SCR.A/122/2008 4/ 4 ORDER
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SPECIAL CRIMINAL APPLICATION No. 122 of 2008
DR.SURESH GOSWAMI (GOSAI)
STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR
========================================================= Appearance :
MR RC JANI for Applicant:1 MR LB DABHI ADDL.PUBLIC PROSECUTOR for Respondent:1
None for Respondent:2
HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE H.N.DEVANI
Date : 27/03/2008
Heard Mr.R.C.Jani, learned advocate for the petitioner.
The learned advocate for the petitioner has submitted that this Court in a judgment rendered on 7th February, 2007 in the case of Dr.Manish C. Dave Vs. State of Gujarat in Criminal Miscellaneous Application No.7328 of 2006 and other cognate matters has allowed the petitions by quashing the complaints which were subject matter of challenge before the Court. It is pointed out that Criminal Miscellaneous Application No.7605 of 2006 was one of the group of matters. Attention is drawn to the complaint which was lodged against the petitioner of Criminal Miscellaneous Application No.7605 of 2006, to point out that the said complaint is identically worded to the complaint lodged against the petitioner. It is submitted that, in the circumstances, the present case is directly covered by the aforesaid judgment and order and that, therefore, this petition is required to be allowed by quashing the complaint in question. It is further submitted that upon perusal of the complaint in question, it is apparent that there is no reference to the relevant provisions of law of which breach is alleged. It is submitted that, in the circumstances, the learned In-charge Judicial Magistrate First Class, Mansa was not justified in taking cognizance of the matter and issuing process thereon.
This Court has considered the submissions advanced by the learned advocate for the petitioner and has perused the judgment and order dated 7th February, 2007 passed in the case of Dr.Manish C. Dave Vs. State of Gujarat (supra) on which reliance has been placed on behalf of the petitioner. A perusal of the statement on oath of the complainant recorded by the learned In-charge Judicial Magistrate First Class, Mansa clearly shows that there is a specific reference regarding contravention of Rule 9(1) and Rule 9(5) of the Pre-conception and Pre-natal Diagnostic Techniques (Prohibition of Sex Selection) Rules, 1996, (‘PNDT Rules’). Hence, the contention that there is no reference to the relevant provisions of which contravention is alleged does not merit acceptance.
As regards the main contention raised by the learned advocate for the petitioner, upon perusal of the entire judgment, this Court could not find any reference to the provisions of Rule 9 (1) and Rule 9(5) of the PNDT Rules in respect of which contravention is alleged in the present case. The learned advocate for the petitioner was specifically called upon to point out as to how this case would stand covered by the aforesaid judgment wherein the controversy in issue was regarding commission of offences punishable under Sections 4 and 5 of the Pre-conception and Pre-natal Diagnostic Techniques (Prohibition of Sex Selection) Act, 1994 (‘PNDT Act’), whereas in the present case the offence alleged pertains to contravention of the provisions of Rule 9(1) and Rule 9(5) of the PNDT Rules. However, the only submission advanced in this regard is that in Criminal Miscellaneous Application No.7605 of 2006, which is one of the matters in which the aforesaid decision has been rendered, an identical complaint was subject matter of challenge. In the circumstances, this Court is of the view that the controversy in issue in the said decision not being in any manner connected with the issue involved in the present case, the said decision cannot be said to be a precedent insofar as the facts of the present case are concerned. Merely because a similar petition which appears to have been tagged along with the other cases was also disposed of in the group, does not render the said decision a precedent on the issue involved in the present case. It is settled legal position that a decision is a precedent for the ratio that that it lays down. The decision on which reliance is placed upon, does not lay down any ratio regarding the controversy involved in the present case. In fact there is not even a reference to the provisions of which contravention is alleged in the present case.
Besides, a perusal of the complaint in question shows that there are specific allegations as regards breach of provisions of Rule 9(1) and Rule 9(5) of the PNDT Rules. Section 25 of the PNDT Act provides for penalty for contravention of the provisions of the Act or Rules for which no specific punishment is provided. It is an undisputed position that no penalty is provided for contravention of the provisions of Rule 9(1) and Rule 9(5) of the Rules. Hence, the provisions of Section 25 of the Act would squarely be attracted.
In the circumstances, when the complaint itself discloses the ingredients of the offences alleged, no case is made out for intervention by this Court in exercise of powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
For the foregoing reasons, the petition fails and is accordingly, rejected in limine.