Friday, 08, May, 2026
 
 
 
Expand O P Jindal Global University
 
  
  
 
 
 

Municipal Corporation, ... vs The State Of Maharashtra And Anr
2023 Latest Caselaw 6263 Bom

Citation : 2023 Latest Caselaw 6263 Bom
Judgement Date : 3 July, 2023

Bombay High Court
Municipal Corporation, ... vs The State Of Maharashtra And Anr on 3 July, 2023
Bench: S. G. Mehare
                                    1           4-Cri.Rev.Appln.122-23, oral jud.odt




             IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                        BENCH AT AURANGABAD

            CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO.122 OF 2023

     Municipal Corporation, Aurangabad
     Through Appropriate Authority,
     Dr. Jaishree Jagannath Kulkarni,
     Through Legal Advisor,
     Aparna Krishnakumar Thete,
     Age 40 years, Occu: Service as Legal Advisor,
     Aurangabad Municipal Corporation, Aurangabad,
     District Aurangabad.                       ... Applicant.

                      Versus

     1.      The State of Maharashtra,
             Through Secretary,
             Department of Health Service,
             Mantralaya, Mumbai-32.

     2.      Dr. Ramesh S/o Khushalchand Badjatya,
             Age Major, Occu. Medical Practice,
             Bhavana Nursing Home, Raja Bazar, Aurangabad,
             R/o Bhavana Nursing Home,
             Raja Bazar, Aurangabad.            ... Respondents.

                                  ...
          Advocate for Applicant/Petitioner : Mr. Latange V. P.
            APP for Respondent-State : Mr. S. P. Deshmukh.
     Advocate for Respondent No.2 : Mr. P. P. Patni h/f Mr. P. F. Patni.
                                  ...

                               CORAM :       S. G. MEHARE, J.
                               DATE :        03.07.2023

     ORAL JUDGMENT :-


     1.      Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally

     by consent of the parties.




::: Uploaded on - 03/07/2023                   ::: Downloaded on - 05/07/2023 01:59:57 :::
                                    2          4-Cri.Rev.Appln.122-23, oral jud.odt




     2.      The Municipal Corporation, Aurangabad has preferred

     the present criminal revision application against the judgment

     and order of acquittal of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate,

     Aurangabad in R.C.C.No.1636 of 2012, dated 25.04.2014 and

     confirmed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-14,

     Aurangabad in Criminal Appeal No.97 of 2014, dated

     29.06.2017.


     3.      A short point has been raised whether the complainant

     had an authority to initiate an action against the respondent

     under Section 28 of the PCPNDT Act.


     4.      Admittedly, the complainant was the Medical Officer of

     Health, Municipal Corporation, Aurangabad. In a similar

     situated case registered by the same Medical Officer Dr.

     Jayshree Kulkarni, the Division Bench of this Court in case of

     Dr. Paayal Vs. The State of Maharashtra and others, Criminal

     Writ Petition No.250 of 2015, dated 16.10.2015, held in

     paragraph No.33 of its judgment that the complainant Dr.

     Jayshree Kulkarni, Medical Officer, Health of Aurangabad

     Municipal Corporation was not at all competent to lodge the

     complaint against the applicant doctor (for the offences

     punishable under the PCPNDT Act) and finally the writ petition

     was allowed and the proceeding was quashed.




::: Uploaded on - 03/07/2023                 ::: Downloaded on - 05/07/2023 01:59:57 :::
                                         3          4-Cri.Rev.Appln.122-23, oral jud.odt




     5.      Learned counsel for the applicant has admitted this legal

     position. In view of that matter, the Court is of the opinion

     that the complainant Dr. Jayshree Kulkarni was not the

     authorized officer to initiate an action under Section 28 of the

     PCPNDT Act.


     6.      Both Courts, the orders of which have been impugned

     before this Court, have also taken the correct view. Hence,

     there appears no prima facie error on the face of record in the

     impugned judgments and orders.             There are no grounds to

     interfere with the impugned judgments and orders. Hence, the

     following order :

                                    ORDER

(i) Criminal Revision Application stands dismissed.

(ii) No order as to costs.

(iii) Rule stands discharged.

(S. G. MEHARE, J.)

...

vmk/-

 
Download the LatestLaws.com Mobile App
 
 
Latestlaws Newsletter
 

Publish Your Article

 

Campus Ambassador

 

Media Partner

 

Campus Buzz

 

LatestLaws Guest Court Correspondent

LatestLaws Guest Court Correspondent Apply Now!
 

LatestLaws.com presents: Lexidem Offline Internship Program, 2026

 

LatestLaws.com presents 'Lexidem Online Internship, 2026', Apply Now!

 
 

LatestLaws Partner Event : IJJ

 

LatestLaws Partner Event : Smt. Nirmala Devi Bam Memorial International Moot Court Competition

 
 
Latestlaws Newsletter