.jpg)
Justice A.I.S. Cheema, dismissing the petition for quashing of the allegations, said that, “it would be premature to accept explanations regarding inaccuracies or deficiencies before trial takes place. It is further apparent that if the lapse is insignificant, the benefit would go to the accused at the time of sentence, but claiming that deficiencies in Form F and keeping Records are insignificant, cannot be reason to claim that no offence is there and to discharge the accused.”
When the complaint has been filed under this Act showing the inaccuracies and deficiencies in the keeping of record, and complainant has documents to support disclosing sufficient grounds to proceed in the light of provisions of this Act and Rules, this Court cannot, before holding of the trial, sit in Judgment whether or not the Record has been kept properly; or Form F concerned has been properly filled or improperly filled; or whether or not the deficiencies pointed out are serious or insignificant.
The Court dismissed the petition on the grounds that in such serious matters, it would be inappropriate to interfere when prima facie case is made out.
The Judge rightfully considered the aim and objectives of the Act which pertained to prohibition of abuse of these prenatal diagnostic techniques. Strict compliance of every provision of the Act and the Rules is required and the Court fairly reiterated the same.
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.198 OF 2013
Dr. Dattatraya s/o Keshav Kanade,
...PETITIONER
VERSUS
1) The State of Maharashtra,
CORAM: A.I.S. CHEEMA, J.
DATE OF PRONOUNCING JUDGMENT: 9TH MAY, 2014.
Citation: 2014ALLMR(Cri)3977
1.
JUDGMENT :
The present Petition has been filed to
quash complaint filed by Appropriate Authority
(hereafter referred as "complainant") under the
provisions of Preconception and Prenatal
Diagnostic Techniques (Prohibition of Sex
Selection) Act, 1994 (hereafter referred as "Act")
and the Preconception and Prenatal Diagnostic
Techniques (Prohibition of Sex Selection) Rules,
1996 (hereafter referred as "Rules").
2.
The Petition is Admitted and has been
heard finally. Learned counsel for the Petitioner
as well as learned Public Prosecutor for the
Respondents submitted elaborate arguments. With
this matter some other similar matters were also
argued and Counsel for Petitioners adopted
arguments of each other on law points to request
for quashment of Criminal Trials against accused.
The Petitioner claims that he is running
3.
his hospital at Rahata. On 16th July, 2007 Medical
Superintendent, Rural Hospital, Rahata Respondent
No.2 along with other Officers visited his
hospital and carried out inspection and found
technical discrepancies/faults on the part of the
Petitioner. Respondent No.2 issued show cause
notice on 17th July, 2007. The Petitioner replied
the same on the same day. Respondent No.2
suspended registration certificate of sonography
machines and sealed the machines. Respondent filed
Complaint bearing R.T.C. No.153 of 2007 in the
Court of Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Rahata,
under Section 29, Rule 9(4) of the Act alleging
that there were various discrepancies in the
maintenance of the Records. Thus, breach of
Sections of the Act and Rules was alleged. The
Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Rahata issued
summons to present Petitioner.
The Petitioner filed Criminal Revision
.
No.17 of 2008 before District and Sessions Judge,
Kopargaon, which came to be rejected and thus the
present Petition has been filed, claiming that the
complaint concerned before the Judicial Magistrate
The Petitioner claims that only
should be quashed.
irregularities and no illegalities are there and
no offence has been made out.
4.
On behalf of the Respondents, affidavit
inreply has been filed by the Medical
Superintendent, Rural Hospital, Rahata. In
affidavitinreply the claims made by the
Petitioner are denied. According to the
Respondent, there are irregularities in record
keeping as per revised Form F. As per the
Respondents, Petitioner has not completely filled
up Form F and only half portion of the Form is
filled up. Second part of the Form F is filled up,
which is also incomplete. The affidavit claims
that in the forms concerned, the Petitioner has
not mentioned how many issues are there i.e.
male/female. It is further the affidavit that in
the declaration given by doctor, authorized
signatory was radiologist Dr. Yogendra Sachdeo,
but the declaration is signed by the present
Petitioner. For such reasons, the Respondents want
the Petition to be rejected.
Learned counsel for the Petitioner
5.
referred to copy of the complaint filed in the
trial Court and the defects or deficiencies
pointed out in the same. According to the learned
counsel, Defect Nos.1 and 5 relate to non
compliance with Form F. Defect No.1 mentions that
F Form's columns 1 to 18 do not appear to have
been filled in. Defect No.5 mentions that it does
not appear that specialist doctor who did the
sonography, filled the form F. The counsel
submitted that in February, 2003 State Appropriate
Authority and Additional Director of Health
Services had issued guidelines to the District
Appropriate Authorities regarding implementation
of the Act. Referring to the same, according to
the counsel, the present defects pointed out, need
It is argued, Defect No.3 mentions that
to be ignored.
notice giving information to public to the effect
that disclosure of sex of foetus is prohibited
under law, was necessary to be displayed. The same
had not been displayed in the room where
sonography is done. The counsel argued that the
Act and Rules do not say that notice should be
displayed in the sonography room. He submitted
that board in this regard was put in the O.P.D.
and on gate of the hospital. (the counsel was,
however, unable to show material in support of
this submission at the stage of arguments.)
.
Counsel referred to Defect No.4 which
stated that between 8th July, 2007 to 15th July,
2007 in Form F in portion of declaration, as
Radiologist name of visiting doctor, Dr. Sachdeo
has been put, however the form was signed by Dr.
Kanade. With regard to this Defect, the argument
was that even the owner of the hospital can sign
Regarding Defect No.5 that the doctor who
the form.
did sonography, did not fill F Form, the argument
was that the owner can sign the same. The Defect
No.6 mentions that in the concerned form,
information regarding living children was not
filled up. With regard to this, learned counsel
submitted that merely by not filling such
information, it would not be a criminal act.
.
In the complaint, Defect No.7 is that one
copy of each of the Act and the Rules was not
available in the O.P.D. With regard to this
Defect, the learned counsel for Petitioner argued
that such copy was available but it was in the
table of the doctor. (the counsel was unable to
support the argument that such copy was indeed
available.)
Regarding getting ultra sound sonography
machine released, the counsel submitted that the
ig
Petitioner had already filed Criminal Writ
Petition No.490 of 2009 and obtained relief.
After referring to the various provisions
6.
of the Act, reference was made to the case of Dr.
Pratidnya Jayesh Shinde and another vs. Dr.
Rameshchandra Kisan Savkare and another, reported
in 2014 ALL M.R.(Cri) 681. In that matter,
proceeding was quashed as the complaint was silent
as to how responsibility of maintaining records
was cast upon the concerned Applicants as were
before the Court. Reliance is also placed on the
Judgment in the case of Dr. Alka w/o Anant Gite
and another vs. The State of Maharashtra in
Criminal Application No.3500 of 2011 decided on
11th May, 2012. Referring to that Judgment,
submission is that inadvertently if a column is
blank, it cannot attract offence. Relying on the
case of "Dr. Mrs. Uma Shankar Rachewad vs.
Appropriate Authority" Criminal Writ Petition No.
407 of 2011, decided on 19th April, 2012, it is
submitted that writing of "N.A." i.e. Non
Applicable does not amount to incomplete filling
of Form. Judgment in the case of Dr. Ravindra s/o
Shivappa Karmudi vs. The State of Maharashtra in
Criminal Application No.757 of 2012 decided on 3rd
May, 2012, was referred to submit that F Form was
incomplete does not mean criminal offence is
there. Reliance was also placed on the Judgment
in the matter of Dr. Tushar Rangrao Patil vs.
Appropriate Authority in Criminal Writ Petition
No.406 of 2011 decided on 2nd May, 2012. These are
matters decided by learned Single Judge of this
Court. The submission is that in those matters
also although there were defects in maintaining of
Form F, the Petitioners therein were given benefit
and the concerned cases against those Petitioners
were quashed. Thus it is argued that the Petition
needs to be allowed.
The learned Public Prosecutor referred to
7.
the affidavit in reply, to submit that the F Forms
filled, were incomplete and that important
information as to how many issues are there, male
or female, was not filled in and that the doctor
signing the declaration form was not the doctor
who was authorized signatory or the radiologist.
The Public Prosecutor referred to the copies of
documents regarding the records maintained, to
show various defects regarding which the complaint
has been filed. It was pointed out that there are
forms having signatures of patients without
requisite information being filled in or
incomplete information. As per the Public
Prosecutor, the letter issued by State Appropriate
Authority, to the Appropriate Authorities in
Districts, which is in the nature of guidance,
does not substitute requirements of the Act and
the Rules. There was non compliance of prominently
displaying the board and keeping copy of the Act
and Rules available, and this would be a matter of
evidence at the time of trial. According to the
Public Prosecutor, the defects pointed out in the
complaint are supported by documents and clearcut
case is made out regarding violation of the
provisions of the Act and Rules. Not filling
information regarding number of living children,
is deficiency in keeping of records, attracting
penal provisions of the Act.
8.
To appreciate the controversy, it would
be appropriate to keep in view certain provisions
of the Act.
.
Portions relevant from Section 4 of the
Act are as under:
"4. Regulation of prenatal
diagnostic techniques. On and from
the commencement of this Act,
(1) no place including a registered
Genetic Counselling Centre or
Genetic Laboratory or Genetic Clinic
shall be used or caused to be used
by any person for conducting pre
natal diagnostic techniques except
for the purposes specified in clause
(2) and after satisfying any of the
conditions specified in clause (3);
(2) no prenatal diagnostic
techniques shall be conducted except
for the purposes of detection of any
of the following abnormalities,
namely:
(i) ........ (iv).........
(ii)........ (v)..........
(iii)....... (vi).........
(3)
no
prenatal
diagnostic
techniques shall be used or
conducted unless the person
qualified to do so is satisfied for
reasons to be recorded in writing
that any of the following conditions
are fulfilled, namely:
(i) ........ (ii).........
(iii) ........ (iv).........
(v) ........
Provided that the person conducting
ig
ultra sonography on a pregnant woman
shall keep complete record thereof
in the clinic in such manner, as may
be prescribed, and any deficiency or
inaccuracy found therein shall
amount
to
contravention
of
provisions of section 5 or section 6
unless contrary is proved by the
person conducting such ultra
sonography;
(4).............
(5)............."
.
With reference to the above proviso as
regards keeping of records, relevant portions of
Rule 9 are as under:
"9. Maintenance and preservation of
records. (1) Every Genetic
Centre,
Genetic
Counselling
Laboratory, Genetic Clinic including
a Mobile Genetic Clinic, Ultrasound
Clinic and Imaging Centres shall
maintain a register showing, in
serial order, the names and
addresses of the men or women given
ig
genetic counselling, subjected to
prenatal diagnostic procedures or
prenatal diagnostic tests, the
names of their spouse or father and
the date on which they first
reported for such counselling,
procedure or test.
(2) The record to be maintained by
every Genetic Counselling Centre, in
respect of each woman counselled
shall be as specified in Form D.
(3) The record to be maintained by
every Genetic Laboratory, in respect
of each man or woman subjected to
any
prenatal
diagnostic
procedure/technique/test shall be as
specified in Form E,
(4) The record to be maintained by
every Genetic Clinic including a
Mobile Genetic Clinic, in respect of
each man or woman subjected to any
prenatal diagnostic procedure/
technique/test, shall be as
ig
(5)..........
specified in Form F.
(6)..........
(7)..........
(8).........."
In Rule 10 conditions for conducting pre
.
natal diagnostic procedures are prescribed, which
includes obtaining written consent as prescribed
in Form G in a language the person undergoing the
procedure understands.
.
Section 20 of the Act deals with
cancellation or suspension of the registration.
Subsection (1) and (2) deal with giving of notice
and reasonable opportunity before suspending or
cancelling registration of the Genetic Counselling
Centre, Genetic Laboratory or Genetic Clinic. Sub
section (3) of Section 20 reads as under:
"(3)
Notwithstanding
anything
contained in subsections (1) and
(2), if the Appropriate Authority is
of the opinion that it is necessary
or expedient so to do in the public
interest, it may, for reasons to be
recorded in writing, suspend the
registration of any Genetic
Counselling
Centre,
Genetic
Laboratory or Genetic Clinic without
issuing any such notice referred to
in subsection (1).”
9.
The learned Public Prosecutor submitted
that the cases under the Act are treated as
warrant cases instituted otherwise than on police
report. It has been argued that major or minor
violation in the keeping of records is immaterial.
Scheme of the Act and Rules need to be
10.
(A).
appreciated:
Proviso below Section 4(3) of the Act
shows that persons conducting ultra sonography on
a pregnant woman are required to keep complete
record thereof in the clinic in such manner as may
ig
be prescribed and any deficiency or inaccuracy
found therein shall amount to contravention of
provisions of Section 5 or Section 6 of the Act
unless contrary is proved by the person conducting
such ultra sonography. Section 5 of the Act
relates to taking written consent of pregnant
woman and prohibition of communicating the sex of
foetus. Section 6 of the Act prohibits
determination of sex by Genetic Counselling Centre
or Genetic Laboratory or Genetic Clinic or any
person. Rule 9 relates to maintenance and
preservation of records and this interalia
includes keeping record in respect of each man or
woman subjected to any prenatal diagnostic
procedure/technique/test in specified Form F.
Although subrule (4) of Rule 9 refers to Genetic
Clinic, definition of "Genetic Clinic" as in
Section 2(d) of the Act specifies that Genetic
Clinic means a clinic, institute, hospital,
nursing home or any place, by whatever name
called, which is used for conducting prenatal
diagnostic procedures. Thus, all such places are
covered where prenatal diagnostic procedures are
being conducted and all persons doing the same are
also covered, and as per the statute, maintaining
of proper records and Form F as prescribed, is
mandatory.
(B).
Section 5 requires taking written consent
of the pregnant woman and prohibits communication
of sex of foetus. In this regard Form G is
prescribed in Rule 10. (According to the Public
Prosecutor Section 5(2) of the Act prohibits
communicating of sex of the foetus by words,
signs, or in any other manner and thus according
to him displaying of even photographs of Gods and
Goddess where prenatal diagnostic procedures are
conducted, is not permissible, as the same gives
opportunity to convey sex of foetus by signs or in
other manners.)
Section 23 of the Act shows that medical
(C).
geneticist, gynecologist, registered medical
practitioner or any person who owns a Genetic
Counselling Centre, a Genetic Laboratory or a
Genetic Clinic or is employed in such a Centre,
Laboratory or Clinic and renders his professional
or technical services to or at such a Centre,
Laboratory or Clinic, whether on an honorary basis
or otherwise, and who contravenes any of the
provisions of the Act or rules made thereunder is
also liable for punishment. Under Section 23 of
the Act, the owner of Centre, Laboratory, Clinic
who takes professional services to run the Centre
where prenatal diagnostic techniques are
conducted, is also liable, if any provisions of
(D).
the Act or Rules are contravened.
20
Under Section 26 of the Act, with
reference to companies, the word "company" means
any body corporate and includes a firm and other
association of individuals and such persons are
In view of Section 3(3) of the Act, pre
(E).
also liable, when offences by Companies are there.
natal diagnostic techniques can be conducted only
at place registered and any change has to be
reported. Under Rule 13 every change of employee,
place, address and equipment installed has to be
informed to the Appropriate Authority.
11.
I have heard learned counsel for the
Petitioner as well as learned Public Prosecutor.
Record has been perused. The criminal case filed
by the Appropriate Authority in the lower Court
supported by documents shows the deficiencies and
inaccuracies found and necessary particulars are
there. Counsel for Petitioner has strenuously
tried to demonstrate that either the defects
alleged are not there or even if they are there,
they are insignificant. The Petitioner is trying
to give reasons as to how the Form was maintained
and if there are lacunae, what is the explanation.
The Full Bench of High Court of Gujarat
12.
in Suo Motu vs. State of Gujarat, reported in 2009
CRI.L.J. 721, considered effects of non
maintaining records properly under this Act. It
was held that criminal consequences are attracted
and there can also be suspension of the
registration. Para 8 of the Judgment reads as
under:
"8. It needs to be noted that improper
maintenance of the record has also
consequences other than prosecution
for deemed violation of section 5 or
6. Section 20 of the Act provides for
cancellation or suspension of
registration of Genetic Counselling
Centre, Genetic Laboratory or Genetic
Clinic in case of breach of the
provisions of the Act or the Rules.
Therefore, inaccuracy or deficiency in
maintaining the prescribed record
shall also amount to violation of the
prohibition imposed by section 6
against the Genetic Councelling
Centre, Genetic Laboratory or Genetic
Clinic and expose such clinic to
proceedings under section 20 of the
Act. Where, by virtue of the deeming
provisions of the proviso to sub
section
(3)
of
section
4,
contravention of the provisions of
section 5 or 6 is legally presumed
and actions are proposed to be taken
under section 20, the person
conducting ultrasonography on a
pregnant woman shall also have to be
given an opportunity to prove that the
provisions of section 5 or 6 were not
violated by him in conducting the
procedure"
.....................................
"It would also be improper and
premature to expect or allow the
person accused of inaccuracy or
deficiency in maintenance of the
relevant record to show or prove that
provisions of section 5 or 6 were not
violated by him, before the deficiency
or inaccuracy were established in
court by the prosecuting agency or
before the authority concerned in
other proceedings.”
In that Judgment of Full Bench,
mentioned above, opinion (iv) recorded in
Para 9, is as under:
"(iv). Deficiency or inaccuracy in
filling Form F prescribed under Rule 9
of the Rules made under the PNDT Act,
being a deficiency or inaccuracy in
keeping record in the prescribed
manner, it is not a procedural lapse
but an independent offence amounting to
contravention of the provisions of
section 5 or 6 of the PNDT Act and has
to be treated and tried accordingly.
It does not, however, mean that each
inaccuracy or deficiency in maintaining
the requisite record may be as serious
as violation of the provisions of
section 5 or 6 of the Act and the Court
would be justified, while imposing
punishment upon conviction, in taking a
lenient view in cases of only
technical, formal or insignificant
lapses in filling up the forms. For
example, not maintaining the record of
conducting ultrasonography on a
pregnant woman at all or filling up
incorrect particulars may be taken in
all seriousness as if the provisions of
section 5 or 6 were violated, but
incomplete details of the full name and
address of the pregnant woman may be
treated leniently if her identity and
address were otherwise mentioned in a
manner sufficient to identify and trace
her.”
13.
It is clear that it would be premature to
accept explanations regarding inaccuracies or
deficiencies before trial takes place. It is
further apparent that if the lapse is
insignificant, the benefit would go to the accused
at the time of sentence, but claiming that
deficiencies in Form F and keeping Records are
insignificant, cannot be reason to claim that no
Reference needs to be made to the
14 (A).
offence is there and to discharge the accused.
case of Sujit Govind Dange (Dr.) and another vs.
State of Maharashtra and others, reported in
2013(2) Bom.C.R. 351. In that matter Division
Bench of this Court held that any deficiencies
noticed in maintaining the record, in specially
Form F, attracts the provisions of the Act.
(B).
The Division Bench of this Court
considered the objects and reasons of the Act and
as to how the Act was necessary to control menace
of female foeticide. In Para 29, while considering
Section 4 of the Act, it was observed with
reference to Rule 9, as under:
"29. Considering the object of the
Act, the maintenance and preservation
of records as per rule 9 is an
important statutory duty cast upon the
person (Doctor) conducting ultra
any
deficiency
or
ig
therefore,
sonography on a pregnant woman and,
inaccuracy found in this regard
amounts to contravention of the
provisions of section 5 or 6 of the
Act unless contrary is proved by the
person (Doctor) conducting such ultra
sonography".
(C).
In that matter also arguments were raised
that the discrepancies were minor in nature or
that they were only inaccuracies. The Hon'ble
Division Bench in Para 30 held as under:.
"30. It is important to note that in
order to prohibit abuse of these
prenatal diagnostic techniques, the
Legislature has incorporated a proviso
to subsection (3) of section 4 of the
Act which stipulates that any
deficiency or inaccuracy found in
maintaining and preserving complete
record in a manner prescribed by the
person conducting ultrasonography on a
pregnant woman shall amount to
contravention of the provisions of
section 5 or section 6 unless contrary
is proved by the person conducting
such ultrasonography. This provision,
in our view, is completely consistent
with the objectives of the Act and has
been introduced to prohibit abuse of
the prenatal diagnostic techniques by
the person conducting ultra sonography
on a pregnant woman".
......................................
"The contention of the petitioner that
the discrepancy was of a minor nature
is wholly misconceived. Neither the
provisions of the Act nor that of the
Rules provide or define minor or
major deficiencies or inaccuracies.
On the other hand, it requires strict
compliance of every provision of the
Act and the Rules. Considering the
objectives to be achieved, strict
punishment is provided for violating
the conditions prescribed under the
Act. The contentions canvassed by the
petitioner, in this regard, therefore,
are devoid of substance and are
With reference to Subsection (3) of
(D).
rejected".
Section 20 of the Act, the Hon’ble Division Bench
recorded in Para 39, as under:
“The observations made by the
Division
Bench
in
(Malpani
Infertility Clinic Pvt. Ltd. &
others Vs. Appropriate Authority
PNDT Act & others), reported in
2005(1) Bom.C.R. 595 (supra) clearly
show that the Division Bench in view
of the fact that prosecution was
launched against the petitioner in
the said case, it was held to be
sufficient
reason
for
the
authorities to take recourse to sub
section (3) of Section 20 of the
Act. In the instant case, the
Petitioner having admitted the
inaccuracy
in
existence of deficiency and
keeping
and
maintaining the record including
form ’F’ has resulted in
contravention of the provisions
contained in section 5 or 6 and,
therefore, would amount to an
offence and can be treated to be
sufficient
reason
for
the
Appropriate Authority to invoke the
provisions of subsection (3) of
section 20 of the Act, in the larger
public interest and, therefore, the
action of suspension of registration
of the Genetic Centre of the
petitioner is sustainable in law
till such time contrary is proved by
the petitioner.”
(E).
Para 38 of the Judgment of the Division
Bench recorded that:
"38. Rule 9(1) requires that every
Genetic Counselling Centre, Genetic
laboratory, Genetic Clinic, etc.,
shall maintain a register showing, in
serial order, the names and addresses
of the men or women given genetic
counselling, subjected to prenatal
diagnostic procedure or prenatal
diagnostic tests, the names of their
spouse or father and the date on which
they first reported for such
counselling, procedure or test. Sub
rule (4) of rule 9 stipulates the
record to be maintained by every
Genetic Clinic, in respect of each man
or woman subjected to any prenatal
diagnostic procedure/technique/test,
shall be as specified in Form 'F'. In
the instant case, the petitioner has
admitted existence of discrepancies,
irregularities in maintenance of Form
'F' which has undoubtedly resulted in
causing deficiency or inaccuracy in
maintaining and preserving the record
and, therefore, as per proviso to sub
section (3) of section 4 of the Act,
resulted
in contravention
the
provisions of section 5 or 6 of the
Act and would amount to an offence,
unless contrary is proved by the
ultrasonography test."
15.
petitioner who has conducted such
Keeping in view the observations of the
Hon'ble Division Bench in the case of "Sujit
Govind Dange", mentioned above, there remains no
doubt that deficiencies or inaccuracies in the
maintaining of record and Form F attract the
provisions of Section 5 or 6 of the Act. I am
bound by the Judgment of the Division Bench of
this Court.
16.
When the complaint has been filed under
this Act showing the inaccuracies and deficiencies
in the keeping of record, and complainant has
documents to support disclosing sufficient grounds
to proceed in the light of provisions of this Act
and Rules, this Court cannot, before holding of
the trial, sit in Judgment whether or not the
Record has been kept properly; or Form F concerned
has been properly filled or improperly filled; or
whether or not the deficiencies pointed out are
serious or insignificant. When complaint has been
filed pointing out deficiencies or inaccuracies,
before trial it would not be proper for this Court
to consider the arguments that what is pointed out
is no deficiency or no inaccuracy. It would be
prejudging the matter. As per Proviso of Section
4(3) "any" deficiency or inaccuracy in keeping of
complete record "shall amount to contravention" of
Section 5 or 6 "unless contrary is proved."
Naturally, the contrary can be "proved" only at
the trial. Appropriate Authority under the Act is
Public Servant acting in discharge of official
duty and has to act with responsibility. Keeping
in view the Judgments discussed above, in such
serious matters, it would be inappropriate to
interfere when prima facie case is made out.
17.
It cannot be said, at present, that there
is no sufficient ground for proceeding. Keeping in
view Aims and Objects of the Act and Scheme of the
Act and Rules referred above and stringent and
specific provisions not tolerating any (means
any) deficiency or inaccuracy in keeping complete
records, I am unable to accept the explanatory
arguments in defence or to invoke writ
jurisdiction, inherent power or revisional
jurisdiction to quash the proceedings at the
threshold when sufficient grounds to proceed are
made out in the complaint.
For reasons mentioned, arguments in
favour of State have substance, and submissions
to be discarded. Defences being raised, can be
considered at the time of trial. The Petition
stands rejected.
for Petitioner to quash process or Complaint need
[A.I.S. CHEEMA, J.]
No comments:
Post a Comment