Only a person authorised under Act can file compliant under PCPNDT Act - Bombay High Court

" The complaint under PCPNDT Act has to be filed only by a person authorised under the Act" - Hon. Bombay High Court.

Dr. Yogita Theng V/s. AA. (Criminal Writ Petition No. 26 of 2014)

https://indiankanoon.org/doc/72545940/

Fats in brief :
1. The Petitioner Doctor was accused under PCPNDT Act.The complaint has been filed by one Dr. Baviskar.
2. In the Argument, the questions relating to the Authority of Dr. Baviskar were raised because apparently, no document showing that he was authorized to file the complaint in question had been produced before the trial court till then.
3. The AA was asked to produce the documents showing his Authority by the Doctor, but this Application was rejected by the Trial Court and hence the Doctor approached High Court.

Held.
1. it was observed that Section 28 of the PCPNDT Act puts restriction on the power of the court to take cognizance of an offence under the said Act and lays down that it can take cognizance only on a complaint made by a specified person - as mentioned in the said provision.
2. Therefore, the evidence showing that Dr. Baviskar was an appropriate authority was extremely relevant and would go to the root of the matter.
3.The reasoning of the learned Magistrate seems to be even if challenged, and even if the prosecution was ready to produce a document supporting its version, the court did not want to know whether the complaint had indeed been filed by a specified person as per the requirements of Section 28 of the PCPNDT Act.
4. Hence the Court allowed the Petition and directed the AA to produce relevant documents.

It's indeed a simple but basic criteria to be looked into. Although it may be a technical defense, but goes to the root of the matter. There is no providing for filing a counter case for such illegal action. Rather any Act provides protection to authorities under Respective Act for action taken, but in Good Faith...

Regds

Adv. Rohit Erande.
Pune. ©

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

#PCPNDT - Mere Pendency of a criminal case is not a ground to refuse the renewal of registration – Hon. P&H High Court, at Chandigarh. Adv. ROHiT ERANDE ©

 Mere Pendency of a criminal case is not a ground to refuse the renewal of registration – Hon. P&H High Court, at Chandigarh  Adv. ROHiT ERANDE  © Case Details :  CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.9312 OF 2020 Dr. Sanjiv Kaushal V/s. State of Haryana and others CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH Facts in short : 1. The  Petitioner has approached this Court, praying for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing order dated 13.10.2016 passed by the District Appropriate Authority, Sirsa, Haryana-respondent No.2; order dated 23.04.2018 passed by the State Appropriate Authority, PNDT, Panchkula-respondent No.4 and order dated 11/14.01.2019 passed by the Additional Chief Secretary to Government of Haryana-cum-State Appellate Authority, Health Department, on the ground that the request of the petitioner for renewal of registration under the PC & PNDT Rules, 1996 has been declined merely because of the pendency of a criminal case against ...
Read more

PCPNDT Act : Can USG be performed by even by MBBS after 6 months training ? : What are the effects of Hon. Supreme Court's order..

"Prima facie the judgment of the Delhi High Court has trenched upon an area of legislative policy"  The 3 judges bench of Hon. Supreme Court observed this while staying the judgment of  Hon. Delhi High Court. Hon. Delhi High Court .  Case details : Union of India V/s. Indian Radiological and Imaging Association of India & ors. SLP. Nos. 166657-59 of 2016. Interim Order dated :14th March, 2018 by the three judges Bench. Coram : Hon. Dipak Misra (the then Hon.C.J.I.), Hon. D.Y. Chandrachud and Hon. A.M. Khanwilkar, JJ. Order Link : https://www.sci.gov.in/supremecourt/2016/20683/20683_2016_Judgement_14-Mar-2018.pdf Facts in Short : 1. The Hon. Supreme Court was dealing with 2 sets of Petitions with 2 main questions. i.e. the Strict implementation of PCPNDT Act and the later petitions were relating to the challenge of Judgment of Hon. Delhi High Court in relation to 6 months training rule. 2. In first part of the Judgment Hon. Apex Co...
Read more

" The Machine which is registered under the PCPNDT Act cannot be carried to other place which is not registered" : Hon. Bombay High Court. Adv. Rohit Erande. ©

 " The Machine which is registered under the PCPNDT Act cannot be carried to other place which is not registered" : Hon. Bombay High Court. Adv. Rohit Erande. © In short, One Machine - One Place - One Registration. In its recently reported judgment of Dr. Deepak Sane V/s. State of Maharashtra, 2017(1) Mh.L.J.379, W.P. no.2995/2015, The Division Bench at Nagpur held so.. Facts in short : 1. The petitioner is the leading Medical Practitioner in Nagpur and dealing exclusively with Heart Treatment. He is required to use the 2D Echo Colour Doppler Machine for Treating his patients and for treating the patients he requires to visit the ICCU at different Hospitals. 2. IT was the case of the petitioner that he needy patients who cannot come to his clinic, for them he has to carry his 2D Echo machine, which is duly registered under the provisions of PCPNDT Act.Therefore he applied to the concerned authorities for getting permission to move the said machine at different places, but sa...
Read more