JUDGMENT : P.N. Deshmukh, J. 1. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. Heard finally, by consent of learned counsels for the parties. This application takes exception to the impugned judgment and order dated 25-3-2014 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge-1, Chandrapur rejecting her application for discharge of the alleged offences for contravention of Sections 4, 5 and 6 read with Rule 9 and Rule 13 punishable under Sections 23 and 25 of the Pre-conception and Pre-natal Diagnostic Techniques (Prohibition of Sex Selection) Act (hereinafter referred to as the PCPNDT Act) and Rules framed thereunder. 2. Prior to the impugned order, the discharge application filed by applicant came to be rejected by the learned JMFC, Chandrapur vide its order below Exhibit 83 in Criminal Case No. 275/2012 dated 30-9-2013. 3. Being aggrieved by rejection of discharge as aforesaid, present application is preferred by applicant/accused invoking its Constitutional jurisdiction praying for quashing and setting aside the impugned orders dated 30-9-2013 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Chandrapur as well as the order of the appellate Court dated 25-3-2014 passed in Criminal Revision No. 119/2013. 4. I have heard Shri M.P. Khajanchi, learned counsel for applicant and Shri P.V. Bhoyar, learned APP for the State/respondent. With the assistance of the learned counsels, I have gone through the application and the annexures thereto and the copy of complaint and impugned order. 5. The applicant is accused in Regular Criminal Case No. 275/2012 filed for contravention of above stated offences. It is the case of complainant that inspection of applicant's hospital known as Brindavani Nursing Home, Chandrapur was carried out by complainant's Department on 12-6-2012, in pursuance to the letter issued by the Collector, Chandrapur dated 11-6-2012 by which team of authorized persons was formed to visit the hospital of applicant and other such hospitals for inspection of USG and MTP centres. Accordingly, P.W. 1 Dr. Vanita Gargelwar, P.W. 2 Dr. B.W. Ramteke along with Naib Tahsildar and Head Constable who were members of the inspection team carried out inspection in the presence of applicant and submitted their report in Format B. 6. Accordingly, P.W. 1 Dr. Vanita Gargelwar, P.W. 2 Dr. B.W. Ramteke along with Naib Tahsildar and Head Constable who were members of the inspection team carried out inspection in the presence of applicant and submitted their report in Format B. 6. As per the complaint, the contravention/violation of the provisions of the PCPNDT Act and the Rules that were noticed by the appropriate authority are as follows: (1) That, at the time of inspection, the eligibility or Registration Certificate was not displayed in the waiting room, (2) That the USG machine as specified in the Registration Certificate No. 33 of Logic 202 model was not found available and at its place, USG i.e. Prosound Aloka Machine was found used. (3) That the record in respect of sonography centre was not maintained as F-Form Nos. 719, 720, 721 and 722 were incompletely filled. Accordingly, for above illegalities and deficiencies alleged to be committed by applicant, complaint came to be filed as aforesaid. 7. Learned counsel for applicant though had contended that Dr. Vanita Gargelwar was not authorized to file complaint, has not seriously canvassed this ground, contending that even otherwise applicant has good case on merits as from the available record, it cannot be said that applicant has contravened any of provisions of PCPNDT Act or Rules thereunder. 8. Learned APP while opposing the application has relied upon its reply filed to the application on record and has contended that the grounds raised in the present application can only be considered on trial and thus, prayed that the application be rejected. 9. It is not disputed that the applicant herself is duly qualified and authorized to run sonography centre and possesses registration certificate. Nor it is the case of complainant that applicant has indulged in sex determination. 10. The complaint is filed on behalf of State through Municipal Corporation of City of Chandrapur through its authorized Officer Dr. Sou. Vanita Gargelwar. 11. Section 17 of the PCPNDT Act contemplates appointment of Appropriate Authority and Advisory Committee by the Central or State Government by notification. 10. The complaint is filed on behalf of State through Municipal Corporation of City of Chandrapur through its authorized Officer Dr. Sou. Vanita Gargelwar. 11. Section 17 of the PCPNDT Act contemplates appointment of Appropriate Authority and Advisory Committee by the Central or State Government by notification. Sub-section (5) of Section 17 reads as follows: (5) The Central Government or the State Government, as the case may be, shall constitute an Advisory Committee for each Appropriate Authority to aid and advise the Appropriate Authority in the discharge of its functions, and shall appoint one of the members of the Advisory Committee to be its Chairman. Sub-section (6) of Section 17 reads as follows: (6) The Advisory Committee shall consist of- (a) three medical experts from amongst gynaecologists, obstetricians, paediatricians and medical geneticists; (b) one legal expert; (c) one officer to represent the department dealing with information and publicity of the State Government or the union Territory, as the case may be; (d) three eminent social workers of whom not less than one shall be from amongst representatives of women's organisations. 12. Thus, according to respondent, complainant Dr. Vanita Gargelwar was competent to file the complaint. With this background, document, Exhibit 51 is relied by the respondent where from it reveals that by this letter dated 11-6-2012, Collector, Chandrapur had formed the team of officers for inspecting MTP and Sonography Centres during the period from 11-6-2012 to 18-6-2012. Name of Dr. Vanita Gargelwar is referred in said letter. 13. Similarly, vide Exhibit 52, District Collector, Chandrapur vide subsequent order dated 16-6-2012 had issued directions to the inspection team to take necessary steps if they found contravention of any of the provisions of PCPNDT Act or Rules thereunder. 14. Learned APP Shri Bhoyar during the course of argument had tendered at the bar Gazette Notification dated 9-4-2007, according to which, initially District Collector was appointed as an appropriate authority while by subsequent notification, Municipal Commissioner is appointed as appropriate authority for City area. Accordingly, it appears that on 11-6-2012, the Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, Chandrapur issued Exhibit 49 authorizing Dr. Vanita Gargelwar, Medical Officer, Municipal Hospital, Chandrapur to inspect the Sonologist and Radiologist and on finding contravention of any of the provisions under the PCPNDT Act and Rules, to issue notices and also to file complaints. 15. Accordingly, it appears that on 11-6-2012, the Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, Chandrapur issued Exhibit 49 authorizing Dr. Vanita Gargelwar, Medical Officer, Municipal Hospital, Chandrapur to inspect the Sonologist and Radiologist and on finding contravention of any of the provisions under the PCPNDT Act and Rules, to issue notices and also to file complaints. 15. In view of the above notification as well as documents on record thereby authorization of complainant to file complaint, I do not find that the complaint filed by Dr. Vanita Gargelwar is without any authority, though during recording of evidence before charge of complainant, she has admitted that from the date of inspection on 12-6-2012, till the filing of complaint, she had not made correspondence with the District Advisory Committee. Sub-section (5) of Section 17 of PCPNDT Act contemplates that Advisory Committee is required to be appointed by the Central or State Government as the case may be, to aid and advise to Appropriate Authority. However, complainant since is duly found authorized by the appropriate authority to file the complaint as stated aforesaid, the complaint can said to be tenable as filed by authorized person. 16. The important aspect which needs consideration is whether the complaint filed for alleged contravention of offences as stated aforesaid can said to be made out against applicant/accused. While considering the same, I have dealt with the alleged irregularities as stated in para 5 of the complaint. 17. The first allegation is of not displaying of Registration Certificate in the waiting room. It is necessary to refer to provisions of Section 19(4) of the PCPNDT Act, which reads as follow: (4) The certificate of registration shall be displayed by the registered Genetic Counselling Centre, Genetic Laboratory or Genetic Clinic in a conspicuous place at its place of business. With this reference, learned counsel for applicant has relied upon evidence of Dr. Vanita Gargelwar, who had admitted that at Brindavani Hospital, apart from hospital of applicant, her mother Dr. Rajlaxmi is also running a Hospital, who is also a Gynaecologist, where all kinds of gynae patients are treated and it is a maternity home. As such, it appears that Brindavani Hospital, where the inspection came to be carried out is not exclusively run by applicant but her mother, who also is a Gynaecologist, has her hospital. Rajlaxmi is also running a Hospital, who is also a Gynaecologist, where all kinds of gynae patients are treated and it is a maternity home. As such, it appears that Brindavani Hospital, where the inspection came to be carried out is not exclusively run by applicant but her mother, who also is a Gynaecologist, has her hospital. This fact needs to be borne in mind with reference to the contents of inspection report, which is at Exhibit 53, according to which, the Registration Certificate was displayed in USG Clinic room. As such, it is material to note that accused, in fact, finding that clinic room would be more conspicuous place, had displayed the concerned Registration Certificate in the clinic room, where the USG machine is also installed than to display in the waiting room, which is found common waiting room of all the patients visiting Brindavani Hospital. In that view of the matter and as it is no case of complainant that no Registration Certificate was at all displayed, I find no reason to hold on this count that applicant has committed contravention of sub-section (4) of Section 19 of the PCPNDT Act. On the contrary, applicant is found to have displayed the required certificate in the clinic room where only those patients, who are required to undergo examination at USG clinic would visit and in that circumstances, can have a look to the Registration Certificate, rather than displaying it in a common waiting hall where patients of all kinds may be waiting. 18. Second contravention of the PCPNDT Act and Rules alleged is with reference to use of Prosound Aloka Machine in place of Logic 202 model machine for which Registration Certificate No. 33 is issued. With reference to above contravention, Rule 13 contemplates that: 13. Intimation of changes in employees, place or equipment. - Every [Genetic Counselling Centre, Genetic Laboratory, Genetic Clinic, Ultrasound Clinic and Imaging Centre] shall intimate every change of employee, place address and equipment installed, to the Appropriate Authority [atleast thirty days in advance of the expected date of such change, and seek re-issuance of certificate of registration from the Appropriate Authority, with the changes duly incorporated.] 19. Thus, it is the case of respondent that in spite of change of machine, no intimation as required above was given by applicant. Thus, it is the case of respondent that in spite of change of machine, no intimation as required above was given by applicant. On this ground, learned counsel for applicant has rightly relied upon the correspondence entered into by the Civil Surgeon, District Hospital, Chandrapur to Dr. Vanita Gargelwar, the letter is on record at Exhibit 66. On plain reading of contents of this letter, it established that on 3-12-2009, that is prior to the date of inspection, applicant had entered into correspondence with the competent authority requesting to take note of new sonography machine installed by her. Said letter of applicant dated 3-12-2009 is received in the office of Civil Surgeon, Chandrapur as in Exhibit 66, there is also reference of inward No. 15789 and 15790 and are further stated to be marked by one Mr. Deshmukh. 20. Learned APP on this count had contended that in fact the said letter is not available in the office of Civil Surgeon and has relied upon documents in respect of Departmental Enquiry initiated against Mr. Deshmukh, contending that enquiry was initiated against Mr. Deshmukh, employee from the office of Civil Surgeon for committing forgery establishing of fact of receipt of such letter in the office of Civil Surgeon. Admittedly, said documents do not form part of record. As such, even though there was any enquiry initiated against the employee of Civil Surgeon, this by itself, at this stage, cannot be a ground to reject the claim of applicant, more particularly, in view of contents of letter Exhibit 66 of Civil Surgeon which prima facie establish correspondence by applicant. 21. Moreover, it is material to note that order dated 5-10-2012 passed by respondent under sub-section (3) of Section 20 of the PCPNDT Act, 1994 by which registration of Genetic Clinic of applicant was suspended, is quashed by this Court by its order passed in Writ Petition No. 4594/2013. As such the order passed by the Appropriate Authority and the Commissioner of Municipal Corporation, Chandrapur is set aside and the registration of the Genetic Centre of applicant came to be restored. Respondent in its reply had raised this as one of its ground while opposing this application contending that order cancelling registration of applicant's Genetic Centre is also issued by the Appropriate Authority. 22. In that view of the matter and further considering the admission given by complainant Dr. Respondent in its reply had raised this as one of its ground while opposing this application contending that order cancelling registration of applicant's Genetic Centre is also issued by the Appropriate Authority. 22. In that view of the matter and further considering the admission given by complainant Dr. Vanita Gargelwar that on 25-7-2012, she received Exhibit 66 from the office of Civil Surgeon, Chandrapur, it is prima faciely established by applicant that she had duly informed about the change of machine to the office of Civil Surgeon at the material time and who was the appropriate authority. In the background of above, complaint fails on this count also. 23. Lastly, it is the case of complainant that four numbers of forms being F-Form Nos. 719, 720, 721 and 722 are incompletely filled, it is alleged that: columns No. 3 pertaining to name, age of the patient, column No. 4 pertaining to number of children with their sex, column No. 5 pertaining to husband's/father's name, column No. 6 pertaining to full address and telephone number of patient and column No. 15 pertaining to date on which CSJ procedure was carried out are alleged to be not filled. In the background of above alleged contravention, sub-rule (4) of Rule 9 is necessary to be considered. It contemplates: (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 pre-natal diagnostic procedure/technique/test, shall be as specified in Form F. Before considering this aspect, it is necessary to note that admittedly, there are no allegation nor even it is the case of complainant that applicant has contravened or is indulged into act of sex determination. Coming back to the issue of incomplete F-Form Nos. 719 to 722, learned counsel for applicant has relied upon the evidence of Dr. Ramteke, who was Member of the inspection team authorized by Appropriate Authority and has admitted that F-Form Nos. 719 to 722 are on record at Exhibit 78 to 81 and that there were many patients outside the chamber as well as in the waiting hall of whose names were not recorded by any of the Members of the inspection team. It is further admitted that no enquiry was made as to whom F-Form Nos. 719 to 722 belong. Dr. It is further admitted that no enquiry was made as to whom F-Form Nos. 719 to 722 belong. Dr. Ramteke further admitted that there was one assistant in the chamber of applicant and had enquired from applicant about said forms to which applicant replied that they were in respect of patients who were in the waiting. In a specific query put to Dr. Ramteke about the procedure to be carried out while conducting sonography, it is replied that on obtaining consent, sonography is performed and thereafter F-Form is prepared along with sonography report on reading sonography printout. Considering above procedure which is necessary to be followed and having considering the fact that four patients were in the waiting of whom F-Form Nos. 719 to 722 were found during the course of inspection alleged to be incomplete do not make out any case against applicant as according to the case of applicant, the process of examination of patients was yet to be complete and as such, there was no reason for completing those forms even prior conducting the required medical examination. 24. Learned counsel for applicant, in the background of above facts, has relied upon provisions of sub-rule (8) of Rule 9 which is reproduced below. (8) Every Genetic Counselling Centre, Genetic Laboratory, Genetic Clinic, Ultrasound Clinic and Imaging Centre shall send a complete report in respect of all preconception or pregnancy related procedures/techniques/tests conducted by them in respect of each month by 5th day of the following month to the concerned Appropriate Authority. So on considering above, it is necessary for applicant to prepare the record of the cases attended by her during a particular month of which Form-F are to be submitted along with all necessary particulars up to 5th day of following month along with monthly report of cases attended by the concerned Doctor. In that view of the matter and particularly, when the inspection came to be carried out since four patients of which forms are alleged to be incomplete were to be examined, it cannot be said that applicant, with any bias intention, had kept forms incomplete as the procedure as well as diagnosis of four patients is found to be incomplete when the inspection came to be carried out. 25. 25. On considering above discussed facts, I find no substance in the complaint in respect of any of the alleged contraventions of provisions of the PCPNDT Act and Rules. In fact, in the background of above facts, reliance can be usefully placed upon the ratio laid down in the case of Central Bureau of Investigation, Hyderabad Vs. K. Narayana Rao reported in : (2012) 9 SCC 512 : [2012 ALL SCR 3179], where in para 15 of the judgment, it is observed that while considering applications for grant of discharge, "if the Magistrate finds that there is no prima facie evidence or the evidence placed is totally unworthy of credit, it is his duty to discharge the accused at once. It is also settled law that while exercising jurisdiction under Section 227 of the Code, the Magistrate should not make a roving enquiry into the pros and cons of the matter and weigh the evidence as if he was conducting a trial. This provision was introduced in Code to avoid wastage of public time and to save the accused from unavoidable harassment and expenditure." While analysing the role of the applicant herein from the complaint and the materials supplied along with it, the above principles have to be kept in mind. Having considering above facts, I am thus of the opinion that there is no sufficient ground to proceed against applicant. As continuation of proceedings against applicant would certainly amount to abuse of process of law. In the circumstances, application is liable to be allowed. In the result, application is allowed in terms of prayer clause [a] of the application. Rule is made absolute accordingly.