ and ‘seizure’ would include ‘seal’ and ‘sealing’respectively.Alistofanydocument,record,register,book,2.pamphlet, advertisement or any other material object foundigin the Genetic Counselling Centre, Genetic Laboratory,Genetic Clinic, Ultrasound Clinic or Imaging Centre andseized shall be prepared in duplicate at the place of effectingthe seizure. Both copies of such list shall be signed on everypage by the Appropriate Authority or the officer authorized inthis behalf and by the witnesses to the seizure:Provided that the list may be prepared, in the presenceof the witnesses, at a place other than the place of seizure if,for reasons to be recorded in writing, it is not practicable tomake the list at the place of effecting the seizure.3.One copy of the list referred to in sub-rule (2) shall behanded over, under acknowledgement, to the person fromwhosecustodythedocument,record,register,book,pamphlet, advertisement or any other material object havebeen seized:Provided that a copy of the list of such document,record, register, book, pamphlet, advertisement or othermaterialobjectseizedmaybe

deliveredunderacknowledgement, or sent by registered post to the owner ormanager of the GeneticCounselling Centre, GeneticLaboratory, Genetic Clinic, Ultrasound Clinic or Imaging::: Downloaded on - 19/05/2015 18:22:11 :::WP/1/201512Centre, if no person acknowledging custody of the document,record, register, book, pamphlet, advertisement or othermaterial object seized is available at the place of effecting theseizure.4.If any material object seized is perishable in nature, theAppropriate Authority, or the officer authorized in this behalfshall make arrangements promptly for sealing, identificationand preservation of the material object and also convey it to afacility for analysis or test, if analysis or test be required:igProvided that the refrigerator or other equipment usedby the Genetic Counselling Centre, Genetic Laboratory,Genetic Clinic, Ultrasound Clinic and Imaging Centre forpreserving such perishable material object may be sealeduntil such time as arrangements can be made for saferemoval of such perishable material object and in sucheventuality, mention of keeping the material object seized, onthe premises of the Genetic Counselling Centre, GeneticLaboratory, Genetic Clinic, Ultrasound Clinic or ImagingCentre shall be made in the list of seizure.5.In the case of non-completion of search and seizureoperation, the Appropriate Authority or the officer authorizedin this behalf may make arrangement, by way of mounting aguard or sealing of the premises of the Genetic CounsellingCentre, Genetic Laboratory, Genetic Clinic Ultra- soundClinic or Imaging Centre, for safe keeping, listing andremoval of documents, records, book or any other materialobject to be seized, and to prevent any tampering with suchdocuments, records, books or any other material object. "26.Upon going through the “japti panchanama” prepared by the

::: Downloaded on - 19/05/2015 18:22:11 :::WP/1/201513Committee, Aurangabad/ Latur, it is specifically mentioned that theandtherewereseveralCommittee found that the records were not properly maintainedshort-comingsinthesaidrecord.Documents which were not maintained, as is required by Law, havebeen set out in Clause No.1 to 8 of the report. It is also observedthat the original record available has been seized and taken into27.igthe custody of the Committee.It is quite conspicuous that the sonography machine has beenseized under a single sentence, which is stated to be the conclusionof the Committee in the report.It is merely observed thatDr.D.M.Patil has violated the said Act and therefore the sonographymachine is sealed. There is no observation appearing from the saidreport that the Committee had arrived at a conclusion that themachine was used for committing an offence or that the Committeehad a "reason to believe" or had formed a "reasonable belief" aboutany offence committed with the use of the machine or that therewas a high possibility of the said machine being used forcommitting offences in future. The ingredients of Rule 12 as arerequired, are obviously missing in the Report.28.The observations of this Court in the case of Dr.Sukhada(supra), in paragraph Nos.16, 17 and 18 are relevant and whichread as under :-::: Downloaded on - 19/05/2015 18:22:11 :::WP/1/201514"16. Even Sec. 30 of the said Act lays down that, if theAppropriate Authority has reason to believe that an offence

under this Act has been or is been committed, then he maypersonally or authorize any officer in that behalf to examinethe record, register, documents and seize and seal the same.Rule 12 of the Rules of 1996 also authorizes an AppropriateAuthority or the Officer authorized in this behalf to enter andsearch at all reasonable time the said genetic counsellingcentre, ultra sound clinic, etc. and may seal and seize therecord, register and evidence or any other material therein, ifigthere is "reasonable belief" that it may furnish evidence of17.commission of offence punishable under the Act."Reason to believe" or "reasonable belief" meanscoming to factual conclusion on the basis of information thata thing, condition, statement or a fact exists. Reason tobelieve contemplates an objective determination based onintelligent care and deliberation as distinguished from purelysubjectiveconsideration.Thesaidexpressionisnotsynonymous to subjective satisfaction of the authority. Itpostulates belief and existence of reason for that belief. Thebelief has to be held in good faith. It cannot be a merepretense. The reason for the belief must have a rationalconnection or a relevant bearing to the formation of the beliefand are not extraneous or irrelevant for the purpose of thesection.18.In the present case, no such reasons are given. It doesnot transpire that sonography machines have been sealedupon the Appropriate Authority satisfying itself or havingreason to believe that the said object i. e. sonographymachines would furnish evidence of commission of offence

29.punishable under the Act."I had specifically called upon the learned AGP to point outfrom the report of the Committee dated 13/08/2014, which is the

“japti panchanama” to indicate as regards its conclusions thatthere was a reasonable belief that the said machine was used forcommitting offences or was likely to be used for committing suchigoffences. Despite his efforts, he was unable to point out any suchobservation from the “japti panchanama”, which would establishthe case of the Committee.In fact, I find from the “japti panchanama” that it is not the30.case of the respondent/Committee that they had a reason to believethat the sonography machine was used for committing any offenceor was likely to be used for committing any offence or that themachine was an important piece of evidence.31.The respondents have relied upon the judgment of this Court(Coram : Mrs.Roshan Dalvi, J.) dated 23/01/2013 in the case ofDr.Vandana Ramchandra Patil Vs. The State of Maharashtra andothers in Cri.Writ Petition No.4399/2012. The said judgment is ofno assistance to the respondents since it is not their case at all thatthe most important ingredient of a crime of a repetitive nature wasthe sonography machine.::: Downloaded on - 19/05/2015 18:22:11 :::WP/1/2015The Division Bench of this Court, in the case of Dr.Prasanna32.16Mishrikotkar (supra) has held in paragraph Nos. 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8 asunder :-"4)The petitioner contends that on 1st October, 2014, thesquad, constituted by Respondent No.2, along with panchas,visited the diagnostic centre of the petitioner and drawn apanchanama and put seal on the sonography machinesiginstalled in the diagnostic centre of the petitioner. Thepetitioner further contends that such action of sealing thesonography machines is not preceded by any order passed byRespondent No.2 – appropriate authority. It is contended thatin fact after conducting the inspection on 24th June, 2014, anotice dated 27th August, 2014 was issued calling upon thepetitioner to show cause in respect of certain irregularitiesand deficiencies as set out in the show cause notice. The

petitioner tendered his reply to the said show cause notice on30th August, 2014. The petitioner was directed to remainpresent himself for personal hearing on 24th September,2014 at 3.30 p.m. The petitioner did submit relevant recordon 1st October, 2014 in response to the communicationissued to him earlier. However, on the same day, at theinstance of Respondent No.2, action of sealing of thesonography machines was taken under the panchanama Thepetitionercontendsthatsuchactionofsealingthesonography machines of the petitioner taken on behalf ofRespondent No.2 is bad in law since the action is notpreceded by any order passed by the Competent Authority.The impugned action is not referable to any of the provisionsof the Rules of 1996 or the Act of 1994.::: Downloaded on - 19/05/2015 18:22:11 :::WP/1/20155)17Our attention is invited to Section 30(1) of the Act of1994, which reads thus,“ 30. Power to search and seize records, etc – (1) If theAppropriate Authority has reason to believe that anoffence under this Act has been or is being committedat any Genetic Counselling centre, Genetic Laboratory,Genetic clinic or any other place, such Authority or anyoffice authorized in this behalf may, subject to suchigrules as may be prescribed, enter and search at allreasonable times with such assistance, if any, as suchAuthority or officer considers necessary, such Geneticcounselling Centre, Genetic Laboratory, Genetic clinicor any other place and examine any record, register,document, book, pamphlet, advertisement or any othermaterial object found therein and seize and seal thesame if such Authority or office has reason to believe

that it may furnish evidence of the commission of anoffence punishable under this Act.”6)It is contended that the Authority or the officer has notrecorded reasons, in writing, for its/his satisfaction to takeaction as regards sealing of the sonography machines andthat he has no reason to believe that the said machines mayfurnishedevidenceofthecommissionoftheoffencepunishable under the Act.7)In the instant matter, since the impugned action is notprecededbyanyorder,therearisesnoquestionofsatisfaction or recording the reasons by the Authorityempowered to take action. Thus, the impugned action is in::: Downloaded on - 19/05/2015 18:22:11 :::WP/1/201518breach of Section 30(1) of the Act of 1994. It was open forthe Respondent No.2 to pass appropriate order, on recordinghis satisfaction, as contemplated under Section 30(1) of theAct and then to proceed to take action.8)It is also noticed that in fact, a notice was issued to thepetitioner in pursuance to the inspection carried on 24thJune, 2014, which has been appropriately replied by thepetitioner and the case/matter was, in fact, posted forhearing. In such circumstances, it was incumbent upon the

igRespondent No.2 to pass an order and thereafter, ifwarranted, upon compliance of the provisions contained inSection 30(1) of the Act of 1994, to proceed to takeappropriate action against the petitioner. Since the impugnedaction taken on behalf of respondent No.2 is not within theprovisions of the Act of 1994 and the Rules framedthereunder, the said action deserves to be quashed and setaside."33.Similar are the observations of the Division Bench of thisCourt in paragraph Nos. 6, 7 and 8 of Dr.Deepesh BhagwanraoChemate judgment (supra), which read as under :-"6)It is contended that the Authority or the officer has notrecorded reasons, in writing, for its/his satisfaction to takeaction as regards sealing of the sonography machines andthat he has no reason to believe that the said machines mayfurnishedevidenceofthecommissionoftheoffencepunishable under the Act.

In the instant matter, since the impugned action is notprecededbyanyorder,therearisesno7)questionofsatisfaction or recording the reasons by the Authorityempowered to take action. Thus, the impugned action is inbreach of Section 30(1) of the Act of 1994. It was open for

the Respondent No.2 to pass appropriate order, on recordinghis satisfaction, as contemplated under Section 30(1) of thetakenIn view of the above, writ petition is allowed. The actiononbehalfofRespondent

8)Act and then to proceed to take action.no.2ofsealingtheSonography machines and the probes and taking away theregistration documents, is quashed and set aside. RespondentNo.2 is directed to deseal the said Sonography machines aswell as probes and return back the registration documents tothe petitioner within a period of fifteen days from the date ofthe order. It is needless to point out that it would be open forauthorities to take appropriate steps in accordance with theprovisions of Act of 1994 and the Rules framed there under. "34.In the cases of Dr.Prasanna and Dr.Deepesh (supra), acriminal case was registered. The next date of hearing in the saidmatters before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Aurangabad and theJ.M.F.C.Paithan, respectively are scheduled on 17/03/2015 and23/03/2015. The Division Bench, in both these above stated cases,has directed the respondent to de-seal the sonography machines,return the probes and the registration documents to the petitionerswithin a period of 15 days. However, in both these cases, it wasleft open to the respondents to take appropriate steps in

accordance with the provisions of the said Act and the rules framed35.thereunder.In the light of the above, I therefore do not find that theimpugned order dated 19/12/2014, passed by the AppellateAuthority on the appeal filed by the petitioner under Rule 19(1) of36.

1996 Rules, can be said to be sustainable in the eyes of Law.As such, in the light of the above, the impugned order dated19/12/2014 is quashed and set aside.the petitioner is therefore allowed.Appeal No.1/2015 filed byThe sonography machinesealed by the respondents shall be de-sealed and the said machineshall be returned to the petitioner within a period of 3 (three)weeks from today.The probes sealed and seized by therespondents along with the registration documents shall bereturned to the petitioner within 3 (three) weeks from today.37.The respondents authorities are however at liberty to resortto appropriate steps in accordance with the provisions of the saidAct and the Rules framed thereunder. So also, the criminal caseregistered against the petitioner shall proceed in accordance withLaw and shall be decided by the appropriate authorities on its ownmerits. This judgment shall not come in way of the concernedauthorities in exercising their powers under Section 30 of the said

38.Act and Rule 12 of the said Rules, vis-a-vis the petitioner in future.This petition is, therefore, allowed. Rule is made absoluteaccordingly.(RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J.)

Print Page