( 1 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 3169 OF 2009 The State of Maharashtra APPLICANT VERSUS Dr. Madhumati Prabhakar Ranade RESPONDENT ..... Mr. N.R. Shaikh, APP for the applicant/State. ..... [CORAM : V.R. KINGAONKAR, J.] [DATE : 9th October, 2009] PER COURT : 1. By this application, leave is sought to file appeal against judgement of acquittal in R.C.C. No. 115/2008 whereby the respondent came to be acquitted for offence punishable under section 29 (1) (2), Rule 9 (1) and Rule 10 (1) (2) and sub-Rules A, B and F of the Pre- Conception and Pre-natal Diagnostic Techniques (Prohibition of Sex Selection) Act, 2003 and the Rules thereunder. 2. The Medical Superintendent visited the Dispensary of the respondent on 23rd July, 2007 alongwith ( 2 ) Civil Surgeon, Tahsildar and Naib-Tahsildar. It was noticed that the respondent had not maintained the register required under the Rules. It was further noticed that signatures of the patients who were sonographised were not obtained. There were deficiencies which were found during course of such inspection. Consequently, the respondent was charged for the offences under the said Act as mentioned earlier. 3. At the trial, the prosecution adduced solitary evidence of CW1 Dr. Vishnu Amdas Devre. The trial Court noticed that there was previous rivalry between him and the respondent. The trial Court also noticed that CW Dr. Vishnu was also running a Diagnostic Centre having Sonography equipment. There was no reason ascribed for non-examination of the Civil Surgeon or the Tahsildar. The learned Magistrate noticed that the solitary version of CW Dr. Vishnu could not be implicitly relied upon in as much as the inspection was not carried out on basis of any information received by the competent authority but was carried out without any prior foundation in respect of the alleged malpractices of the respondent. No seizure panchanama was drawn. The version of CW Dr. ( 3 ) Vishnu was found to be inconsistent with the documentary evidence. The learned Judicial Magistrate also noticed that as per Rule 12, presence of two (2) or more independent witnesses was not secured. Under the circumstances, the judgement of acquittal rendered by the learned Magistrate cannot be faulted with. Consequently, leave to appeal is refused. The appeal accordingly stands dismissed. [ V.R. KINGAONKAR ] JUDGE NPJ/criapln3169-09